I am having trouble with deciding plans for my future (and super expensive) computer
the problem I can't decide between KDE or GNOME for a desktop environment, I know KDE4 will be evolutionary but I don't know much about GNOME's future plans. So could you help me decide? Oh and one thing about GNOME also prevents me from deciding is Nautilus' virtual folders feature (I don't think Konqueror has that feature and I don't know anything about any future plans for Konqueror). I know I can use Nautilus on KDE but it really does not fit in with KDE (similar to using the Cutemenus Crystal SVG Firefox extension with a non-crystal Firefox theme).
You are here
KDE or GNOME?
February 21, 2007 - 8:36pm
#1
KDE or GNOME?
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
KDE. I hate Nautilus, and Konqueror is awesome. Of course, this is based on limited use (no machine of my own yet).
Vintage!
KDE does what I want it to do, in the way I would expect it to. Have struggled with Gnome a few times, but it just doesn't "fit" my Desktop expectations. Konqueror is an exceptional file manager, browser, ftp client, network browser, file previewer, audio ripper, etc, etc. Also, in terms of system overhead, I understand that KDE isn't really that bloated compared to Gnome. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I use KDE and I'm happy with it. It has everything I need.
But maybe that's because I'm used to using KDE and have used Gnome not very often.
I'm sure KDE is a good choice.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
I have used KDE from the get go with a brief exception when I installed Ubuntu (quickly thereafter becoming frustrated with Gnome and changing to Kubuntu with KDE and Xubuntu with XFCE). Tux Magazine has a tech help "guru" called Mango Partfait (I know, I know
) who has a description of how to get virtual folders in KDE, IIRC. KDE4 should be really revolutionary, but for me KDE just allows you to do more and customize more, and works out of the box.
Jeffrey Wiggs
-------
Loving God and Learning Laughter
[Moderator RM fixed your smiley; It's a colon not an equals sign]
---
Jeffrey Wiggs
Loving God and Learning Laughter
what's wrong with blackbox/fluxbox? but then, I'm a geek.
if you don't want to use that, then my next vote would be kde.
...as I'm writing this on a GNOME (school) computer....
____________
chris
__
chris
It is not your audience's responsibility to puzzle out what you intended to say; it is your responsibility to express yourself so clearly that no one with a modicum of intelligence and good will could possibly mistake your meaning.
Why do you think this is called the off-topic forum?!?!????!!!!
true, but this is more off topic than usual...
not that I'm complaining. KDE on a stick anyone?
____________
chris
__
chris
It is not your audience's responsibility to puzzle out what you intended to say; it is your responsibility to express yourself so clearly that no one with a modicum of intelligence and good will could possibly mistake your meaning.
I have made my decision, after doing lots more research on KDE and GNOME I decide I will use KDE, thanks for your opinions. Oh and chris0 even though Fluxbox and Blackbox would offer better performance, I want a full-featured desktop enviornment and besides I said I was gonna get a super-expensive computer (meaning it would have lavish and powerful hardware, so it wouldn't hurt much to be fancy).
if you ran blackbox you could eek out just a bit more performance...
____________
chris
__
chris
It is not your audience's responsibility to puzzle out what you intended to say; it is your responsibility to express yourself so clearly that no one with a modicum of intelligence and good will could possibly mistake your meaning.
I can never make my mind up with what I want so I have KDE, Gnome, Fluxbox, BlackBox, etc, etc install. I also use Beryl and emerald to just give them that little bit extra spin!
So my response is why not both?
www.x-rayman.co.uk
don't wanna dual-boot, or be switching back and forth (it seems a bit silly).
from KDE to Gnome to Fluxbox to whatever windowmanager you like, the only thing you have to do is log off (NOT shutdown) and log on using another WM.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
X doesn't even need to be restarted, does it?
Vintage!
Na... just log off, pick the WM you want, log back on. I run with GNOME. I like it's graphics and layout, but I also have KDE installed and use it's tools. Just because you have one WM running doesn't mean you can't use the other one programs. Your only limits is the size of your drive or RAM.
Log off and back on refreshes the desktop environment and reloads your settings. It doesn't change anything loaded up to the user/password screen.
----------------------:)
Did you know that the entire operating system use to fit on a 5 1/4" floppy disk!
I'm a Gnome person myself. I have used KDE before, but I like the Gnome interface a lot better for some reason. Just a personal preference, but I like my nice, clean, icon-free desktop on Ubuntu.
ya, it's totally personal preference, but I much prefer Gnome to KDE. I've used both, and to me KDE just feels like a cheap knock-off of the win98 era start menu. konquror(can't spell it) is nice and all, but imho, highly overrated. I actually prefer XFCE over KDE. Actually, if you do spend any amount of time with XFCE, it is really nice. I really like it, just not enough to switch to it from gnome, maybe in the future.