Linux Format forums

shaman47 · Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:07 pm Posts: 6

I think that people only like KDE because most distros have KDE as default, so its the first thing they see and use and first is usually allways best! And people who are new to linux, but have used win95 and later, will quckly get used to KDE, whereas Mac users will probably get used to gnome quite quick.

KDE FOREVER!

A-Wing · Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 8:56 pm Post subject:

I really can't get on with KDE, I've tried but its just not for me. I think Gnome is more of an office feel to it. Maybe its just me Smile

_________________
Andrew Hutchings, Linux Jedi
www.a-wing.co.uk

Erin · Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:28 pm Post subject:

Have no KDE or Qt apps at all on my PCs. Agree with Andy and his summary of KDE and GNOME. Tnd to use GNOME but will use Xfce and Fluxbox to lighten the overhead.

Don't like Nautilus but Xfe, GQview and Ubuntu allow suitable productivity. Still would prefer stability over uprevving versions. Never found a stable KDE release and stuff still crashes under GNOME too but far less.

Erin
_________________
Just beneath my skin I'm screaming. Faithless::Insomnia.
Dual PIII 550 with Ubuntu [semi-bleeding].

A-Wing · Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:42 pm Post subject:

I haven't really played with many other WMs but I remember Fluxbox being good (used it a couple of years ago).
My basic desktop consists of the standard Ubuntu layout with a few more app icons (such as terminal) and an extra Unix time clock just before the switcher (for my work with the mailservers).
The stability problems in KDE are what initially brought me to Gnome. The only crash I remember having in Gnome is a bad codec in Totem.
I can see KDE being good for Windows converts, to show off a Linux based desktop and for home PCs.
It sounds silly but one of my pet peeves with KDE is KMail has quite poor handling of IMAP.
I seem to just be able to do my work quicker in Gnome, and I guess that is what counts for me (plus I am the only one in the office without a machine riddled with spyware)
_________________
Andrew Hutchings, Linux Jedi
www.a-wing.co.uk

Rhakios · Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 12:34 pm Post subject:

OTOH, perhaps this is a better idea Wink

_________________
Bye, Rhakios

jlarue · Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:40 am Posts: 11

Hmm, I guess I'm the only Gnome fan, here. I don't HATE KDE. 3.4 is quite nice. But the menu structure is ludicrous; so much crammed in here and there that it never feels integrated to me.

Gnome, from 2.8 on, feels focused and elegant to me. (But I agree about "spatial browsing" in Nautilus --ugh. I turned it back to the original browser style, and had done with it.) Moreover, the applications I use (Firefox, Tbird, Jpilot, OOo/Abiword) "fit" into Gnome better than in KDE.

But I try to keep current in both, and toggle back and forth when I get bored. It's important to keep the brain alert.

davecs · Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 8:48 pm Post subject:

The latest Firefox, Thunderbird and 1.9.113 onwards of OpenOffice actually adapt to KDE quite well!
_________________

Asus Asus M2N32 WS Pro+Athlon AM2/4200+ — GeForce 7600GT — 2Gb Cosair VS RAM — 500Gb WD5000AAKS SATA Drive — PCLinuxOS

jer1ch0 · Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 12:05 am Post subject:

Using kde in SuSe now. 8 text editors and them all 3 or 4 clicks away.
Gnome. 1 text editor 2 or 3 clicks away
And between aptitude and synaptic, well nothing can touch them. They really are the future of Linux Package Management.

jjmac · Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 12:58 am Post subject:

>>
I think that people only like KDE because most distros have KDE as default, so its the first thing they see and use and first is usually allways best! And people who are new to linux, but have used win95 and later, will quckly get used to KDE, whereas Mac users will probably get used to gnome quite quick.

KDE FOREVER
>>

point being ?

I suppose people only do windows because it comes as default on pre-built boxes, and as it's the first distro experianced because of that and first is usually alwas the best ...

WINDOWS FOREVER

Rolling Eyes

jm
_________________
http://counter.li.org
#313537

The FVWM wm -=- www.fvwm.org -=-

Somebody stole my air guitar, It happened just the other day,
But it's ok, 'cause i've got a spare ...

A-Wing · Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 9:16 pm Post subject:

M0PHP · Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 9:56 pm Post subject:

*cough* XFCE forever!! Cool

*cough*

youlikeicecream · Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:18 am Post subject:

At first I like KDE ... but after trying gnome im not going back, here's why :

- File searching is much more reliable in gnome
- Network browsing on mixed windows ads domains/workgroups actually works reliably in gnome. And did not need to configure anything other than how I would get my IP. Whereas I had a nightmare trying to get smb4k to work reliably, although sometimes it would find network servers and mostly would not.
- Kde has too many configuration tools that do the same thing and can be confusing.
- Gnome has working theme/icon/gdm installers, which I never got to work in kde. I was able to download tar files point gnome at them and install them, kde would complain that they were not valid themes - blah blah

Please dont get me wrong but I do love Kde too, particularly Amarok, and the nice features of konqueror in Kde3.4

At the end of the day, I think these two desktop environments suit different users. If you have time to piss about with a temperamental system that has all the fancy features you could shake a stick at; go for kde.

If you are in a business or educational environment, then you simply don't have the time to support Kde, and therefore Gnome is a more reliable choice.

Mike Smile

nelz · Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:33 am Post subject:

You don't need smb4k to browse a network with KDE, just type smb:// in the Konqueror's location bar.

While I agree with your comments about the amount of configuration in KDE (which is no bad thing when you're a control freak Smile

) I don't find it at all temperamental. It works out of the box, and with a little effort can be customised to work exactly how you want it to.

Konqueror is particularly useful if you take the time to explore the possibilities (some of which are very poorly documented). For example, I'm working on a web site right now, testing changing on a copy on a local server, then uploading them to the live, remote server. I have a Konq window open with one tab showing the test site, one showing the live site and a third tab split into two pane. One pane is an FTP connection to the remote site, the other is an SSH connection to the test site, from which I can open files in Kate and copy them to the live site, without needing to copy anything to my desktop box.

Add in a bit of DCOP scripting, as I did for some tasks when compiling the DVDs, and it becomes even more powerful, but it does require some effort from the user.

youlikeicecream · Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:01 am Post subject:

I did try smb:// and smb:\\ and it gave me error messages all over. but hey

Personally I love Konqueror and have it installed in Gnome and it works perfectly.

Its all very well saying this about the two but neither of them fully 'work-out-of-box' both had sound problems amongst other bits and bobs

at the end of the day there are features in both that are usefull .

Mike Smile

graham · Site admin Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:31 am Posts: 37

Just for the record, I think it's a single forward slash: