I'm a long time KDE user and KDE 3.5 was perfect for me. I've moved to Fedora as my main OS and also use Sidux when the mood arises. After upgrading to Fedora 9 this week, KDE4 is starting to frustrate me. The reduced functionality compared to KDE3 slaps you in the face. An example is that there is no "show desktop" capability as there is in KDE3 and Gnome. If you have 10 windows open and want to see the desktop, you have to minimise them one by one (and no, ctrl-F12 is not the same).

So, I decided to boot from the Gnome live CD of Fedora 9. My initial impression of Gnome is that I don't really like it, but I suspect that I would get used to it.

I'm interested to hear people's experiences if they've used both KDE and Gnome over the years, and the pros and cons.

Also, do KDE apps like K3b, Amarok, K9copy and KompoZer all run ok under Gnome?

i'm a gnome man, i like the simplicity less "fluff", last time i dabbled in kde it just wasn't right things did'tt work how i wanted them to, it's really holden versus ford both will get you to point b but depends how you want to get there. i've got amarok with no probs, as for the others i use the gnome equivilant, gnome baker, Xdvd shrink etc

Pumpino writes...

If you have 10 windows open and want to see the desktop, you have to minimise them one by one

I hate finding some button for that anyway, and find it more natural to just switch to one of my other desktops (there's almost always an empty one around).

I haven't used KDE seriously since 1.0 but have used it briefly since. It's all right but nothing special. Either is GNOME, for that matter. Nowadays I find it all somewhat uninteresting, along with "desktop" threads where everyone's running GNOME and KDE (no matter what theme and wallpaper you pick, they still look like GNOME and KDE).

The only comparison I make is that Gnome has a nice Gooey and KDE looks pretty stock.

Pumpino writes...

Why?
Most threads end up in this category
whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?t...ReligiousDebates

KDE vs GNOME
VIM vs Emacs

Pumpino writes...

I'm interested to hear people's experiences if they've used both KDE and Gnome over the years, and the pros and cons.

I used Gnome up until version 2 when they started dumbing down the interface. I'm still using KDE 3.5 and might wait until 4.1 comes out before I upgrade. It seems like 4.0 was rushed out a bit too soon. There's nothing wrong with 3.5 so I'm happy to continue using it for now.

Pumpino writes...

Also, do KDE apps like K3b, Amarok, K9copy and KompoZer all run ok under Gnome?

Yeah they all should run find as long as you have the KDE libraries installed.

You can just set a new keyboard shortcut to show the desktop or use the panel applet (how hard was that), yes they all run fine, no they don't fit in, openbox is awsome.

:) :) :)

"KDE is so much better!"

"No! Gnome is so much cleaner."

"I use Xfce. Can go wrong with that."

"I'm a Blackbox/Fluxbox/Openbox man!"

"Pffft, Enlightenment is the one!"

Pumpino writes...

I'm interested to hear people's experiences if they've used both KDE and Gnome over the years, and the pros and cons.

What you're asking for is equivalent to saying: "Which gum will suit me? Strawberry or mint?"

The only way for you to know is to try both, and see what you like. GUIs, like gum, is a personal preference. It won't matter what we say, because its you system. So do it, try both. Set things up where you boot into the login screen, so that you can pick which desktop environment or window manager you want to start with. Just give it a go.

Pumpino writes...

Also, do KDE apps like K3b, Amarok, K9copy and KompoZer all run ok under Gnome?

Yeap. All you need is to install the necessary libraries. So you'll have Qt/KDE bits in a Gnome based install. (This is typically done automatically in modern day distros, where you just select the apps you want to install, and it'll include the required libraries).

I use Xfce, and I have Gnome and KDE bits because of the different apps I use.

I've installed Gnome. A few basic questions.

How do I change the size of icons on the desktop?

How do I switch to single mouse clicks to launch applications from the desktop?

Is there a way to use sftp or fish in Nautalis like you can in Konqueror/Dolphin?

Thanks. :)

Hazza! writes...

it's really holden versus ford both will get you to point b but depends how you want to get there

Exactly. I personally prefer KDE. I like the default programs & the look of it. I started on ubuntu then tried kubuntu and found KDE was more my thang!

Pumpino writes...

KDE4 is starting to frustrate me. The reduced functionality compared to KDE3 slaps you in the face

Totally! But I still like the way it's heading and how they've gone about it (design, widgets, plasma, etc.) and it does run fast. I'm back on KDE3 though, waiting for a more functional KDE4.

I'm also a KDE user. Used it for a lot of years. Sure, I try out Gnome every once in a while, but it just feels wrong and I don't like it. It's too dumbed-down for my tastes and just not as configurable as KDE.

It's not a question of apps... KDE apps will run under Gnome and vice-versa. Basically, I just prefer the KDE way of doing things.

From what I've read about KDE 4.x, I'm having real misgivings. It unfortunately looks like they're going down the Gnome path and dumbing it down and removing some configurability. As Pauline Hanson says.... "I don't like it !"

I've got Gnome set up beautifully. Who would have thought.

Only one more question - how do I hide icons for Computer, Trash and mounted partitions on the desktop? I can't find the option under any of the preferences.

Pumpino writes...

how do I hide icons for Computer, Trash and mounted partitions on the desktop?

Run gconf-editor via alt+f2 (or search for Configuration Editor in the menus).

Navigate to apps -> nautilus -> desktop, then untick the relevant checkboxes to the right.

Fedora 9 advises me that gconf-editor is not a recognised command and I can't see any reference to Configuration Editor in the menus. ;P

Pumpino writes...

I'm interested to hear people's experiences if they've used both KDE and Gnome over the years, and the pros and cons.

I prefer Gnome for its simplicity. Never liked KDE35, looks too busy and all over the place and inconsistent.

linux-guru writes...

but it just feels wrong and I don't like it. It's too dumbed-down for my tastes and just not as configurable as KDE.

+1

Lights the fuse and wait for the bang:

"Without tip-toeing around the matter, Linus Torvalds made his preference in the GNOME vs. KDE matter quite clear on the GNOME-usability list: "I personally just encourage people to switch to KDE. This 'users are idiots, and are confused by functionality' mentality of Gnome is a disease. If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it. I don't use Gnome, because in striving to be simple, it has long since reached the point where it simply doesn't do what I need it to do. Please, just tell people to use KDE." Also, "Gnome seems to be developed by interface nazis, where consistently the excuse for not doing something is not 'it's too complicated to do', but 'it would confuse users'.""

and Linus is god? :)

Ubuntu, OpenSuse, Fedora, Mint, Debian .. they're all primarily Gnome pushers these days.

Whatever floats your boat.

shaunf writes...

Whatever floats your boat.

Or sinks your ship...

No Linus is not god, but he did get it all started. Surely that gives him a right to view his opinion on it's progression...!?!?

I have noticed that Gnome has improved vastly in recent releases, it seems like it might be almost usable now...

I gotta say I just don't get it, what things do KDE users like to configure on their system? I've never used it accept at work and that was just to log on and fix whatever needed fixing so I don't know much about KDE. I make a few basic tweaks to Gnome and then just use it, ie access files and/or applications.

shaunf writes...

and Linus is god? :)

The creator has spoken! I prefer KDE 3.5. which is perfect. KDE 4 is still in its infancy.

KDE4 isn't finished yet.

Pumpino writes...

Fedora 9 advises me that gconf-editor is not a recognised command and I can't see any reference to Configuration Editor in the menus.

That's weird. I would have thought it would be available by default with all Gnome installs.

Maybe check that the gconf-editor package is installed?

shaunf writes...

Ubuntu, OpenSuse, Fedora, Mint, Debian .. they're all primarily Gnome pushers these days.

except there is kubuntu and suse gives you the choice of gnome or kde. so i dont really see that as pushing gnome at all but letting people decide for themselves.

personally i prefer kde 3.5 over gnome. kde 4 isnt really finished yet and version 4.1 should be much better.

but really its which ever you feel most comfortable with and is most productive for you. at the end of the day thats all that matters and not which is more popular etc.

LogOn writes...

Lights the fuse and wait for the bang:

*shrug* It was good back in the days when people ran one of about 15 different window managers, and didn't whinge about the ones they didn't like. They just got on with using the one they did.

kraekan writes...

I gotta say I just don't get it, what things do KDE users like to configure on their system? I've never used it accept at work and that was just to log on and fix whatever needed fixing so I don't know much about KDE. I make a few basic tweaks to Gnome and then just use it, ie access files and/or applications.

You've got me worried now, comments like that sound like you feel we should all be satisfied with Gnome because you are....
If I wanted a "one size fits all" system I'd stick with MAC or Windoze rather than enjoying the freedom offered by linux. I run several linux installations for very different purposes and need to configure them differently which is vastly easier to handle in KDE than Gnome.

I have no idea of what the majority of other linux users do with their systems, but I imagine that many have very specific purposes other than just surfing the web and simple office tasks. Those that do push their system beyond the basics will often come to the conclusion that Gnome might not be the choice window manager for them, and some, like Linus himself, even get quite upset by the dumbing down that it has long been famous for.

From those I've met, it seems many Gnome users are more likely to be using their systems as an alternative to Windoze for basic computing tasks, which is great. I just hope that they can keep an open mind and understand that not everyone does as they do and that others might have very different needs in the level of system configuration and usage.

eloki writes...

*shrug* It was good back in the days when people ran one of about 15 different window managers, and didn't whinge about the ones they didn't like. They just got on with using the one they did.

Yep, totally agree with you there...
How wonderful it is to have the choice, it would be a terrible shame if we only ended up having one window manager.

I just dropped in the comments from Linus to liven the thread up a bit, was worried that everything might get a bit too "Gnomie" for comfort. Also thought that some of the linux newcomers might not have heard the words of wisdom from our mentor.

It makes me shudder when newcomers think that linux equals ubuntu, and Gnome is the only choice for their desktop, when the reality is that there are hundreds of distro's to choose from, with a wide variety of window managers. Each one designed by people who have specific system requirements, how lucky we are to be involved with linux, we need to keep it diversified and open..

LogOn writes...

which is vastly easier to handle in KDE than Gnome.

I'm interested to know what things you configure in KDE that you can't configure in Gnome.

I've used KDE 3 all along and the only time I'd tried Gnome was when I booted from a Ubuntu live CD. I hated Gnome in Ubuntu (the brown wasn't a good first impression either). After getting frustrated with KDE4 in Fedora 9 and not wanting to switch distros, I installed Gnome and I've been pleasantly surprised. While I prefer KDE3, I've been able to configure everything I need in Gnome and it actually runs faster than KDE.

as for the OP, if you install QT3/4 for KDE apps, most of them perform well enough under gnome, despite the missing/futile parts in apps like Amarok / k3b that feel bloaty and broken when trying to run them in gnome, etc. the same thing applies to running gtk apps in KDE, theres just something akward there.

from experience putting the gnome login client and KDE3 worked well when it was set up properly, and there's plenty of advantages to having both Gnome/KDE. e.g. kubuntu has a totally different style to say fedora's KDE, they do work well. sometimes KDE just feels like win95 though, or a bloated OS/2, and things break that shouldn't really break in the GUI, etc.

there are days i hate gnome, and others KDE, they just feel shallow compared to OSX/Windows or even the older OS GUI's like amigaOS, Acorn Archimedes, etc.

perhaps try getting compiz + plugins working in KDE4 and see if it's not yet nighmarish enough on resources.

Perhaps this thread should have included another pointless poll.

LogOn writes...

You've got me worried now, comments like that sound like you feel we should all be satisfied with Gnome because you are....

Not at all. I don't care at all what people use but when this comes up apparently KDE is more configurable than Gnome, particularly the Linus thing comes up, so I'm genuinely curious about what things KDE users like to configure that can't be done in Gnome. No one ever says.

For me, like a lot of people, I'm not a fan of the spatial browsing mode of Nautilus so that and a few things like panel and font size get changed and maybe the desktop background and that's it. I probably spend as much time tweaking the terminal settings as the desktop.

kraekan writes...

I probably spend as much time tweaking the terminal settings as the desktop.

For my part, once I've got things configured I never touch them again! I don't give a toss how "easy" it is to configure the desktop, because it's something I do just once.

It's like all those Linux reviews that spend 20 pages describing the installation process, then 1 page describing the rest. Completely misses the point.

Foonly writes...

It's like all those Linux reviews that spend 20 pages describing the installation process, then 1 page describing the rest. Completely misses the point.

I agree with you that it's stupid, but I also believe it's pretty hard to write a good review of the day to day use of a distro (to some degree, once everything is configured, there's not much to write about).

However I'm not a distro hopper. The people that are distro hoppers probably focus a lot on the installation, since they do so many of them. So in that sense perhaps 19 pages about installation is appropriate for the target readership, though hopeless to me.

Foonly writes...

I don't give a toss how "easy" it is to configure the desktop, because it's something I do just once.

Exactly. People sometimes say that Fedora isn't as user friendly as other distros in relation to having to enter settings during the installation, selecting packages, etc, and having to add the Livna repository to be able to acquire multimedia codecs. However, speed, package management and up-to-dateness of the distro are what's important to me; the other things you only do once.

LogOn writes...

From those I've met, it seems many Gnome users are more likely to be using their systems as an alternative to Windoze for basic computing tasks, which is great.

This has been my experience also.

Pumpino writes...

After getting frustrated with KDE4 in Fedora 9 and not wanting to switch distros, I installed Gnome and I've been pleasantly surprised.

It's always baffled me why people switch distros or reinstall for such trivial reasons. Shouldn't the distro give you a choice? Basing distros around a desktop environment is just stupid IMHO. I love Gentoo :)

-funroll-loops writes...

Basing distros around a desktop environment is just stupid IMHO.

When you have limited resources, you have to pick where you direct effort. Taken to another level, one might say that basing a distro around a kernel is also stupid.

And Debian does have the unofficial kFreebsd and Hurd ports, but do you think other distros are stupid for not doing the same?

eloki writes...

When you have limited resources, you have to pick where you direct effort. Taken to another level, one might say that basing a distro around a kernel is also stupid.

It's fair enough if you want to use whatever a distro gives you. At least you'll know the packages have been well tested together. But if you have to switch distros because you want to use a different version of KDE then that's a severe limitation of the distro in my opinion.