KDE vs. Gnome

Fight!

Which is your favorite?

Other is a valid choice as long as you identify your manager version and the features you feel make it top dog.

 

I prefer KDE but recently I've been using Gnome because KDE and my ATI card have not been interacting nicely. Ideally, I'd try xfce but I'm the lazy type.

 

This is a fine as long as it doesn't erupt into a flame-war but as a senior member I want to warn anyone who's going to post here to keep it tame.

I prefer Gnome to KDE but I acknowledge that KDE is superior to Gnome in every way. KDe is very shiny and everything just works beautifully. Too beautiful for me to look at without covering my eyes, so I stick with Gnome. Sounds dumb and crazy but that's the best way I can explain it.

 

a first glance KDE looked nice but after using it for more than a day, I found it to be just cheap looking, I prefer gnome tweaked out.

 

I <3 KDE 4.3.

It's beautiful. Powerful. Highly customizable, yet simple. And it's stable. (Admittedly, it took awhile until we got our first truly stable KDE 4.x)

 

KDE version: 3.5.4-25.el5.centos.1 Red Hat satisfies me most on my laptop .

 

Lets see.
KDE is a dragon

&
Gnome is just a gnome

i think that the dragon (aka KDE) wins.

Personally prefer Gnome since it was the first UI i tried on Linux, with Ubuntu 8.04 or older.

 

I sincerely hope that it doesn't erupt into a flame war, and it was not my intention to make people "fight", it was meant as a play on the Street Fighter meme.

I'll be happy to tame down my original post, but I assure you, it was not meant to start a flame war, just start a discussion.

 

I like the look of e17, but I have most of Gnome installed so I can access it's features easily.

 

UI is so subjective, and that's what makes this a question I'm fascinated with enough to ask it. I like "shiny" since I use my PC a lot, so I'm an admitted KDE fan.

Gnome, however, seems to be a more utilitarian oriented WM. That's merely my opinion. If folks have screenshots of their desktops, it would be nice to judge the two side by side, since the GUI has always been subjective.

Also, can I set up a poll after the fact to ask the KDE vs. Gnome vs. whatever else question, or is it to late to do it in this thread?

 

GNOME has some serious problems in terms of advancing UI functionality while keeping things as simple and minimalist as their goals state. While it is a decent DE it still has numerous problems, both from the perspective of UI functionality, bugs, and long-term direction of the project. Ultimately I think GNOME isn't going to be able to successfully adapt in the way KDE has, nor do I think that they'll be able to integrate new technologies into their DE without the necessary "revolution" that KDE4 developers performed.

KDE's UI and design is elegant, useful, and was a brave thing to do in terms of development and design. They took a major risk in trying to satisfy and expand their user base in rolling out KDE4, and the result has largely paid off in spades. The problem is that in many ways KDE UI features are seen in Windows 7.

 

I think you're right for the most part. I'm really comfy in Gnome but I imagine that someday soon I will be crossing over to KDE. Gnome shell seems to be a step in the wrong direction while KDE's risk is paying off like you said. What really caught my eye is Kubuntu NBR. It's very unpolished but I was very surprised to see what could be done with KDE 4.

 

Intellectually I prefer KDE, but as a practical matter I use Gnome (with Fedora right now). This is subject to change in the future...

 

While I think KDE may be better, I feel like application support is better in gnome...

 

Having just recently tried KDE, I still prefer Gnome. This article gives a somewhat goofy, but good comparison: http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7296.

I felt that KDE is prettier, more sophisticated, and has a more advanced layout and default functionality. Several features show more refinement and development than their Gnome counterparts, like Knotify and the Alt+F2 launcher. The default selection of widgets and effects is quite nice; in Gnome you have to install and customize to achieve the same results.

That being said, I thought there were some goofy features, a lot of annoying, counter-intuitive layout problems (for example I still haven't found where to change/disable system sounds. Gnome feels a lot more Spartan and practical. This applies to the interface and KDE applications in general.

Also, the shortcut and navigation keys were confusing.

I did like all the flexibility and functionality, and did I mention the transparency? It's really pretty. Plasma and Kwin I found to be snappier and more capable than the the default Gnome interface.

Compiz, however, was one area where things broke down. It was significantly less than stable. I like the desktop effects available by default, but in Gnome you can at least switch metacity for compiz and get a rockin' visual environment; Kwin leaves you stuck somewhere in between.

Finally, I'll admit that things were probably somewhat negatively affected by having Gnome and KDE installed side-by-side. But overall I prefer Gnome.

 

A long time ago I read that the best way to find out which is better was to try both and find out for yourself.

Well I did. And I still don't know the answer.

 

I like the way GNOME is laid out, but KDE definitely has the technological edge.

 

i've only messed with KDE once...have always used Gnome.
I do like the application support..and the funcitonality of it..
might have to do some more KDE exploring though...

 

Open Personal Settings (it's in the K menu) and type "system sounds" into the search bar. "Notifications" gets highlighted. You single-click on it and get to a section where you can configure audio output from KDE. imo, that's intuitive.

But don't get me wrong. I think it's absolutely natural that different people have different preferences. There are people that can work efficiently on OS X. I can't. I feel I can work efficiently both in Gnome as well as in KDE. I merely like the look of the KDE default desktop a bit better.


But iyam, it's important to remember that one of the virtues of Linux is that the DE is not an integral part of the operating system. We're free to choose. Yes, you can change the look of Windows, too. But some things are more of a hassle (e.g., running KDE on Windows).

Choice is a good thing. As is the competition between DEs.

 

Okay, but having to know which menu it's under (I was looking mostly in the Windows Control Panel-esque settings menu), and knowing to then type "system sounds" in the search, and guessing that it's under "Notifications" and that you haven't come to a dead-end, doesn't seem as intuitive as the Gnome system.

Gnome just strikes me as a bit more straightforward. Where to look for system sounds? Applications, Places, or System. I think System. Preferences or Administration? I don't see anything promising under Administration, but under Preferences there is "Sound." Click on that, and viola!

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of things about KDE. I just think I can safely speak on behalf of the average computer user -- Gnome is a bit more simplistic and friendly.

*ducks*

 

^ I agree + 10 char

 

I am Kure you Know Krom Khis Kentence Why I Kate KDE.

 

Corrected

 

Both, from my experience, suffer from their own flaws. These flaws are not absolute ones, but merely my personal opinion.

I started Linux with Ubuntu, which by default uses GNOME. There is KUbuntu, but development is very far behind. I guess you can say I grew used to GNOME, but there are many things I like about it.

After moving on to Arch, I was offered freedom to choose my DM and WM, and I tried out KDE and KDEMod for a month. On the surface, it looks a lot like Windows, but that's just the surface and can be changed to look like GNOME and vice versa. What I've noticed about KDE is that is functionally complete. Settings are open and aparent and easy to find. However, it suffers from what I call 'functional cluttering'. It has many different settings and options but it clutters up the place, and I personally don't like it. It's hard to explain if you don't get it.

GNOME on the otherhand is simple and elegant, and settings are usually hidden away if you don't want to see them. It has the advantage of good integration with gtk applications like Firefox and Compiz works with it but doesn't work with KWin. However, it's development is very haphazard and lacks focus (something to be addressed in GNOME 3) and some of it's settings are TOO hidden away. For example, they removed altering GDM settings so it's not GUI anymore. And Nautilus isn't a very good browser. I prefer KDE's Dolphin. Metacity's minimise effect is utterly ugly and I always replace it with either Compiz or Openbox.

That said, I have never tried LXDE or the other light DMs. But I have tried GNOME+Openbox and Openbox standalone. I have tried Openbox standalone, but that's a bit TOO light. GNOME+Openbox is just nice for me.

When it boils down, I prefer GNOME simply for it's 'cleanness' of desktop and it's ability to have an appearance of a very minimal desktop. GNOME+Openbox, in my opinion, is one of the best combinations.

 

I agree about Nautilus, but I thought a lot of KDE users weren't pleased with Dolphin? I definitely use Compiz in Gnome. Didn't work so well in KDE, but KWin is a bit more complete itself. And of course I was trying Kubuntu, and some things may have been development issues, as you indicate.

 

When I used Linux on my old laptop, I always used KDE, 3 and then 4 a while later. Stuck to it largely out of familiarity, I guess.

On a side note, I really wish Windows would integrate multiple desktops as fluidly as KDE and Gnome both do.

 

Dolphin compared to Nautilus, mind you.

 

I started using linux with kubuntu dapper drake and didn't really have troubles with the non intuitive place where some options were put coming from win98/2k... Then I tried ubuntu edgy eft and dumped kde altogether because I couldn't believe how simple stuff where in gnome(fact that Torvald apparently dislikes). I think I will try KDE4 more seriously in the near future.

 

Linus Torvald doesn't dislike the display/placement/rearrangement/backend of GNOME, but rather the way GNOME advertises and it's development progression.

 

I prefer GNOME, despite how infuriating some of its design is. I value clean, minimalist design.

I've tried KDE. I thought KDE 3.x was a nightmare, but KDE 4 is much better. however, it's not as intuitive as GNOME, even though it does offer more customization.

I think my real problem with GNOME is GTK itself. Qt is a much more advanced toolkit at the moment. I hope GTK moves forward a bit quicker than it has in the past, and that GNOME 3 will reflect this.

It also helps that GTK can be used under the LGPL, allowing for closed source commercial apps, whereas Qt is a little more restrictive. This means that companies releasing commercial apps for Linux are more likely to use GTK.

 

That's outdated information. Qt is now LGPL.

 

GTK > Qt.
GNOME > KDE.

Why? Personal preference. I hate uniformity and obfuscation.

 

I've started with Ubuntu 7.04 with both gnome and KDE 3.x, I wasn't sure but I tended to prefer KDE but then I was still using mainly XP.

After a while I forgot about win (I actually don't have it on my machines) and when KDE 4.x arrived I fell in love whit it and found it such an improvement in look and features, I wasn't expecting so much and I've started using it alone for some months, I've polished it all and enjoyed it but after a while....

I found out that behind the shine of it I was experiencing stability issues that I hadn't had with gnome (maybe newer versions addressed that) and that I was using Firefox and Thunderbird and Songbird and gimp and pidgin and... rather than Konqueror and kmail and Amarok and...

At the end of this story out of it's simplicity and usability since a Year or so I'm with

 

You're with Grumpy Dwarf?

 

Gnome!

 

Always used GNOME but I am now interested in trying KDE. Im afraid though since it will be going on a really old desktop with a p4.

 

I prefer GNOME over KDE, because of simplicity, and it can be customized to how you want it(especially with Compiz Fuzion), giving the user a lot of flexibility on making the desktop look and feel the way you want it. KDE seems to be polished, but also not quite as simple as gnome. I personally have found GNOME to be a lot more configurable than KDE.

 

Not a big fan of the newest versions of KDE so I prefer gnome.

 

I've gone back from openSUSE gnome to KDE4....seems fine so far.....konqui lives! LOL

 

Used KDE strongly since 3.5, and kept using it until 4.1 on those buggy releases. When I moved to Arch I put Gnome on it. I noticed then Gnome was much more my style due to the simplicity and the so called minimalist approach. That and the fact KDE is a bit bloated with Kwhatever apps.

Some days ago my Gnome started bugging and after a day of debugging I got tired and decided to just give another chance to KDE. I managed to install a very minimal KDE subset (it didn't even pull Kmix, lol!). It's pleasing me so far and it's nice to use Amarok once again (It looked so misplaced in Gnome)

Right now I realize it wasn't Gnome's fault but my fault; though heck, now I completely ripped Gnome off and am with this effortly customized and finally bloat-free KDE which seems very stable, I will surely give it a chance!

Overall I feel like the other guys; KDE is more advanced, still I prefer the Gnome approach.