KDE vs GNOME

[pingufunkybeat]

According to you, the goal of KDE is to create a development environment, and a desktop environment based on that, to accomplish everyday tasks. Does that not seem a little generic to you? This is what Windows does. This is what GNOME does. This is what OSX does. It's the definition of a desktop environment.

Yes, but remember when this goal was set -- more than ten years ago, when FVWM was the only window manager around.

Then, 6 months later, we got the GNU Object Model Environment, which never managed to produce an object model, and we still don't know what it's supposed to do.

There are many many apps that work well with GNOME. They use GTK, they use Gstreamer, they use dbus, etc. So what if they aren't officially GNOME? They work well together. More importantly: they work well.

Sure, but KDE apps can use GStreamer (Kaffeine and Amarok, at least, and all Phonon apps per default), and they all use dbus by default. What do you need GNOME for? What does it bring to you as a user, or as a developer?

Neither GStreamer nor dbus are GNOME technologies.

The only thing that ties all these apps together is that they use the same toolkit.

[BlackStar]

What does it bring to you as a user, or as a developer?

A clean desktop environment that follows clear usability guidelines, is configurable, stable and works great out of the box.

[kraftman]

A clean desktop environment that follows clear usability guidelines, is configurable, stable and works great out of the box.

And KDE isn't? What clear usability means? I don't consider Gnome being usable. Just my opinion.

[pingufunkybeat]

You can run Open Office from twm if you wish, and it will be the same as running it from GNOME. I don't see the improvement, other than the panel and some utilities.

With something like Konqueror or K3B or dolphin, you get instant access to all sorts of cool things like ioslaves, HTML engine, visual effects, multimedia, etc. All programs based on KDE get this for free and improve usability. That's the cool thing about having a complete desktop environment.

While GNOME has similar technologies, nobody uses them, other than pure GNOME apps, and nobody uses those. If you only want a launcher for running random programs like Firefox and OpenOffice, which don't integrate into anything, then there are many options for you. But this does not make a successful desktop environment for me. Just pointing to a bunch of GTK-based apps that refuse to use any of the GNOME technologies does not show that GNOME succeeded in its goals. If anybody knows what those goals were.

[Remco]

Sure, but KDE apps can use GStreamer (Kaffeine and Amarok, at least, and all Phonon apps per default), and they all use dbus by default. What do you need GNOME for? What does it bring to you as a user, or as a developer?

Fundamentally, nothing that KDE doesn't bring. But fundamentally, KDE doesn't offer anything that GNOME doesn't offer either. Both have the same goal, just different ways of getting there. There is nothing wrong with these desktop environments in general. It's just the little things that make people go to a specific DE.

Neither GStreamer nor dbus are GNOME technologies.

I don't care about which project it belongs to. As long as all apps I use, use the same password storage system, the same audio subsystem, the same input system, have the same look, I'll be a happy user. This is why I don't like Firefox and OOo in a defaultish GNOME install. It doesn't integrate very well. A lot of effort is spent on making it look integrated though.

[Remco]

You can run Open Office from twm if you wish, and it will be the same as running it from GNOME. I don't see the improvement, other than the panel and some utilities.

With something like Konqueror or K3B or dolphin, you get instant access to all sorts of cool things like ioslaves, HTML engine, visual effects, multimedia, etc. All programs based on KDE get this for free and improve usability. That's the cool thing about having a complete desktop environment.

While GNOME has similar technologies, nobody uses them, other than pure GNOME apps, and nobody uses those. If you only want a launcher for running random programs like Firefox and OpenOffice, which don't integrate into anything, then there are many options for you. But this does not make a successful desktop environment for me. Just pointing to a bunch of GTK-based apps that refuse to use any of the GNOME technologies does not show that GNOME succeeded in its goals. If anybody knows what those goals were.

OOo has support for Gstreamer multimedia, and can access all kinds of filesystems over gvfs. Firefox can access all kinds of filesystems and integrates with GNOME's accessibility fairly well.

The rest of the apps are all GNOME apps, official or not, and integrate by default. Every app I use uses GNOME technology which is or isn't officially GNOME technology.

[BlackStar]

A clean desktop environment that follows clear usability guidelines, is configurable, stable and works great out of the box.

And KDE isn't? What clear usability means? I don't consider Gnome being usable. Just my opinion.

No, KDE is not stable. Not just my opinion.

Clear usability guidelines means this: http://library.gnome.org/devel/hig-book/stable/

Both Gnome and KDE are usable by an experienced user. However, Gnome is also usable by an inexperienced user, while KDE tends to be too confusing (judging from experiements on my immediate family).

KDE is not bad, but it doesn't really offer anything Gnome doesn't already do better. Name any app! Chances are you'll find a better alternative built on the Gnome stack (Firefox, Banshee, Brasero, Gnome Do, OpenOffice, Chromium, ...)

[pingufunkybeat]

Firefox and OpenOffice are not, in any way, built on the GNOME stack. They both have their own internals and only do the drawing using GTK. In fact, OpenOffice has KDE integration that is the same as the GNOME integration, it's as much a KDE app as it is a GNOME app.

There are many good GTK-based apps (this doesn't include OOo and Firefox, which are not based on GTK), and there will probably always be. I still use gvim daily. If a program is good, I will use it.

Talking about killer apps, nothing on the free desktop even approaches K3B and Amarok, which are both full KDE apps. And SMPlayer and VLC are two fantastic video players based on Qt (not KDE). If there are better GUI video players out there, I'm not aware of them.

[panda84]

Name any app! Chances are you'll find a better alternative built on the Gnome stack (Firefox, Banshee, Brasero, Gnome Do, OpenOffice, Chromium, ...)

Okular. Kile. Marble. KGet. KStars.
Feature wise they are by far unbeatable.

And I could go on and on forever.

Let's put it plain and simple: no desktop is perfect for anyone, so choice is the only really way to go.
Gnome for Gnomes, KDE for KDEers, and so on.

[pingufunkybeat]

I'll also name Krunner.

It's THE killer app.

Oh yeah, and Digikam.

Anyway, I don't want to bag on the GTK-using crowd. Pango is good technology, and there are many things that KDE introduced that have GTK or GNOME-based equivalents nowadays. It just seems like KDE apps and the KDE desktop are far better integrated, far better aware of each other, and far more useful to the developer (which is why they are taken advantage of more).

It's just that KDE 4.2+ is SO much fun to use, it's fully LGPL, the remaining missing apps are arriving, and the really cool development is just starting.