Originally posted by BlackStar
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
KDE vs GNOME
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by BlackStar View PostNo, 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, ...)Last edited by kraftman; 18 August 2009, 09:02 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostFirefox 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.
From a quick glance, it looks like a poor-man's imitation of Gnome Do. Which indeed is THE killer app.
That said, most application preferences are indeed based on familiarity and other subjective features. For instance, I think the Amarok interface looks ugly (the overlayed stop, play, next, previous buttons) and clunky (too busy) compared to Banshee. Others think its the height of interface design - fine by me.
Originally posted by kraftmanKDE is very easy to use 14 year old girl have no problems with it (also experience from family ).
Edit:
Originally posted by deanjoThat actually exactly the opposite of what the local LUG group found here. They were doing one of their install-a-thons and found completely new users who have never used linux found KDE a more comfortable de. IIRC they used Ubuntu for Gnome and openSUSE for KDE.Last edited by BlackStar; 18 August 2009, 09:17 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by blackstarFrom a quick glance, it looks like a poor-man's imitation of Gnome Do. Which indeed is THE killer app.
It is certainly not the one doing the imitating.
That said, most application preferences are indeed based on familiarity and other subjective features. For instance, I think the Amarok interface looks ugly (the overlayed stop, play, next, previous buttons) and clunky (too busy) compared to Banshee. Others think its the height of interface design - fine by me.
I never claimed either was a Gnome app. As you admit, they *are* using GTK, a part of the Gnome stack - which proves my point.
GTK is much older than GNOME. It is a part of the "GNOME stack" like X11 is a part of the "GNOME stack". This is like saying that Skype is a KDE app, or that it uses the "KDE stack" just because it is based on Qt.
Furthermore, neither OpenOffice nor Firefox are based on GTK. OpenOffice uses VCL, a proprietary widget library, and Firefox uses XUL. The only thing they use GTK for is to do the actual drawing, and they only do this on Linux (not on Windows or Mac). In fact, there is a Qt frontend for OpenOffice (for KDE3), and there was a Qt frontend for Firefox, but now that Webkit is integrated into Qt, nobody really cares about that.
GTK is simply a widget library. GNOME is a project trying to create a comprehensive desktop environment based on this library. If everybody simply uses GTK and ignores all the GNOME additions, that is a very strong statement.
In contrast, most Qt-based applications make full use of KDE features. There are pure Qt applications around (SMPlayer, Mnemosyne, VLC, Arora, etc.), but the majority of the Qt-based apps take advantage of the KDE extensions. Because they are easy to add and useful.
That's my point. GTK is good software (though I dislike OO programming in pure C), and many of the extensions (like Pango and the GNOME VFS etc) are decent, but a typical GNOME desktop just seems like a random collection of unrelated programs that all use non-GNOME technology of their own. And this is not what I expect a desktop environment to be like.Last edited by pingufunkybeat; 18 August 2009, 10:04 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostI guess you're new to this, no offense. Gnome Do's oldest release is from 2008. KRunner has existed since the earliest KDE versions. It was doing all the cool things (dictionary lookups, formulas, google queries) since KDE2 days, and has had the funky eyecandy plasma form since the early KDE4 alphas.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BlackStar View PostEdit:
I'd be uncomfortable too, if I my first encounter with Linux sported an orange-and-shit-brown interface. I also disagree with the default two-panel layout in Gnome, but I find the 40px+ taskbar on KDE an even worse eyesore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostI guess you're new to this, no offense. Gnome Do's oldest release is from 2008. KRunner has existed since the earliest KDE versions. It was doing all the cool things (dictionary lookups, formulas, google queries) since KDE2 days, and has had the funky eyecandy plasma form since the early KDE4 alphas.
It is certainly not the one doing the imitating.
Yes, but the cool thing about Amarok is that you never look at it. It manages your collection, you drag a couple of albums (or a dynamic playlist or whatnot) over to the playlist and you close it, and it plays things and you control it using shortcuts. I'm sure that there are plenty of other programs that do this, but I don't know any that are as good at managing huge collections for you.
This is a very strange argument.
GTK is much older than GNOME. It is a part of the "GNOME stack" like X11 is a part of the "GNOME stack". This is like saying that Skype is a KDE app, or that it uses the "KDE stack" just because it is based on Qt.
Furthermore, neither OpenOffice nor Firefox are based on GTK. OpenOffice uses VCL, a proprietary widget library, and Firefox uses XUL. The only thing they use GTK for is to do the actual drawing, and they only do this on Linux (not on Windows or Mac). In fact, there is a Qt frontend for OpenOffice (for KDE3), and there was a Qt frontend for Firefox, but now that Webkit is integrated into Qt, nobody really cares about that.
GTK is simply a widget library. GNOME is a project trying to create a comprehensive desktop environment based on this library. If everybody simply uses GTK and ignores all the GNOME additions, that is a very strong statement.
In contrast, most Qt-based applications make full use of KDE features. There are pure Qt applications around (SMPlayer, Mnemosyne, VLC, Arora, etc.), but the majority of the Qt-based apps take advantage of the KDE extensions. Because they are easy to add and useful.
That's my point. GTK is good software (though I dislike OO programming in pure C), and many of the extensions (like Pango and the GNOME VFS etc) are decent, but a typical GNOME desktop just seems like a random collection of unrelated programs that all use non-GNOME technology of their own. And this is not what I expect a desktop environment to be like.
You say Gstreamer is not part of GNOME. Yet any GNOME app that wants to do some multimedia, uses Gstreamer to do that. Even whole widgets are reused. Gedit, Anjuta, Geany use the terminal from Gnome Terminal. Any app that deals with code uses Gedit's text editor. Any app with a file browsing component uses Nautilus' file browsing. Kioslaves? Gvfs. Dcop? Dbus (which KDE now uses too). Just like KDE, GNOME will use WebKit to do web content.
And as for GTK: it is developed by GNOME developers and its development infrastructure is provided by gnome.org. I see a very strong connection between GTK and GNOME.Last edited by Remco; 18 August 2009, 11:05 AM.
Comment
Comment