Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KDE vs GNOME

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Just for one example :
    Blogger is a blog publishing tool from Google for easily sharing your thoughts with the world. Blogger makes it simple to post text, photos and video onto your personal or team blog.

    Comment


    • I'm on Gentoo Linux. KDE 4.3.1 needs 9 seconds to give me a functional desktop after logging in from KDM. KDM itself needs about 3-4 seconds to appear after starting the XDM service.

      Edit: If I actually left-click during the last step of the KDE initialization phase, the 9 seconds become 6 seconds. But it still takes 9 seconds to hear the login music though.

      Edit2: All of this with cold caches, right after a reboot. With warm caches (just logging out and then back in), login time is only 4 or 5 seconds.

      Edit3: (Too many edits :P) My system *is* tweaked though with prelink. All libs and executables are prelinked and everything has been linked with "--as-needed" linker flag enabled. But this should only provide maybe a 1 or 2 seconds advantage at best, nothing dramatic.
      Last edited by RealNC; 24 September 2009, 01:23 PM.

      Comment


      • Same here. 9 seconds, timed it. That's vanilla KDE, no tweaks to speed it up.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by val-gaav View Post
          check the date. Aswell, the bias of the entire blog is towards KDE .

          on that note. Kubuntu is an afterthought for ubuntu. I'll be honest with this. But when the vast majority of ()ubuntu users use gnome, why should they care? Its better to compare ubuntu to KDE oriented distributions .

          Comment


          • Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
            Kubuntu is an afterthought for ubuntu. I'll be honest with this. But when the vast majority of ()ubuntu users use gnome, why should they care? Its better to compare ubuntu to KDE oriented distributions .
            WTF can you please stop trying to spread FUD? Kubuntu is not an afterthought, it's a KDE distro with the same support as Ubuntu. Except for the DE, it's the _same_ software stack.

            Comment


            • Kubuntu works just as well as Ubuntu. And that doesn't say much about Kubuntu

              Comment


              • Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                check the date. Aswell, the bias of the entire blog is towards KDE .
                and on the other hand you are not biased towards gnome with your opinions ?
                That blog is a blog of kubuntu developer. Do you really think someone else has better insight into how things work beetween ubuntu and kubuntu?

                Its better to compare ubuntu to KDE oriented distributions .
                So first you compare ubuntu default gnome install to kubuntu kde, and now you change your mind and say it shouldn'r be compared ?

                To be all fair kubuntu is a really nice distro but just as you say yourself ubuntu is more polished, is more newbie friendly etc. For me it's quite fine (I'll even prefer it that way since I hate some newbie friendly ideas of ubuntu like the App store for example), I'm an advanced user. I used debian most of all my time and I switched to kubuntu, because it provided kde4 earlier then debian did and it was debian based.
                Last edited by val-gaav; 26 September 2009, 04:58 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by val-gaav View Post
                  and on the other hand you are not biased towards gnome with your opinions ?
                  That blog is a blog of kubuntu developer. Do you really think someone else has better insight into how things work beetween ubuntu and kubuntu?
                  I do prefer gnome. But i was also a huge fan of KDE3. I dont think gnome or kde4 are able to compete with KDE3 as far as shear likeability and stability goes. Also, see below.

                  Originally posted by val-gaav View Post
                  So first you compare ubuntu default gnome install to kubuntu kde, and now you change your mind and say it shouldn'r be compared ?
                  Clearly, i was trying to keep the thread going. Taking both sides of an argument also opens ones eyes to what the other side actually is. Anyone who says the latest KDE releases are more stable then previous ones are very very correct. Anyone who says they are remotely as stable as current gnome need to go have a cold shower. As far as my experiences go, KDE4 on kubuntu was pretty god awful IN COMPARISON to other distros. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the resources are not being spent properly over at canonical. That said, ubuntu is not distro XYZ and that also needs to be taken into account.

                  Originally posted by val-gaav View Post
                  To be all fair kubuntu is a really nice distro but just as you say yourself ubuntu is more polished, is more newbie friendly etc. For me it's quite fine (I'll even prefer it that way since I hate some newbie friendly ideas of ubuntu like the App store for example), I'm an advanced user. I used debian most of all my time and I switched to kubuntu, because it provided kde4 earlier then debian did and it was debian based.
                  you could also just compile the latest version, no?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                    I do prefer gnome. But i was also a huge fan of KDE3. I dont think gnome or kde4 are able to compete with KDE3 as far as shear likeability and stability goes. Also, see below.

                    Clearly, i was trying to keep the thread going. Taking both sides of an argument also opens ones eyes to what the other side actually is. Anyone who says the latest KDE releases are more stable then previous ones are very very correct. Anyone who says they are remotely as stable as current gnome need to go have a cold shower. As far as my experiences go, KDE4 on kubuntu was pretty god awful IN COMPARISON to other distros. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the resources are not being spent properly over at canonical. That said, ubuntu is not distro XYZ and that also needs to be taken into account.

                    you could also just compile the latest version, no?
                    Isn't there a perception that KDE in Kubuntu is not too good and that the same resources aren't being invested in Kubuntu as Ubuntu? So, to that other poster, how can you even pretend to think there is no difference? Shuttleworth even got questioned on it for crying out loud. Sure, he denied it but the perception isn't going to just come out of the blue.

                    Also, I notice subtle differences and the way the two distros work. I am not sure what is going on there. I can boot up the latest Karmic 9.10 for Kubuntu and there are no crashes. Well, nothing major. But, in Ubuntu Karmic 9.10, I need to disable Compiz (fancy desktop effects option) or I get a complete system lockup. I have to power off and on to get my laptop back! Compiz is available in KDE and Kubuntu, right?!?

                    How come other Gnome-centric distros can have highly touted KDE desktops but Ubuntu can't? I think OpenSUSE is switching to being KDE-centric and their KDE implementation must have influenced that favoring. Also, Mandriva's KDE is supposed to be good, I've read. But, Kubuntu, which has had a 'new' distro out of Ubuntu seems to be given low resources compared to Ubuntu. When there are major changes in Ubuntu, you can notice them show up on Distrowatch first before anything shows up on the Kubuntu page.

                    Comment


                    • Does anybody know of a good debian based distro that has a KDE 4 desktop without broken samba support?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X