Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should Ubuntu Have Gone With KDE Instead Of GNOME?

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

  • #21
    As long as multiple editions are offered, the default DE makes little difference. However, something to consider: Ubuntu is often recommended by people for low-end hardware. And KDE is bloatware. People who just install default stuff without thinking will run into problems.

    Comment


    • #22
      I've mostly had experience with Gnome and KDE DEs on Linux. I prefer KDE but agree that it's probably not the right choice unless they're able to fix UX issues. Nvidia GPU(at least pascal) for example often gets corrupted screens when I resume from suspend(blue/yellow squares all over white rectangles on an app window until resized to repaint, user avatar image also the same, although the theme clips the corrupted texture into a circle). Gnome also has better optimus support to let apps switch to the nvidia gpu without requiring user intervention, just like windows manages, support for that on other DE I think isn't quite there yet?(I know there is some package that you can create your own configs for to handle this in a similar fashion).

      Then there is the Qt bugs that don't get worked on for years(and may never get fixed?), I'm guessing they're more difficult to work on and ship fixes than Gnomes GTK? KDE has it's own similar bugs that have existed for like a decade or longer? Such as not being able to use your numkeys for shortcuts with meta key I think(meta+7 for tiling a window to top left corner for example), devs said due to the way input was handled in X(many layers in KDE) it was super difficult to support(might be different story with Wayland). Gnome has it's fair share of bugs too, I've personally found KDE to be much nicer but I think I could see the hardware rendering issue being a painpoint for many users. The panel/taskbar also turns grey for me if I have a fullscreen game active and alt tab(or multi-monitor), only way to fix that is to resize the panel to force a repaint. KDE devs said there wasn't really anything they could do about it, was due to bug in nvidia drivers. Stuff like that would upset quite a few users :| Intel/AMD has been great though!

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by Rofineli View Post
        I can understand staying with GTK+, but why pick Gnome over Xfce? Xubuntu is more popular than Ubuntu Gnome or Kubuntu and I'm guessing Xfce is the most popular desktop in general. Most people aren't power users and don't want a bunch of senseless desktop features or eye candy that they'll never use.
        XFCE can't even do HiDPI. More and more screens these days are 4k or better. Stodgy old XFCE just doesn't cut it. It's stagnant. There's no innovation there. It's the windows 95 of Linux desktops still based on gtk2.

        Comment


        • #24
          Offtopic, one of my frustrations (and could just be my ignorance) is that Gnome uses a application bar at the top.. and I used to be able to spawn a new terminal window from there (wheh an terminal windows was active), and now, even though there is still an application tool bar, you have to wonder why it's even there because you have to go to the terminal window to spawn another terminal now. Just seems weird.

          I don't like the Mac-ish application toolbars, but now it just seems like total nonsense.

          There are other things I don't get or understand about Gnome... KDE is my preferred DE.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by eydee View Post
            As long as multiple editions are offered, the default DE makes little difference. However, something to consider: Ubuntu is often recommended by people for low-end hardware. And KDE is bloatware. People who just install default stuff without thinking will run into problems.
            Can you define bloatware? What sort of problems are you referring to? In terms of RAM usage a fresh install can be 400MB or less: https://www.reddit.com/r/kde/comment...de_is_bloated/

            Comment


            • #26
              Reason 11: The opportunity of working more closely with the KDE personality Mark deemed "threatened and insecure".

              Switch to pure GNOME (albeit perhaps with some extensions), switch to KDE, turn 180° and decide Unity is worth long-term continued investment, whatever. It's possible for Ubuntu's users to be equally served (or frustrated) by any number of solutions, and there exist Ubuntu flavors and remixes for those who prefer a different desktop out of the box.

              For a time, Kubuntu boasted a few sizeable deployments (I don't know if this is still the case), and KDE will likely still receive a fair bit of similar exposure in the future even if it doesn't become Ubuntu's default DE. There are probably some noteworthy non-Kubuntu KDE deployments out there as well. Granted, some Ubuntu users (most Ubuntu users?) will stick with the default Ubuntu DE regardless of what it is, but a portion of new Ubuntu users will continue to discover KDE if it isn't the default.

              Given that Mark has already spoken on the matter, I don't expect a change to KDE, although I suppose there is a very remote possibility.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by boxie View Post
                ... so - my question is: Why Not Both?
                Like Bluecurve? That's around the time I switched away from RedHat. It was an absolute mess.

                Comment


                • #28
                  KDE is a great desktop, and I'm saying that as a guy who uses GNOME primarily these days. But back in the KDE 4.5 to 4.6ish days, I considered it the best desktop environment in the world, on any operating system. It was that good.

                  But Plasma 5... Isn't the old story where the stability and everything is only just catching up? Every time I've tried it I've had issues anyway, and its Wayland support doesn't seem to be close to GNOME at the moment, correct me if I'm wrong.

                  Those suggesting Xfce though are dreaming... It's a great stable little desktop and has its place, but it's old and slowly developed (good for stability though of course and keeping predictable features) and man, would screen tearing be terrible!

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    I think Canonical is realizing there's no money in Linux desktops. Server is where Linux is king these days, and the competition there (RHEL and SLES) both use GNOME, so it makes sense to use the same if you're going for marketshare.

                    That said, I find GNOME 3 to be a horrible user experience, a clunky bizarre UI that has no place on a professional desktop. MATE is what I would have voted for.

                    I remember compiling KDE 1.x on a DEC Alpha in ~1998. Man that took forever. And it ran slow, at least on that machine, so I switched to Windowmaker instead. Good times.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      The icon font? That's like hooking up with your ex girlfriend because she got a haircut.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X