Hey guys, calm down I didn't want to flood this thread... I was just joking with my post. I have nothing againts GNOME and I'm happy it exists.
KDE and generally speaking QT may be technically more advanced, but who cares? We all love freedom don't we?
Let's all say it: W GNOME, W KDE, W GTK and W QT. And most importantly, W GPL!
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Fedora 11 Preview
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by val-gaav View PostNepomuk is not at all KDE specific yet gnome guys refuse to use it. That's a fact.
Update: Since there seems to be some confusion: This blog discusses the Xesam ontology, not the desktop search API! For a long time now we had two desktop ontologies trying to solve the same proble…
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by susikala View PostThis is hardly a good answer. One shouldn't be forced to change their distro of choice just because some desktop environment allegedly doesn't work with it well. One of the reasons I use Linux is flexibility.
What I'm trying to say is that I'm sure that in comparison, GNOME is faster to load and use on Arch Linux too. If anyone prove me wrong, then I take back my accusations.
There are other considerations, too. Qt is partly proprietary, and it just gives you a crappy feeling to use something backed by a large company. Well, gives me.
And Opera (/Qt stuff) looks shit on GNOME. Which is one of the main reasons I don't use it.
If anything QT apps since a while look exactly the same on your GNOME desktop as your gtk+ apps... even file dialogs and the Cancel| OK buttons.
The other way around though you cannot get as great integration of gtk+ apps under KDE, and when I asked GTK+ devs about it they basicly said "Code it yourself" ... If anything that was the most unfriendly contact with devs I ever had.Last edited by val-gaav; 29 April 2009, 09:16 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by kraftman View PostKDE maybe bloated in Kubuntu, because there are some scripts which make it sluggish. Try KDE in Arch Linux it's way faster.
That said, the latest distrowatch issue did quite prove XFCE runs much faster on Debian than on Xubuntu, but that is mainly due to all the bloat *ubuntu puts in. Again, distro-related thingy.
What I'm trying to say is that I'm sure that in comparison, GNOME is faster to load and use on Arch Linux too. If anyone prove me wrong, then I take back my accusations.
There are other considerations, too. Qt is partly proprietary, and it just gives you a crappy feeling to use something backed by a large company. Well, gives me.
And Opera (/Qt stuff) looks shit on GNOME. Which is one of the main reasons I don't use it.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by greg View PostGNOME doesn't reinvent the wheel -- KDE's components simply are too KDE-specific to be useful outside of the KDE/Qt world.
BTW just because GNOME devs refuse to use Qt4 doesn't mean they are not reinventing the wheel for technologies such as plasma. They are because they are going to do exactly the same but in GTK+.Last edited by val-gaav; 29 April 2009, 08:07 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
As I can see from screenshots, you've used your laptop for fedora preview installation.
Since your laptop has a similar graphics card to mine (Mobility Radeon X1400 and mine is X1600), what was the graphics 3D performance? And even more important: how long was the battery life?
Leave a comment:
-
GNOME doesn't reinvent the wheel -- KDE's components simply are too KDE-specific to be useful outside of the KDE/Qt world.
And Clutter and Desktop compositing are two things you can't compare.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by greg View PostBTW: In fact, much of the software that makes using a Unix desktop worthwile and is also used by KDE (D-Bus, HAL, network-manager, *Kit) is more or less from the GNOME camp. I don't have anything against KDE, but it's not as innovative as the hype makes it out be, and GNOME sure isn't "obsolete". Stop trolling.
Gnomeshell = plasma
Changing the way we access documents (via a journal, like GNOME Zeitgeist): having to deal with a filesystem in their daily work is not what makes users happy -- on the contrary, they generally just want to access their documents and not to browse their hard disk. Providing new solutions to this problem (using timelines, tags, bookmarks, etc.)
=
NEPOMUK
Some obvious examples are 3D effects (with Clutter) = KDE4 has compositing and 3d efects in kwin too ...
Geoclue = Marble
So the difference here is that KDE uses already existent code (D-Bus, HAL, network-manager, *Kit) and have nothing against it if it's a good technology. Gnome guys will reinvent the wheel in places where KDE already has a stable and ready technology ? Maybe they just have allergy to anything with Q or K in name or from that camp ?Last edited by val-gaav; 29 April 2009, 06:59 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by greg View PostBTW: In fact, much of the software that makes using a Unix desktop worthwile and is also used by KDE (D-Bus, HAL, network-manager, *Kit) is more or less from the GNOME camp. I don't have anything against KDE, but it's not as innovative as the hype makes it out be, and GNOME sure isn't "obsolete". Stop trolling.
A few weeks ago, Jack Wallen published a comparison of recent GNOME and KDE releases in which he claims that the desktop flame wars in GNU/Linux were about to
If KDE 4 isn't innovative Gnome isn't at all. Btw. Firefox, GIMP (not sure about this one), Thunderbird, OpenOffice aren't Gnome.
@Susikala
KDE maybe bloated in Kubuntu, because there are some scripts which make it sluggish. Try KDE in Arch Linux it's way faster.
Last edited by kraftman; 29 April 2009, 06:45 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by kraftman View PostWe'll see how things will look in the future, because Gnome is full of old and legacy crap. KDE guys have clean path to improve their DE thanks to new KDE 4 which is written from scratch (I suppose).
BTW: In fact, much of the software that makes using a Unix desktop worthwile and is also used by KDE (D-Bus, HAL, network-manager, *Kit) is more or less from the GNOME camp. I don't have anything against KDE, but it's not as innovative as the hype makes it out be, and GNOME sure isn't "obsolete". Stop trolling.Last edited by greg; 29 April 2009, 05:38 AM.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: