GNOME or KDE....Decisions Decisions

Id like to take this time to mention some pros and cons about Gnome and KDE......You be the judge of which interface you prefer. Some Facts and prefrences.

KDE's interface is a bit more upbeat at present than GNOME, while GNOMEs embedded arhitecture is more efficient and extensible.

KDE is written in C++, and application developers are restricted to C++. GNOME uses CORBA technology, which enables GNOME applications to be written in any language for which there is a language binding.

GNOME uses GIMP ToolKit, or GTK, as a widget library. One of the great advantages of GTK is the use of themes to change the appearance of desktop display. KDE is more restricted on the look and feel of the desktop and applications.

KDE doesn't just build on a window manager to provide its services, it is the window manager as well. Beneath the surface, while Gnome applications use the GTK+ library to draw their user interface, KDE uses a library from Troll Tech Inc called Qt.

Because KDE was built on Trolltech's Qt GUI toolkit, at the time a closed-source program, developers and users from from the Free Software Foundation school of thought were dissappointed in KDE's inherently non-free nature. So GNOME was launched to join the other GNU software projects created purely under the GPL. In late 1998, Trolltech released Qt under a custom open source license, but its restrictions did no impress the GNU and GNOME crowd. Recently, Trolltech added GPL to the Qt license scheme, and the next major version of KDE is rebuilt on the GPL Qt system, putting it on equal legal footing with GNOME.

Both GNOME and KDE can be deployed on most Unix systems, as well as Linux and BSD. That flexibility is starting to bear fruit, particularly for GNOME. Sun has indicated its intention to ultimately replace CDE on Solaris with GNOME, and HP has been named as a possibilty to follow.

COMMENTS AND THOUGHTS WELCOME.....WHICH DO YOU PREFER?

I prefer GNOME because it LOOKS better than KDE. They are functionally the same. They are both bloatware, but I have the processing power and RAM, so why not enjoy it. At least they are bloatware that doesn't crash all the time (like some well known MS products) On my laptop, I prefer to use WindowMaker, or IceWM as they have a MUCH smaller footprint, and I only use X at all on it to test my web pages with Netscape. I use my laptop to do my web development at work. Just my two cents.

Happy Hacking

I prefer KDE as opposed to Gnome but I strongly feel as though Gnome is a better starting point for new users for the fact that it has a very strong Windows feel to it.

I've gone with GNOME, I think it's just a bit more stable and slightly less bloated. I preffer the look of GTK although it is becoming harder to tell what's what. I've just added my old monitor and an old grafics card so I can see whether all of this multihead stuff is worth the bother and WOW, I'm sat looking at the trendiest E16 desktop I've laid eyes on, I can't wait for version 17!

I wish someone could come up with a better interface than the old MAC desktop metaphor. It's not designed for the heavy loads of information we have access to nowdays. I have like 40 gigs of stuff on my disk, and broadband access to all the stuff in the world.... No way I can manage all that with the user interface of today. So even though I'm using Win, I have to say: neither.

There are people who have thought of other solutions. This is one of them:
http://www.acm.org/cacm/AUG96/antimac.htm

Quote:

---

I prefer KDE as opposed to Gnome but I strongly feel as though Gnome is a better starting point for new users for the fact that it has a very strong Windows feel to it.

---

Really? I would have said the same thing about KDE. They're basically the same, I just thnk GNOME looks better. JMHO, though and not trying to start a flame war.

Happy Hacking

I'm a Gnome person myself. I just switched over to Red Hat 7 on my main machine, and like most people switching to a non-mainstream OS, I'm having problems getting everything setup right, getting over compatibility issues, and just getting used to it. I find that it's a hell of a lot easier to get around these problems in Gnome, as it puts all the tools there for you. I think KDE is more for the typical user who wants to do word processing and e-mail, or just somebody who likes a prettier interface than Gnome provides. I still use KDE, but only when I'm just screwing around. Besides, I can access the KDE menu from a Gnome login anyway.



I also like it because Gnome is more fun to say than KDE. Try it. Gnome. Fun, isn't it? Gnome gnome gnome gnome gnome. :D

Who cares? You get to choose each time you log in anyway. Variety is the spice of life!

KDE!! KDE!!! KDE!!!

hehe i prefer KDE coz it has more toys than Gnome..

My default is Gnome (on my RedHat 7.1)

What about enlightenment? Or any other version?

Oh well, I am using gnome right now, but I am not to happy with it, so I will probably go to KDE at the first of the year.

I like 'm both..
but the new KDE 3.0 with the new QT is just great...
Fast, reliable, user friendly..
Gnome is more configurable... And I liked the enlightenment gizmo's but still I think KDE will win (in the end)..
Same as Mac/Microsoft, the ugly bastard won...

;) ;)

Sorry I screwed the version number... On this PC i sill have 2.2.1

I use Ximian GNOME. Which is Gnome and Sawfish.

As do i - its bloatware but its got a neat installer.

It runs faster than any WM i have used. I think I'll replace CDE on the sun machines with it

I use and like Gnome on RedHat 7.2.