geekhack
geekhack Community => Other Geeky Stuff => Topic started by: ch_123 on Mon, 22 March 2010, 17:56:17
-
When I started using Linux full time, I used KDE 3.5 which I found to be much nicer than the GNOME releases of the time. Like many others, I went off it after the disastorous KDE 4.0 release... But around January I got tired of GNOME and decided to retry KDE, which was at version 4.3 (now 4.4) and found it to be very stable, feature rich, and having very good apps that were tightly integrated with eacother. There's a great browser for it called Rekonq, which is still in the early beta stages, but is like a KDE version of Chrome. Over all, I find it a more polished experience than GNOME.
-
I'm really not a *nix user, but for the times when I do use Linux (Ubuntu and Fedora being the limits of my experience), I'll take KDE over GNOME any day.
GNOME I find looks too toylike, perhaps childish. KDE has a bit more of the "Windows Classic" thing going on*.
* Obviously my comparisons are based on what I know and like, which is the pre-Vista/7 Windows GUI. XP's Luna can be un-toyified with settings.
-
I started with KDE and stayed up to 3.5. By then I was looking for something different, and simpler. Hence the switch to Gnome. I have played with the latest KDE in Fedora, Kubuntu, Suse and Mint and it does look like they have come along way.
I still prefer Gnome though. Its stupid simple to use, has all of the cool bling that compiz has to offer and overall, it just works for me. No knock on KDE though. Its all personal pref and I am glad that linux users have the ability to make their own choices.
Lets not forget XFCE, OpenBox and the rest.
Being able to choose is a good thing.
-
KDE 4 has it's own inbuilt compiz equivalent. I had absolutely no luck getting Compiz running with Arch under GNOME (very odd given that I used to use Beryl with KDE 3.5 back in the day) so it's nice to have one fully built into the DE.
The simplicity thing is a subject of debate. GNOME users will tell you that KDE is over complicated. KDE users will tell you that GNOME is over-dumbed down. Awesome/Openbox users will say that it's a retard duel anyway, and they're probably right.
-
I was a heavy KDE user up until around Fedora 9 (used Fedora 9 too). At that point I was having to back-port too many packages to Fedora 8 (ATI Catalyst was being royally annoying, and not being released for the upgraded Xorg at the time).
Then I switched to Arch on a suggestion of a coworker, started using Awesome, and never looked back (mostly for the ease of rebuilding packages, and creating your own).
Gnome always irked me the wrong way. Always had to customize it a lot to get it the way I liked.
-
real men use awesome and openbox
or if your hardcore you use wmii
-
Lol, I really only switched from wmii to awesome for the painless multi monitor setup.
-
GNOME 4 Life !
-
e17 (enlightenment) is nice, but still in development
i was a kde user, but it's been 4/5 years i haven't used it, last time i tried (something like 4.2), i was a little lost and found it a bit heavy
-
I just spun up a box with mint running KDE4.something and it looks pretty. It doesn't seem heavy to me but I am running on it on a 2.8 dual core AMD with 4G of RAM.
It looks like windows vista to me.....
-
I like KDE 3.5 a lot, Gnome too. But after the KDE 4 bounced around I've developed hatred towards all DEs. KDE 4 is slow, bloated and unnecessarily massive. It's the Vista of KDE releases.
Me, I've always used Fluxbox for main WM. Recently I moved to XMonad which I find very, very satisfactory. Ion3 and Awesome both have issues Xmonad doesn't have. And if you're like me and don't like scripting Lua much, Xmonad with pure haskell configurations is the way to go. Haskell's so fun to use even though I couldn't tell every bit of syntax by heart. There are good guides to Xmonad around.
But quite honestly a traditional layered window manager such as Fluxbox or Openbox would fulfill my needs very well. But a full blown DE, never for me!
-
Yeah I used to use KDE, but switched after 3.something. Not really for any reason except I that wanted to try Gnome. Then by the time I decided to switch back KDE had turned to crap.
So now I use Gnome primarily, and I'm going to be setting up my netbook with FLWM.
-
For the longest time, I carted around the last source code release of FVWM v.1 because I had it customized the way I liked it and didn't want to change (this was back in the 90's). I used enlightenment for a while (which has been "in development" for decades now) and then settled on some minimalist WM's when I ran gentoo exclusively. I use gnome quite a bit now simply because I've standardized on Ubuntu for my desktop installs...but I do play with KDE now and again and have been impressed.
-
Is KDE or Gnome the default UI on Fedora core?
-
Is KDE or Gnome the default UI on Fedora core?
Should be KDE (I found it was, I dunno if they vary it from build to build though?)
-
Is KDE or Gnome the default UI on Fedora core?
GNOME
and get with the times man - they got rid of the 'core' bit about 7 releases ago!
-
GNOME
and get with the times man - they got rid of the 'core' bit about 7 releases ago!
Hmmmmm.
I'll have to consult with my Linux I professor and find out why ours is KDE (may very well be his preference, he set up the VM he gave us all).
-
It's easy to install one over the other, it's just that (afaik) a completely default install will give GNOME.
Which version of KDE is it running? KDE 3.5 was far more reliable than GNOME if memory serves me right.
-
and get with the times man - they got rid of the 'core' bit about 7 releases ago!
Maybe I should change my name to RedHat, and complain whenever anyone posts about a Linux more modern than RHEL 3, which predates the whole Fedora CORE thang. Nah, too much effort. Microsoft Windows knows I love him.
--
I've always used the default UI installed by Red Hat, be it KDE or GNOME. I never got any motivation to explore the alternate default (nor to download others).
-
It's easy to install one over the other, it's just that (afaik) a completely default install will give GNOME.
Which version of KDE is it running? KDE 3.5 was far more reliable than GNOME if memory serves me right.
I don't have it in front of me and can't be bothered to install VMware presently...will try to get back to you next time I've got access to it.
Edit: I'm a dumbass (or gullible, or something like that). I was told we were using KDE, but a quick Googling proves it's GNOME.
This completely changes my opinion of GNOME based on my previous experiences with it, because I really like what we work with in class.
This means I've probably never actually used KDE...
-
Gnomes always been the default in Fedora. Though their KDE support has been very good (haven't tried since 10 mind you).
Minus the buggy mess of KDE that was in Fedora 9 (eventually fixed up by the end of its life by package updates), the KDE support in Fedora has been very good.
-
Now where's my explosives.
>[/YOUTUBE]
Had a friend in high school who made a flamethrower out of a super soaker. And what did he do with it, you ask? Destroyed garden gnomes of course (not his, that would be too expensive).
-
I currently use Gnome too (Compiz and Emerald... Yummy... got to use the power available from my box for something).
I used KDE for quite some time when using Mandrake though. I think I stopped around V2ish. Not tried it since, since Gnome does everything I want. Playing around with Gentoo, I have tried a few others, but I find that my box is more than fast enough to run Gnome with all the eye-candy, so why not?
Arch is next, and I will mnake Gnome/Compiz/Emerald work with it, or it gets zapped straight off the box.
-
I tried to get Compiz working with GNOME under Arch and it failed for some reason... There's probably some setting somewhere or other that I didnt configure properly, but I wasn't sufficiently interested to go hunting it down.
KDE has the advantage of having a Compiz-style compositing manager built in.
-
InSanCen, Arch has very good KDE support (kdemod for the specialized version rather than the vanilla kde) if you looking to try it out.
I'm sure Gnome and everything will work fine though. Just read up the wiki first.
Your avatar is awesome btw.
-
InSanCen, Arch has very good KDE support (kdemod for the specialized version rather than the vanilla kde) if you looking to try it out.
I'm sure Gnome and everything will work fine though. Just read up the wiki first.
Your avatar is awesome btw.
Cheers... am taking some other shots, having just scored some extension tubes to get a better shot. That one is mucho blurry.
I'll be having a play on sunday (I get some downtime to wipe a partition and install it), so we'll see how it goes. Assuming KDE can do what Gnome/Compiz/Emerald can do, then it'll all be good, and it can have a spot on the HD, at least temporarily. The only thing I am not looking forward to is Grub 2 (UGH!).
-
If you're talking about Arch, it still uses GRUB1 by default.
-
Lol
-
If you're talking about Arch, it still uses GRUB1 by default.
Good... I am quite happy editing GRUB1 to boot various partitions, but I hate GRUB2 with a passion. NEedless to say, it got replaced once Ubuntu was on the system.