Why is gnome better? RE: [Sussex] Promoting SLUG

[Steve Dobson]

John (Geoff)

I've snipped those points were I have nothing to add.

On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 04:44:36PM +0100, Geoff Teale wrote:
> 1. GNOME is IMHO generally prettier and more professional looking than 
> KDE out of the box (both can be changed significantly with themes and 
> layout work, but nothig will stop the KDE panel looking like it was 
> built out of Duplo).  Generally speaking the default look of GNOME is 
> much more business like and uncluttered than KDE.

I don't agree that KDE is "less business like" than Gnome - it is different.

I don't like the Window's GUI because it is based on a different set of 
assumptions that X (so is the MAC).  There is always a resistance to change.
 
> 8. Emacs is a native Gtk2 app and the world is so much better when your 
> editor and desktop environment respect each others key bindings.

This is the biggy.  Key bindings are so important to someone who would rather
not take his hand off the keyboard and move it to the mouse.

A few years back I was developing device drivers for Solaris -- this required
that I spend a lot of time in the Open Boot Prompt (OBP - Sun's version of the
BIOS).  Surprise, surprise it had a command line interface.  [You can get CLI
interfaces for BIOSs too - the Serial BIOS on the SOEKRIS boards work this
way.] Sun had encoded some of the emacs commands into the OBP to allow editing
of the commands in the history buffer.

I learnt the OBP edit commands - it made sense.  Because I had learnt the
OBP commands learning Emacs made sense too, so I did.  As a result I am now
happy using both [X]Emacs & vi.  (I still prefer vi to vim; it's that change
thing again.)

This is my long winded way of making my point.  You probably prefer KDE
because you are more use to it.  And that's the only reason.  I prefer 
Gnome, as Geoff says, because it is closer to the other tools I use on a 
daily basis.

Steve D