[Wylug-help] What is the Gnome & KDE difference??

[Anne Wilson]

On Wednesday 29 March 2006 13:18, Yiannis Gatsoulis wrote:
> Quoting Anne Wilson <cannewilson at tiscali.co.uk> on Wed 29 Mar 2006 12:21:45 
BST:
>
> Hahaha ('geeky distros'), I am coming from a dos background. And I thought
> that unix people prefer runlevel 3 so no bother with graphical desktops.

Doesn't it depend on what you are doing at the time?  I almost always have a 
console open but I do many things in graphical applications.

> But I kind of I have to disagree with you... According to a few reviews and
> general recommendations the most friendly distros tend to be Ubuntu,
> Fedora, Suse and Mandrake. The first two default to Gnome while the latter
> two to KDE. Furthermore, you can also customise Gnome to the point that you
> want and look like windows... However, I agree with you that KDE behaves
> more like a windows desktop but this doesn't mean  that it is better or
> more user friendly...
>
I suspect that most people actually stick with the one they first became 
familiar with.  My first attempts at linux were with RH5.0, but since my 
printer was not supported and at that time I could not afford to swap it, I 
had to go away for a bit.  When I tried again it was with Mandrake 8.0 - kde 
based - and that's where I stayed.  I did try gnome once, but nautilus made 
me so nauseus that I never went back ;-)

> > For me, the configurability is the attraction.  I could have all the
> > eye-candy
> > I want, but mainly I choose not to, apart from a seasonal wallpaper.  I
> > do like the centralised control panel.
>
> I accept your opinion but for me the attraction lies on the configurability
> in terms of having everything I want and all the information that I want as
> fast as possible without any distractions... I also like the centralised
> control panel of KDE (or yast in suse, drake on mandrake) BUT gnome has
> moved towards that direction too in their few latest releases in terms of a
> single menu as I said in my previous email. 

True - I think the differences are much less than they used to be.

> The gnome philosophy is to have 
> different applications that do well one thing in contrast to have one for
> everything... although this is also changing when a feature is considered
> to be a vital bit of a program. For eg. check nautilus and konqueror as
> file browsers... konqueror gives me the impression and i thing has 10
> million options which in my case they distract me and i hardly use them...

Fine - you use what is useful to you.

> i prefer nautilus by miles (although i like the tabbed feature of
> konqueror).
>
I hated it.  But there you are - horses for courses :-)

> Just to say my last bit on that... I think both are great, user friendly
> and using heavy resources. There are other alternatives equally good and
> probably better in terms of performance... but 1) I can't be bothered right
> now to start working on a new environment. 2) I am quite happy with my
> system at the moment. So I have to agree with the general perception there
> is no point discussing which one is better... as long as it does the job
> it's just fine.
>
Exactly

Anne
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.wylug.org.uk/pipermail/wylug-help/attachments/20060329/b2109e81/attachment.bin