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

[John Hodrien]

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Anne Wilson wrote:

> 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 ;-)

I use gnome because it's good enough, and it's the default on the distro I
use.  If kde was the default I suspect I'd use that.  Since I use terminals
for most things it barely makes any difference what the desktop environment
is.

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

I still think the KDE is too configurable to be a windows replacement.
There's just waaaay too much that you can fiddle with.

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

I don't use either, and I don't think there's a great deal between them.
They're both pretty snappy, and they both look better than Windows Explorer.

>> 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.

Are they *that* resource hungry?  Nautilus is an optional part of gnome but
looking at my system:

  299m  27m  17m S    0  1.4   0:06.53 nautilus
  238m  19m  13m S    0  0.9   0:04.35 gnome-panel
  202m  11m 7344 S    0  0.6   0:00.96 gnome-power-man
  124m 9.9m 7752 S    0  0.5   0:36.54 metacity
  224m 9260 7236 S    0  0.5   0:00.48 trashapplet
  158m 8600 7024 S    0  0.4   0:00.78 eggcups
  160m 8276 6572 S    0  0.4   0:04.57 gnome-settings-
  147m 8100 6716 S    0  0.4   0:00.45 notification-ar
  153m 6560 5408 S    0  0.3   0:00.02 evolution-data-
  142m 5892 4684 S    0  0.3   0:00.51 gnome-volume-ma
  111m 5328 4088 S    0  0.3   0:03.40 gnome-screensav
  103m 4888 4068 S    0  0.2   0:01.33 pam-panel-icon
72092 4860 1856 S    0  0.2   0:00.94 gconfd-2
  100m 4252 3468 S    0  0.2   0:00.22 gnome-vfs-daemo
  105m 3648 3040 S    0  0.2   0:00.36 bluez-pin

They're not using any appreciable amount of CPU time, and in modern speak,
what's < 100Mb all in.

jh

-- 
"Rest in peace.  The mistake shall not be repeated."
                                   -- Inscription on the cenotaph at Hiroshima