Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Mar 2008 21:49 UTC
Editorial "I used KDE as my primary desktop from 1996 through 2006, when I installed the GNOME version of Ubuntu and found that I liked it better than the KDE desktop I'd faced every morning for so many years. Last January, I got a new Dell Latitude D630 laptop and decided to install Kubuntu on it, but within a few weeks, I went back to GNOME. Does this mean GNOME is now a better desktop than KDE, or just that I have become so accustomed to GNOME that it's hard for me to give it up?"
Order by: Score:
I'm in the same situation...
by Liquidator on Fri 21st Mar 2008 22:32 UTC
Liquidator
Member since:
2007-03-04

I've used KDE for 7 years and last year I switched to Gnome for several reasons. Everything in Gnome seems more polished, more simple, more straight-forward. I tried KDE4 earlier this year, and I like it less than the 3.x series so I've settled with Gnome for the time being.

Reply Score: 7

It's not just a window manager
by Dasher42 on Fri 21st Mar 2008 22:41 UTC
Dasher42
Member since:
2007-04-05

Were we just talking window manager plus applications, it would be a tougher decision. However, my desktop will look like this: multiple browser windows, a mail client, and about a dozen terminal logins grouped into tabs or screen sessions, a calendar, and an IM client.

As of now, KDE and OSX are the only environments that truly show UI consistency and common configurability between the typical applications. When you load up Gnome and then Firefox, and then put in a custom setting for Gnome for keyboard shortcuts or such, will Firefox adopt that change? No. Neither will any other application that is not fully compliant, and it is more common for Gnome users to use applications that are merely GTK-based.

KDE's kitchen-sink mentality does mean more code re-use and more consistent compliance with user preferences in the end. By the time I'm going full blast on my desktop, the shared resources and integration tends to give me a more consistent and responsive environment. The same goes for the Mac, and despite the initial superficial resemblance between Gnome and the Mac, with a little customization to KDE I find myself shifting gears much less switching between it and OSX.

KDE 4 is certainly gaining a cleaner look, and it looks like GTK 3.0 and future Gnome improvements will close these gaps, but my own individual preferences have been better served by KDE or OSX for years.

Reply Score: 9

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

When you load up Gnome and then Firefox, and then put in a custom setting for Gnome for keyboard shortcuts or such, will Firefox adopt that change?


Are you saying that Firefox will do that in KDE? Epiphany is Gnome's browser. I use Epiphany and it works just fine with any site that works with Firefox. Gmail... Google Apps... My online banking.

Konqueror is a no go with all three of those... and more. I'd rather have the sites work than the custom keyboard shortcuts, any day. But with Epiphany, I have both. :-)

Reply Score: 5

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

"When you load up Gnome and then Firefox, and then put in a custom setting for Gnome for keyboard shortcuts or such, will Firefox adopt that change?


Are you saying that Firefox will do that in KDE? Epiphany is Gnome's browser. I use Epiphany and it works just fine with any site that works with Firefox. Gmail... Google Apps... My online banking.

Konqueror is a no go with all three of those... and more. I'd rather have the sites work than the custom keyboard shortcuts, any day. But with Epiphany, I have both. :-)
"

And when Epiphany moves to webkit, watch that disappear... ;)

Reply Score: 4

miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

Epiphany won't move to Webkit, it will add Webkit backend. Gecko one isn't going anywhere and, for example, Ubuntu just renamed epiphany-browser package to epiphany-gecko.

Reply Score: 2

Hah
by primelight@live.com on Fri 21st Mar 2008 22:46 UTC
primelight@live.com
Member since:
2008-03-19

Text shell FTW

Reply Score: 0

What it means
by jaylaa on Fri 21st Mar 2008 22:53 UTC
jaylaa
Member since:
2006-01-17

is that you are a human who's preferences can't be predicted by a scorecard of features or styles in an OS, just like the rest of us.

But, oh well, here's to yet another KDE vs Gnome flame war where we all use our anecdotes and predilections to prove which one is better...

But before it turns into that I'd like to point out the best quote of the article:

Windows feels a lot more Linuxlike to me than Mac OS. In many ways it seems as if it's a slightly clumsy knockoff of KDE.

:D That's more like it! A KDE vs Windows flame war could actually be entertaining.

Reply Score: 4

Comfort is the key
by bosco_bearbank on Fri 21st Mar 2008 23:01 UTC
bosco_bearbank
Member since:
2005-10-12

No need for a GNOME vs. KDE flame-war, he's using the DE that he finds more comfortable. If I had to guess, I'd wager that 99% of us using FOSS on the desktop do the same. Now, as to the Ubuntu vs. Fedora debate, I do find that occasionally one will work better than the other with my hardware, so I use it until it breaks and/or the other catches up. My desktops pretty much look the same in both as they share a common home directory. And the winner is.. ME

Reply Score: 7

From GNOME to KDE and back
by WereCatf on Fri 21st Mar 2008 23:08 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

I have used GNOME for years, then I decided to try KDE on my laptop. I seriously tried to like it and I didn't even have any GNOME apps installed, I wanted to try all the KDE replacements. Yet, I just didn't like KDE. It is just so darn full of needless cruft.. Gazillion menu entries in every single app, right-clicking on anything brings up a similar menu.. Oh, and there's two things that actually started to bug me quite a lot: when I dragged a file from Konqueror window to desktop or vice versa, it always asked me what I want it to do. In GNOME it defaults to moving the file and copying it if the those two locations aren't under the same mount point. It just started to bug me. One other thing I would odd in KDE was that if I f.ex. wanted to open a PDF file stored on my file server Kpdf had to first copy the file to local filesystem before it could open it. All GNOME apps I had used opened all files without needing a local copy of them. This annoyed me quite a bit since my laptop doesn't have USB2 and the wireless connection is provided by a USB wireless stick..so the essential max. bandwidth is around 500kb/s.

All in all, I would have gotten used to KDE and might not have switched back were it for two things: the thing I mentioned about apps needing local copies of files, and most importantly all the needless cruft and non-polish :O

Reply Score: 11

RE: From GNOME to KDE and back
by leos on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 02:22 UTC in reply to "From GNOME to KDE and back"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

I have used GNOME for years, then I decided to try KDE on my laptop. I seriously tried to like it and I didn't even have any GNOME apps installed, I wanted to try all the KDE replacements. Yet, I just didn't like KDE. It is just so darn full of needless cruft..


What you call needless cruft, I call useful features... But to each his own.

One other thing I would odd in KDE was that if I f.ex. wanted to open a PDF file stored on my file server Kpdf had to first copy the file to local filesystem before it could open it. All GNOME apps I had used opened all files without needing a local copy of them.


That is strange, as in general every KDE application is completely network transparent, which means you don't need a local copy for most things.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: From GNOME to KDE and back
by thewolf on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 02:28 UTC in reply to "RE: From GNOME to KDE and back"
thewolf Member since:
2007-12-27

There lies the problem, the features are useful to you, but clutter to others. So the interface is logical to you but full of noise for other people.

Gnome, Firefox and many other programs have a simple solution: plugins.

Now you can hand pick what features are available and not be bothered by features cluttering up the interface that only a few people use, sometimes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: From GNOME to KDE and back
by siride on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 04:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: From GNOME to KDE and back"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

No, GNOME just removes features that idiot users wouldn't use and leaves the power users in the dust. This is not a solution. Yes, KDE 3.5 could have been a little bit cleaner with the menus, but at the end of the day, I can actually get work done in KDE and make efficient use of my desktop. The learning curve may be a little steeper (but for Windows users, KDE is actually more familiar than GNOME), but it's worth it. Also, with KDE, I don't feel like I'm using an 800x600 monitor because all GNOME apps make horrible use of screen real estate. KDE apps rarely have this problem and scale nicely to the resolution of my screen.

Reply Score: 9

RE[4]: From GNOME to KDE and back
by thewolf on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 05:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: From GNOME to KDE and back"
thewolf Member since:
2007-12-27

No, GNOME just removes features that idiot users wouldn't use and leaves the power users in the dust.

...

I can actually get work done in KDE and make efficient use of my desktop.


Because all Gnome users are idiots/can't get any work done. This is the same bullshit argument used by Vi and Emacs fanboys to convince people who use "lesser" editors to switch.

But why would I switch when the editor of my choice does the job perfectly with minimal fuss?

I guess that's the difference between KDE and Gnome.

Reply Score: 7

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Also, with KDE, I don't feel like I'm using an 800x600 monitor because all GNOME apps make horrible use of screen real estate. KDE apps rarely have this problem and scale nicely to the resolution of my screen.

I didn't notice any difference. Sure, KDE and GNOME apps looks different but atleast on my screen they all scale just fine.

No, GNOME just removes features that idiot users wouldn't use and leaves the power users in the dust. This is not a solution.

That is basically calling all GNOME users idiots -.- I am a power-user myself too, still, an interface with dozens of needless menus, buttons and all that distracts me and hinders my productivity, not boost it. I could also say that stuffing every possible feature in an app is not a solution..but that is an opinion, not a fact.

I found KDE useable, it has some good apps and many interesting features. One example of an app that I find a lot more useable than any GNOME alternatives is Kopete. But as I said, I find myself much more comfortable in a more polished environment. And the thing that many of those apps I tried needing a local copy of a file wouldn't be an issue on a faster connection but on this laptop is started to bother me real fast. Oh, and for some reason AmaroK doesn't allow me to add files to the library unless they are local (or atleast mounted on the local filesystem) which I found annoying. I have all my music on the file server just so that all machines can access it at all times without needing duplicate copies.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: From GNOME to KDE and back
by siride on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 15:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: From GNOME to KDE and back"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

I'm not calling them idiots. The philosophy of the GNOME developers seems to be "remove features that might be confusing to idiots". I have run up against so many walls in GNOME and it is very frustrating.

I have to agree with you on polish, though. GNOME definitely feels more polished, even though it also feels more simplistic and less featureful (and my God, will they ever may GTK+ make good use of screen real-estate?). I think KDE 4 is moving towards a cleaner interface, but it's so far from complete right now, which is unfortunate.

If we had a DE that had the features and integration of KDE, with the polish of GNOME, we'd be in business on the desktop. Right now, neither DE gets it right in both camps and that's a major problem.

Reply Score: 4

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

The philosophy of the GNOME developers seems to be "remove features that might be confusing to idiots". I have run up against so many walls in GNOME and it is very frustrating.

By and large, they were not removed. They were moved to gconf-editor. Not all features are worth cluttering up the user interface. If you have not looked at gconf-editor, you owe it to yourself to do so. Also, one other tip. If the feature you need is not immediately apparent in gconf-editor, don't hunt all over for the option you need:

gconftool-2 -R /

will give you a list of *all* the possible keys. grep for what you want. gconftool-2 can also apply setting changes, and so is a very powerful tool for administrators. A short script lets me quickly apply any setting change I desire to any user or group of users I choose, in just a few seconds.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: From GNOME to KDE and back
by _txf_ on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 17:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: From GNOME to KDE and back"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Gnome is a lot more polished than KDE 3.5 these days but that is hardly a fair statement seeing as you have to really compare gnome from 2 years ago to make it a fair assessment on polish.

I like gnome and kde both. But in the end I found that there were aspects to gnome that really annoyed me:

1) I use a laptop, so I have a relatively low res screen. GTK has so much empty unused space, the buttons are needlessly huge (at least of me). The worst example of this for me was the open/save dialog box which took up nearly my whole screen without doing anything particularly fancy. I'm not blind!!

2) users are Idiots mentality. Maybe some like the fact that there aren't more options i.e. it's cleaner. Sure it is cleaner, but in the same way a blank walls looks cleaner than a wall with posters on it. Gconf is not really a solution for this (not all apps expose useful features in it).

3) GTK is slow, not really a fair statement as qt3 is positively ancient, plus the fact that nvidia seems to refuse to acknowledge they have poor 2d acceleration leads to a less pleasant experience. after all kde 4 and Qt4 apps are slow for me (again gfx driver issues).

4) Nautilus sucks..long live Konqueror. Even Dolphin is more full featured

5) I find kwin to be a better window manager overall.

However I can live with the app crashes that occur frequently with kde and the general "roughness" of the kde desktop but others looking for things "that just work" should stay with gnome.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: From GNOME to KDE and back
by leos on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 00:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: From GNOME to KDE and back"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

By and large, they were not removed. They were moved to gconf-editor. Not all features are worth cluttering up the user interface. If you have not looked at gconf-editor, you owe it to yourself to do so. Also, one other tip. If the feature you need is not immediately apparent in gconf-editor, don't hunt all over for the option you need:

gconftool-2 -R /


Hmm, I don't really have time for that sort of thing. Having a quick look through some config dialogs I can handle, but gconf-editor is way more in-depth than I want to get just to figure out if I can change something, or if a particular feature exists. Yes, useful keys exist, but they are lumped in with lots of truly esoteric settings that really should never be changed, and differentiating between the two is not exactly my idea of fun.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: From GNOME to KDE and back
by gustl on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: From GNOME to KDE and back"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

I am a power-user myself too, still, an interface with dozens of needless menus, buttons and all that distracts me and hinders my productivity, not boost it. I could also say that stuffing every possible feature in an app is not a solution..but that is an opinion, not a fact.


Concerning cruft and bloat:
I was just doing a comparison of Konqueror and Iceweasel.

Iceweasel has 6 buttons:
- Back
- Forward
- Reload
- Stop
- Home

Konqueror has 13 buttons:
- Back
- Forward
- Up one level in directory hierarchy
- Home
- Reload
- Stop
- Print
- Search current page
- Increase font size
- Decrease font size
- Encryption indicator (is just in a different place in Iceweasel)
- Download Manager
- Clean URL bar

From the Konqueror buttons I almost never use:
- Print
- Download manager

From both browsers I never use:
- Home

That's 3 unused buttons in Konqueror, and no feature missing, and one unused button in Iceweasel and the following features missing which I use very often:
- Up one level in directory hierarchy (very good in FTP mode)
- Increase font size
- Decrease font size
- Clean URL bar

So for me, Iceweasel is a usability nightmare (just try to highlight a text URL and paste it into the URL bar of the browser, using UNIX-style copy-on-highlight and middle-mouse-paste). Tried it? Found out, that you have to select the text in the URL bar first, delete it, then highlight the new URL and middle-click in the URL bar? Now you understand, why I miss the "clean URL bar" button in Iceweasel.

Other people may have different needs, and for them the features I deem necessary would not be used anyway and are (rightly) seen as bloat.

I think it is nice to have the choice, and would hate to see the two desktops converge towards the same usability paradigms.

Reply Score: 3

earlycj5 Member since:
2007-04-12

Using a MySQL database on the remote server won't work?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: From GNOME to KDE and back
by leos on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 05:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: From GNOME to KDE and back"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Gnome, Firefox and many other programs have a simple solution: plugins.


Firefox has this solution, there I agree with you. Gnome does not. Since when do many Gnome applications have plugins? Can I add plugins to give me a global menu bar? Can I add a plugin to give me a better file dialog? Can I add a plugin to integrate all apps with a global spell checker? Gnome has a set of features and for the most part they can't be modified much. There certainly is nothing like the extension system that Firefox has.

Now you can hand pick what features are available and not be bothered by features cluttering up the interface that only a few people use, sometimes.


And 99% (PFTA statistic) of users will never be aware of what the software is capable of and not be able to take advantage of it. It's one solution, but it also has its downsides.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: From GNOME to KDE and back
by thewolf on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 05:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: From GNOME to KDE and back"
thewolf Member since:
2007-12-27

Sure not all of Gnome have plugins, but more and more programs do. You can add functionality to Gedit, Totem and Rhythembox through plugins, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more programs adopt this.

And besides that many applications DO have an integrated spell checker.

And what's wrong with the file dialog?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: From GNOME to KDE and back
by Morty on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 11:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: From GNOME to KDE and back"
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06


Gnome, Firefox and many other programs have a simple solution: plugins.


Sure not all of Gnome have plugins, but more and more programs do.


And it's such a simple solution that several KDE applications have had the ability for years, so stop writing nonsens.

Applications like Kopete, K3B, Digikam, Kate, Kdevlop, Amarok, KTorrent all uses plugins. And that's only applications I know of, there are more.

Konqueror has always been able to use plugins, thats since 2000, so it's not exactly a revolutionary concept foregin to the KDE developers.


And besides that many applications DO have an integrated spell checker.


If you compare many application to all text input fields, there are a slight difference :-)

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: From GNOME to KDE and back
by leos on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 20:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: From GNOME to KDE and back"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Sure not all of Gnome have plugins, but more and more programs do. You can add functionality to Gedit, Totem and Rhythembox through plugins, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more programs adopt this.


Ok... But individual plugins is not the same as an extension system like Firefox has. And plugins have existed in applications for ages, in all toolkits/desktops/OSes.

And besides that many applications DO have an integrated spell checker.


It's nicer to have a global one. Less code duplication, and I don't have to teach each spell checker the same new words.

And what's wrong with the file dialog?


It's slow, has broken autocomplete, you can't do many common file operations in it (like rename), and the location bar is unintuitively hidden (last time I checked).

Reply Score: 2

unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

[q]And what's wrong with the file dialog?[./q]

For one thing, it doesn't support .hidden files.
Files listed in a .hidden file should behave just like any other normal dot file.

For those of you that are not famillar with the .hidden feature in Nautilus, it makes it possible to hide files/folders in a folder by listing them in a file named .hidden.

This is would have been very useful to hide technical stuff like /etc, /dev, /proc, /boot,/usr, /lib, /bin, /sbin from non technical users like accountants and HR persons.

So, if you can have these files hidden in Nautilus, why not in file dialogs as well? After all the space to display them is much less in a file dialog than in a Nautilus window, and may even force the user to scrol and thereby slowing him down.

Reply Score: 2

superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

no, he's right, afaik the KIO systen in KDE 3 needs a local copy. Fixed in KDE 4 of course ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: From GNOME to KDE and back
by unoengborg on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 05:13 UTC in reply to "From GNOME to KDE and back"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh, and there's two things that actually started to bug me quite a lot: when I dragged a file from Konqueror window to desktop or vice versa, it always asked me what I want it to do.


Yes, this is really annoying. It breaks the natural workflow. Draging things from one point to another fits well in the Desktop metaphore, while linking and copying stretches the concept a bit. The menu that pops up have four items:

"Move Here"
"Copy Here"
"Link Here"
"Cancel"

Now consider this:

On most computer systems I have worked with, the number of links usually is around 1/1000 of all files in the system, and most of them are created by scripts.

Now ow many times do we actually want to cancel a drag operation when it have gon as far as we hold the file(s) over the drop target?

This means that two of the four menu items will be used very or even extremely seldom, while of the remaining two one ("Move Here"I most likely will dominate. E.g. consider sorting files from a digital camera into different folders depending on subject.

In other words every time we move a file we are asked what we want to do even though some of the alternatives are so much more probable than others.

Another thing, if you actually want to make a link, the "Link Here" behavior is completely hidden, i.e. the only way to find out that the functionality is there is to drag and drop a file. How would a blind person find this out, as the easiest way for him to move or copy files would be to use copy and paste from the ordinary konquere window menus.

The only environment that does this good is actually windows, here simple drags and drops can be performed with the left menu buttons, but if you hold down the right menu button and drag a file, you get a menu similar to that in KDE. Not to mention that in windows the the "Link Here" behavior is not hidden

It is also something that makes it stand out against most other desktop environments available, making a transition from e.g. windows to KDE harder.

This shoudl really be configurable in KDE, they can hardly argue that this would have resulted in too many optioions, as there are allready so many options for things that are far less groundbreaking differences in beheavior.

Not being able to configure this in konqueroer or dolphin is also inconsistent with KDE itself, as a similar menu exists in Kmail, where you actually can configure if you want the menu or not.

Even worse the problem remains in KDE4 and dolphin. In fact the problem gets worse. If you drag a file from a Konquerer or Dolphin window to the desktop a plasmoid is created on the desktop without any menu popping up as it do if you drag it to another konqeror or dolphin window.

Reply Score: 4

MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

The following is unfortunately all in the realm of "anecdotes and personal preferences" (as a previous poster put it), but as I can only speak for myself I don't know what else I could do.

In other words every time we move a file we are asked what we want to do even though some of the alternatives are so much more probable than others.

I use "link here" all the time. I can also be a spaz and realize I've dragged something over the wrong directory (never mind when I didn't actually mean to drag something in the first place). Being able to cancel is welcome.

Now from what I read about dragging with the middle mouse button in Gnome, they have a nice solution for that (one I didn't realize until now, despite using Gnome for a few months now). I'd be satisfied with that for linking, though I'm left with the question of visibility, given that I had no idea that option was there.

Even worse the problem remains in KDE4 and dolphin. In fact the problem gets worse. If you drag a file from a Konquerer or Dolphin window to the desktop a plasmoid is created on the desktop

The desktop in Plasma is broken (see my initial disclaimer).

Edited 2008-03-22 21:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06


Now from what I read about dragging with the middle mouse button in Gnome, they have a nice solution for that (one I didn't realize until now, despite using Gnome for a few months now). I'd be satisfied with that for linking, though I'm left with the question of visibility, given that I had no idea that option was there.


I totally agree! This is just as bad as the hidden "link here" menu item in KDE, in fact its even worse as it is assigned to the middle button, and many people doesnt have three button mice.

However the idea of just getting the menu, when you actually need it (just like in windows) is good.

What GNOME and KDE should do is to make it possible to create links from the application menu. E.g. they could introduce a "Paste Link" menu item in the edit menu so that people could use "Copy" and "Paste Link" actions to create links.

Naturally, Gnome could keep the current middle button drag menu as an extra short cut for powerusers with thre button mice. It is a very nice short cut for those who know about it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: From GNOME to KDE and back
by jollyx on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 08:40 UTC in reply to "From GNOME to KDE and back"
jollyx Member since:
2007-03-24

"In GNOME it defaults to moving the file and copying it if the those two locations aren't under the same mount point."

Guess what... that is exactly one of the things that annoy me in GNOME. I prefer to be asked what I want to do whit that file.

Reply Score: 5

monodeldiablo Member since:
2005-07-06

Then middle click + drag and stop whining. You'll get the same menu as KDE gives you by default, but only when you want it, not every time you attempt to copy a file.

The great myth perpetuated by you and others is that GNOME isn't configurable. The truth of the matter is that sane defaults are used and prominent, whilst geeky or rarely used functionality is left to the geek to track down. Power users and desktop tweakers will possess the knowledge (and let's face it, time) to hunt down the proper settings (typically in GConf).

I'm not in any particular "camp" regarding the Desktop Jihad, but uninformed arguments like yours do nothing to further the development of either platform. GNOME's file drag 'n' drop behavior is an excellent example of UI design for both geeks and mortals. If this is the great flaw of GNOME, we need more failures like it. If this is your argument in favor of KDE, I'll stick with WMII, thank you very much.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: From GNOME to KDE and back
by gustl on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 19:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: From GNOME to KDE and back"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Then middle click + drag and stop whining.


Middle-clicking onto a file is unintuitive to anyone who uses the middle mouse button to paste something. It would feel subconsciously like "overwrite the file with whatever is currently in the buffer".
I know this is illogical, but to me it feels like that.
In Windows I often move stuff when I wanted to copy it, but I admit that the popup menu of KDE can be annoying.

For the dumbed-down configuration dialog and the gconf editor:

It is unproductive.
Why?
Because configuring Gnome to my liking takes approximately 3 times longer than configuring KDE to my liking.
In KDE I can walk through the whole configuration dialogue within approximately two hours. I will find every thing I want to configure on this walktrough.
In Gnome it is a 5 minute walk through the dialogue, then a 3 hour search for other dialogues or hidden configuration options, only to find out that there are none. Then it is a horrible search through the gconf editor guessing which keyword does what, trying to change, see if the right keyword was changed, finding out that it was not the right keyword, try others which might be the right ones, and after 5 minutes we have the first of 20 necessary changes.

KDE shows that it need not be like that.
For Gnome maybe one simple button labeled "Expose all options" and a config tree similar in size as KDE's appears, would solve this issue.

I can accept simple and clean interfaces for the applications themselves, I agree that for applications less is more, as long as whatever is left is enough, and possibilities to add what is missing are available.
But for configuration dialogues more is more, because people should not spend time learning how to correctly set things up in gconf. A configuration dialogue is rarely opened, usually once or twice. For rarely used stuff the "no learning required" paradigm of graphical user interfaces have their biggest advantage over the "it's fast when you already know what to do" paradigm of a command line interface.
I think the Gnome usability guys were wrong when they decided to make Gnome configuration complicated.

Reply Score: 4

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

In Gnome it is a 5 minute walk through the dialogue, then a 3 hour search for other dialogues or hidden configuration options,


Want my advice? Well, I'll give it anyway. Normal users are going to be pretty happy with the defaults. So we're talking about using Gnome like a geek, here.[1] So I'll give you the straightforward geek advice. Run through the config process once, and for each change you make, add a gconftool-2 line to a script and save the script in a safe place. Next time you need to configure Gnome, just run the script. You'll be able to tweak Gnome to exactly the way you like it in five or ten seconds.

Out of curiosity, does KDE have such a facility?

---
[1] Why regular users are capable of getting real work done with the defaults, while geeks insist that they are unable to do so without tweaking the hell out of their desktops, I've never understood. To me, it suggests a certain rigidness of mind, an unwillingness to learn new procedures, and a penchant for painting the bicycle shed.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: From GNOME to KDE and back
by trs1 on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: From GNOME to KDE and back"
trs1 Member since:
2008-03-07

Out of curiosity, does KDE have such a facility?


Yes, one can use kwriteconfig for this. But I agree that the KDE3 (I didn't use 4 yet) defaults are suboptimal in a lot of ways.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: From GNOME to KDE and back
by leos on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 00:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: From GNOME to KDE and back"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Want my advice? Well, I'll give it anyway. Normal users are going to be pretty happy with the defaults.


Absolutely. Normal users are also perfectly happy with Windows.

So we're talking about using Gnome like a geek, here.[1]


Pretty much. Although even non-geeks do change the occasional setting. And you can't predict which setting that will be. Jensen Harris has a very insightful series of posts here: http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/tags/Why+the+New+UI_3F00_/def...
where he talks about the rationale for the Office 2007 interface redesign. Basically one of the very important points that he makes is that the whole breadth of features in office actually get used quite widely. Office has thousands of features, but they are all there due to customer demand. In other words, you can't remove features without negatively impacting someone, and you can't make simple software that will still work for a lot of people.

So I'll give you the straightforward geek advice. Run through the config process once, and for each change you make, add a gconftool-2 line to a script and save the script in a safe place.


Too much effort. I'm a geek, but not that much of a geek.

Out of curiosity, does KDE have such a facility?


I generally just copy the config files if I have to reinstall. Haven't bothered to find out if there's another way because that's about as easy as it gets.

[1] Why regular users are capable of getting real work done with the defaults, while geeks insist that they are unable to do so without tweaking the hell out of their desktops, I've never understood.


It's not that I can't get work done, it's that I feel more comfortable using the computer when it works as I like it to work. Realistically, if I didn't want to put effort into computing I would still be using Windows, which is absolutely the path of least resistance. But Windows forces me to adapt to how it thinks I should work, and since I've made the effort to switch to an operating system with more freedom, I am absolutely not prepared to enter the same situation. KDE lets me make my own choices about how I use my computer, while Gnome still gets in my way. I don't have the patience to put up with that when I know I don't have to.

Reply Score: 5

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Too much effort. I'm a geek, but not that much of a geek.
...
I generally just copy the config files if I have to reinstall. Haven't bothered to find out if there's another way because that's about as easy as it gets.


I administer about a hundred Linux desktops on XDMCP/NX servers. And believe me, copying around config files to change settings is *not* as easy as it gets. Not granular enough. I need more control and fine-grained configurability than that.

I use gconftool-2 scripts. But for larger chunks of config, I believe you can --dump particular branches of gconf to xml and then load them to various accounts. For example:

gconftool-2 --dump /apps/evolution > evolution.xml
gconftool-2 --load=evolution.xml

Or say you just wanted calendar settings:

gconftool-2 --dump /apps/evolution/calendar > calendar.xml

Copying around config files sounds like something out of the DOS dark ages.

Reply Score: 3

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

I administer about a hundred Linux desktops on XDMCP/NX servers. And believe me, copying around config files to change settings is *not* as easy as it gets. Not granular enough. I need more control and fine-grained configurability than that.

I use gconftool-2 scripts. But for larger chunks of config, I believe you can --dump particular branches of gconf to xml and then load them to various accounts. For example:

gconftool-2 --dump /apps/evolution > evolution.xml
gconftool-2 --load=evolution.xml

Or say you just wanted calendar settings:

gconftool-2 --dump /apps/evolution/calendar > calendar.xml

Copying around config files sounds like something out of the DOS dark ages.


You're arguing that gconftool is somehow slicker than cp .kde/share/config/whatever destination. Different strokes for different folks.

In fact, to be pedantic, if you're administering multiple clients, then KDE's Kiosk infrastructure is optimized for that, and has been for some time. That's why the config file structure is set up the way it is. It has a hierarchy that gives you the adminstrator granular control over the user setup, and application configurations, and the extent that they can change it.

I guess it's the difference between copying chunks of gfconf settings and pasting them into multiple accounts, or simply setting up one or more profiles and applying it to multiple accounts. Again, different strokes. ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: From GNOME to KDE and back
by leos on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 04:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: From GNOME to KDE and back"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

I administer about a hundred Linux desktops on XDMCP/NX servers. And believe me, copying around config files to change settings is *not* as easy as it gets. Not granular enough. I need more control and fine-grained configurability than that.


Fine, I'm not the right person to ask about KDE tools to support your need (I'm sure it can be done, but I'm not a systems administrator). We're talking home users here, not systems administrators.

Copying around config files sounds like something out of the DOS dark ages.


For a single user, it's way easier. You don't really expect a home user to bother to learn the syntax of some random config exporting tool do you? Most users will just setup their environment manually after a reinstall, and the next easiest thing is to copy config files (I just copy the whole .kde directory). A dedicated tool is more powerful, but no one but system admins would ever use it, so it's not really relevant to the discussion.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: From GNOME to KDE and back
by leos on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 20:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: From GNOME to KDE and back"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Then middle click + drag and stop whining. You'll get the same menu as KDE gives you by default, but only when you want it, not every time you attempt to copy a file.


Except I can't middle click drag on my laptop. Same goes for resizing windows. I think Gnome requires me to hold alt + middle button and drag to resize a window, which is impossible with a trackpad.

Reply Score: 4

RE: From GNOME to KDE and back
by marcusesq on Wed 26th Mar 2008 07:58 UTC in reply to "From GNOME to KDE and back"
marcusesq Member since:
2006-01-18

LOL... You've got to hand it to you gnome fanboys. You can turn any missing function into a "usability" advantage and actually believe it.
Worse, when KDE has a feature that gnome lacks like global spellchecking, well we'll just call that clutter.
You are totally owned.
Drag and drop functionality in gnome is just deranged.
How is a user to know how it works? What if you don't have a middle mouse button like 90% of laptops?
Gnome is an abomination.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: From GNOME to KDE and back
by kelvin on Wed 26th Mar 2008 08:07 UTC in reply to "RE: From GNOME to KDE and back"
kelvin Member since:
2005-07-06

Drag and drop functionality in gnome is just deranged.
How is a user to know how it works? What if you don't have a middle mouse button like 90% of laptops?

Just like on MSWindows, you can use the standard keyboard modifiers. Start a drag-n-drop and press shift to move, ctrl to copy, or alt to open a context menu.

Reply Score: 2

Challenge yourself
by porcel on Fri 21st Mar 2008 23:22 UTC
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

If anybody actually bothers to read the article, they will notice that Robin Miller's biggest issues were not kde-specific, but distribution specific.

Had he used Mandriva or Opensuse, most of his "KDE issues" would have vanished.

He does have a point: habits are hard to break and most people do not want to have to learn something new.

But I also have a point to make: breaking a habit is a liberating experience. Challenging yourself in any area in life to go beyond your cognitive laziness and explore new ways of doing things is very enriching and worthwhile.

For what is worth, KDE works for me, although I have used Gnome at times and been generally productive with it too.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Challenge yourself
by lemur2 on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 00:04 UTC in reply to "Challenge yourself"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If anybody actually bothers to read the article, they will notice that Robin Miller's biggest issues were not kde-specific, but distribution specific.

Had he used Mandriva or Opensuse, most of his "KDE issues" would have vanished.

He does have a point: habits are hard to break and most people do not want to have to learn something new.

But I also have a point to make: breaking a habit is a liberating experience. Challenging yourself in any area in life to go beyond your cognitive laziness and explore new ways of doing things is very enriching and worthwhile.

For what is worth, KDE works for me, although I have used Gnome at times and been generally productive with it too.


Concur with this. For usability, each has advantages & quirks.

In the future, once KDE 4 matures a bit, KDE will have the far more solid framework. KDE also has no mono dependencies, and KDE is licensed as GPL v3, so it has far less patent risk than GNOME.

For me, this means that KDE is the way to go of the future, without doubt.

Now if we could only convince Mozilla & Sun of that truth, so that Firefox & OpenOffice both gained better integration with the KDE desktop.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Challenge yourself
by thewolf on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 02:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Challenge yourself"
thewolf Member since:
2007-12-27

In the future, once KDE 4 matures a bit, KDE will have the far more solid framework. KDE also has no mono dependencies, and KDE is licensed as GPL v3, so it has far less patent risk than GNOME.


Except Gnome doesn't have Mono dependencies.

Stop spreading the FUD.

Edited 2008-03-22 02:24 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: Challenge yourself
by lemur2 on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 10:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Challenge yourself"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"In the future, once KDE 4 matures a bit, KDE will have the far more solid framework. KDE also has no mono dependencies, and KDE is licensed as GPL v3, so it has far less patent risk than GNOME.


Except Gnome doesn't have Mono dependencies.

Stop spreading the FUD.
"

A number of the desktop utilities that "go with GNOME" have mono dependencies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#Software_developed_with_Mono

Beagle, Banshee/Muine, FSpot & Tomboy notes are the main offenders.

Here is another good site to monitor for applications to avoid:
http://www.mono-project.com/Software

Beagle in particular will give a lot of GNOME-based desktops a dependency on mono.

Going with strigi (as used in KDE 4) would be a far better and safer choice.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Challenge yourself
by WereCatf on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Challenge yourself"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Beagle in particular will give a lot of GNOME-based desktops a dependency on mono.

GNOME does support tracker also, it is not dependant on Beagle. It's just merely the fact that distro providers usually choose Beagle for one or another reason. Blame the packagers instead ;)

GNOME desktop itself isn't dependant on Mono (thank God), and removing Mono doesn't remove any major functionality either. There's alternatives to all those Mono apps, like f.ex. I always use Rhythmbox, not going to touch Banshee/Muine.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Challenge yourself
by chemical_scum on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 22:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Challenge yourself"
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

GNOME does support tracker also, it is not dependant on Beagle. It's just merely the fact that distro providers usually choose Beagle for one or another reason. Blame the packagers instead ;)


Ubuntu Gutsy wisely uses Tracker rather than Beagle as as its default metadata database. However it is distributed with the Mono libraries and the F-Spot and Tomboy applications installed. Nice applications but hardly essential. No great loss to uninstall them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Challenge yourself
by thewolf on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 14:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Challenge yourself"
thewolf Member since:
2007-12-27

But I'm perfectly happy with Mono based software.

Having Mono around is a good thing because it means programs get developed quicker, and that there are more programs to choose from.

Sure, one day Microsoft might kick up a stink, but what does it matter when it's only non-trivial programs that are written using Mono? And besides, when Vala is ready you'll be able to port Mono programs to Gnome without having to worry about this.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Challenge yourself
by sbergman27 on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 14:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Challenge yourself"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Having Mono around is a good thing because it means programs get developed quicker, and that there are more programs to choose from

Is that true? Or is it propaganda? Beagle, a Novell project which uses Mono and had the indexing framework, the core of the project, handed to them on a silver platter in the form of Apache Lucene, which only had to be ported from jave, is currently being passed up by the small and unsponsored team of developers working on Tracker, and writing in C. Mono needs some actual evidence to back the "faster development" hype. And the current line-up of Mono apps does not provide that. Quite the contrary.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Challenge yourself
by leos on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 00:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Challenge yourself"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Sure, one day Microsoft might kick up a stink, but what does it matter when it's only non-trivial programs that are written using Mono?


I don't follow. If the programs written in Mono are non-trivial, wouldn't that make it worse if MS decided to make trouble?

And besides, when Vala is ready you'll be able to port Mono programs to Gnome without having to worry about this.


True, theoretically. But that's still a lot of effort. I don't think you'll see a lot of people porting Mono apps to Vala in a hurry.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Challenge yourself
by elsewhere on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 04:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Challenge yourself"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

In the future, once KDE 4 matures a bit, KDE will have the far more solid framework. KDE also has no mono dependencies, and KDE is licensed as GPL v3, so it has far less patent risk than GNOME.


Agree about KDE4's framework.

Disagree about the v3 thing, this has been beaten into the ground too many times. v2 and v3 have the same patent provisions, the only difference is that v3 uses about 10,000 extra words to clarify them in no uncertain terms.

And neither Gnome or KDE have mono dependencies, but they both have C# interfaces.

I prefer KDE too, but let's keep the arguments away from cliches and FUD... We can simply bask in the fact it's a better performing, superior framework with multi-platform capability... ;)

...this means that KDE is the way to go of the future, without doubt.


That, I can't argue with... ;)

Now if we could only convince Mozilla & Sun of that truth, so that Firefox & OpenOffice both gained better integration with the KDE desktop.


Firefox's integration with Gnome is weak at best, it uses it's own toolkit framework just as OOo does. And convincing Sun, who have their own vision of what a multi-platform application framework should be, to endorse Qt, which has an alternate vision for what a multi-platform application framework should be, won't happen any time too soon... ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Challenge yourself
by lemur2 on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 11:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Challenge yourself"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"In the future, once KDE 4 matures a bit, KDE will have the far more solid framework. KDE also has no mono dependencies, and KDE is licensed as GPL v3, so it has far less patent risk than GNOME.


Agree about KDE4's framework.

Disagree about the v3 thing, this has been beaten into the ground too many times. v2 and v3 have the same patent provisions, the only difference is that v3 uses about 10,000 extra words to clarify them in no uncertain terms.
"

The main difference is in Microsoft's apparent attitude to GPL software ... Microsoft seem to believe they can FUD about GPL v2 and they also believe they have found a "wedge" within v2 they can use to split up the FOSS community.

And neither Gnome or KDE have mono dependencies, but they both have C# interfaces.


Strictly, this is correct. However, on a KDE default install you could quite likely find no mono libraries at all, but on a GNOME desktop you would "take out" a number of desktop utilities if you removed mono libraries.

I prefer KDE too, but let's keep the arguments away from cliches and FUD... We can simply bask in the fact it's a better performing, superior framework with multi-platform capability... ;)


I however think it is valid enough to warn people that going with a GNOME desktop is more likely to see them end up in mono-derived hot water.

...this means that KDE is the way to go of the future, without doubt.


That, I can't argue with... ;)

"Now if we could only convince Mozilla & Sun of that truth, so that Firefox & OpenOffice both gained better integration with the KDE desktop.


Firefox's integration with Gnome is weak at best, it uses it's own toolkit framework just as OOo does. And convincing Sun, who have their own vision of what a multi-platform application framework should be, to endorse Qt, which has an alternate vision for what a multi-platform application framework should be, won't happen any time too soon... ;)
"

Herein lies a problem, then.

Would it be ethical and advantageous perhaps for KOffice 2 to fork some of the legacy input filters for MS Office from the OpenOffice codebase?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Challenge yourself
by elsewhere on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 04:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Challenge yourself"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Would it be ethical and advantageous perhaps for KOffice 2 to fork some of the legacy input filters for MS Office from the OpenOffice codebase?


It's a natural question, and it's come up in the past. Certainly it would be advantageous and would be within licensing guidelines. Ethical? I'll let the philosophers argue that point, other than to say I don't think it would be unethical.

But from what I gather, the devs have run into two core problems with the OOo2 source; first, it's somewhat of a spaghetti mess of code that is difficult to work with, some of it dating back a decade or more, and second, that the nature of the way OOo2 manages document formats is structurally different from KOffice, and would require a major refactoring (basically a re-write) in order to adopt the MSO compatibility. So they've looked at it, but determined it's not feasible.

This does suck, because I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. I vastly prefer KOffice to OOo2 because I find it much "lighter" and far better integrated with KDE, but yet the minimal MSO compatibility is a deal-breaker since I have no choice but to deal with MSO files at work. Yet OOo2 I find to be a very clunky and somewhat dated app to use, though with more useful functionality than KOffice. The worst part is that neither works well enough for what I need, so I'm stuck with VirtualBox and Office2003. Would that it was otherwise... ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Challenge yourself
by porcel on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 11:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Challenge yourself"
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

Well, both Koffice and OpenOffice 3 look very promising.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Challenge yourself
by WorknMan on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 00:05 UTC in reply to "Challenge yourself"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

If anybody actually bothers to read the article, they will notice that Robin Miller's biggest issues were not kde-specific, but distribution specific.

Haha, another one of those 'he was using the wrong' distro arguments. IMHO, if the type of distro you're using can determine whether or not you can use the GUI to properly configure your network options, there is a fundemental problem somewhere. And even if he switches to Mandriva (or whatever) and this stuff works, there's probably gonna be other stuff that doesn't work.

As for desktop environments..
I can see how global hotkeys might change between desktop environments, but I would think that once you set things like your networking options and default mail program, that stuff ought to just work no matter what desktop environment you're using.

Edited 2008-03-22 00:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

*Critical to keep both*
by RHCE07 on Fri 21st Mar 2008 23:34 UTC
RHCE07
Member since:
2007-12-08

The key factor is there is actually 3 choices for the Desktop Manager now.

That is what keeps everything on the cutting edge, competition from Gnome, KDE and XFCE.

Gnome has some nice apps, KDE has some I use at work on a daily basis and it is nice just to switch to KDE at work sometimes for a change of pace.

In the end, the user community wins because it allows the end_user to enjoy the benefits of both.

I am a Fedora/Red Hat advocate so Gnome or KDE is good for me.

Reply Score: 3

middle ground
by backdoc on Fri 21st Mar 2008 23:35 UTC
backdoc
Member since:
2006-01-14

Why choose? I use both. In fact, I use xfce and icewm from time to time. To me, it's like do I want to wear my red shirt or my blue shirt today?

Reply Score: 4

...
by Manuma on Fri 21st Mar 2008 23:58 UTC
Manuma
Member since:
2005-07-28

but within a few weeks, I went back to GNOME. Does this mean GNOME is now a better desktop than KDE?

Yes.

Reply Score: 0

Kubuntus fault
by kragil on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 01:04 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

This is just another example why Canonical should just really stop supporting Kubuntu in the half ass manner they do. People will compare it to Ubuntu and it just isnt as polished. If you want a polished KDE just look elsewhere.

Sad truth, but it is the truth.

Reply Score: 12

RE: Kubuntus fault
by Manuma on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 01:27 UTC in reply to "Kubuntus fault"
Manuma Member since:
2005-07-28

This is why KDE users should give up and stop whining about Kubuntu and use Mandrake or SUSE.

I've never seen a GNOME user complaining about the shitty suppor of Mandrake towards GNOME.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Kubuntus fault
by _txf_ on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 02:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Kubuntus fault"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Unfortunately kubuntu is one of the few high quality deb based KDE distros around (I should give sidux a go tho). I kinda dislike rpms but I hate openSUSEs packaging system everytime I try it I have to add external repos just to get things like non crippled ktorrent.

Inevitably the sheer amount of external repos leads to loads of packaging conficts. The dialog box that pop's up is just plain hideous. Not to mention zypper and yast are damn slow.

With mandriva I couldn't find 64 bit downloads without getting the dvd image...sigh...

Other than that I would say that SUSE and Mandriva are more polished than Kubuntu, but the packaging issue is a deal breaker for me.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Kubuntus fault
by sbergman27 on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 02:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Kubuntus fault"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

FWIW, you actually have another *buntu option. Install regular Ubuntu. And then instead of installing Kubuntu-desktop, install kde-base instead. (Or is it KDE desktop? Well, it's some kde metapackage that isn't kubuntu-desktop.) I know that some people prefer that. Last I tested, there was a *dramatic* difference in memory consumption and performance on lower memory machines. And, like I say, some people simply prefer it to going the Kubuntu route. I'm writing this from my Fedora 8 Gnome desktop. But I don't blame you for wanting to stick with apt. Package management under Fedora is excellent. But it's really hard to beat the polish of apt.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Kubuntus fault
by elsewhere on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 05:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Kubuntus fault"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Inevitably the sheer amount of external repos leads to loads of packaging conficts. The dialog box that pop's up is just plain hideous. Not to mention zypper and yast are damn slow.


Sheer amount? There's one external repo now, since the previous two merged into one as of 10.3. Anything else you could want is likely available in the build-service, which compiles packages against the various core versions of openSUSE, and automatically recompiles when a dependent package changes, specifically to bypass potential dependency issues. It is, frankly, a superior way of managing packages that the other distros are only starting to implement themselves. The only way to run into dependency issues is by mixing repos from different versions of openSUSE (which, sadly, people do), and the same thing will happen on any distro, dep or rpm. If you do happen to run into a dependency issue, it's a bug with the packaging that should be reported to the developers, as with any distro, deb or rpm.

If you want to complain about the the performance of Yast/zypper, that's fair enough, since even the devs have acknowledged it and reworked the backend for 11.0 specifically for (significant) performance improvements, but is it possible to have a discussion about deb vs rpm without falling into the long-extinct "dependency hell" issues? If you run into dependency issues on a modern system, it's a packaging error, and it's not like Ubuntu hasn't had similar issues with their hastily repackaged Debian debs in the past.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Kubuntus fault
by TheMonoTone on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 07:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Kubuntus fault"
TheMonoTone Member since:
2006-01-01

This just isn't true. In the combined ubuntu distros I actually have almost every library I need.

In the suse distros there's at least a half dozen missing. I'll even list them since you seem to be interested in fixing it.
bdb c++ bindings and headers for the version required by Ice
zeroc's Ice (all the bindings)
player/stage/gazebo
lame (yes that lame)

Actually, if opensuse had all those. I'd be using opensuse instead of shoddy kubuntu right now. Seriously. Ice has been sitting on the wanted list forever now though, and there's even a srpm available from them. Yet no one has bothered to modify it and fix it for opensuse. I would personally if I had the time and knowledge of rpm spec files (which seem pretty aweful).

Fix it please. And fix the crappy media playback situation as well. And the super long install times. And the zypper "I don't know what to do now" issues where it asks me, and I have no clue of course.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Kubuntus fault
by elsewhere on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 04:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Kubuntus fault"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Fix it please. And fix the crappy media playback situation as well. And the super long install times. And the zypper "I don't know what to do now" issues where it asks me, and I have no clue of course.


I won't argue against corner cases for packages that don't exist, particulary if you've opened a feature-request and the devs have ignored it.

Of course, if you were comfortable with .spec files (and there are both openSUSE howtos and irc-based packaging "days" for assistance), then you'd be able to put the package into the build-service yourself, for the availability of everyone. What better way to help contribute to the community?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Kubuntus fault
by _txf_ on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 14:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Kubuntus fault"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

I have never mixed different versions of repos. Nor would I call it dependency hell. Its just damn unfriendly, I can usually resolve these issued when that idiot box full of red and yellow highlights full of garbage text (incidentally zypper does the same but without the pretty colours) pops up telling me that there a conflict in packages that have been supplied by another repo. Its also fairly annoying that all the yast programs are separate.

Maybe I just like synaptic or adept and their speed too much. Searching for packages in adept is even faster than synaptic.

On the whole I would describe the apt system and the gui related tools in (k)ubuntu as being much more streamlined and more importantly easy for new users.

I will be watching for improvements in the future

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Kubuntus fault
by elsewhere on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 04:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Kubuntus fault"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

I have never mixed different versions of repos. Nor would I call it dependency hell. Its just damn unfriendly, I can usually resolve these issued when that idiot box full of red and yellow highlights full of garbage text (incidentally zypper does the same but without the pretty colours) pops up telling me that there a conflict in packages that have been supplied by another repo.


I keep hearing people imply dependency issues, yet they can never provide examples. If there are dependency issues, it's a bug in the packaging that the developers should be made aware of.

The other problem is reckless abandonment when it comes to adding repos from the build-service; some of them are clear in purpose, but adding sources from the experimental or developmental areas will result in conflicts, and that's by design, since those packages are often designed to replace core components.

As for the external repos, namely packman and guru, they are packaged specifically to not interfere with core packages. The only time a conflict will generally occur is if you try to update packages while having those sources disabled, which can cause conflicts since zypper can only resolve against the core packages that are obsoleted by the external repos.

I won't argue that dependency issues don't occur, in fact there is a common one with the KDE4 packages as the devs try and work on communal existence with KDE3, but I'd also say that in 9/10 cases where I've seen users run into dependency or unresolvable issues, it's because they've installed sources that should not really have been installed, so I'm admittedly cynical when I see blanket complaints about dependency issues. Particularly since I abuse my own system, with various OBS sources, and even intentionally mixing repos from stable and development, without running into the "frequent" dependency issues other people seem to with a standard config.

Its also fairly annoying that all the yast programs are separate.


Yast is a management infrastructure. Package management is one small part of what Yast provides. If Yast didn't separate the applications and functions, it would be a little cumbersome from a useability POV to have single application managing packages, security configuration, firewall settings, samba, apache, ssh, ftp, nfs, ldap, mail services, dns, dhcp, user management, sudo settings, network devices, audio hardware, display settings, bluetooth configuration, system updates, modem settings, isdn, pptp, desktop preferences, kernel settings, PCI settings, disk partitioning, LVM, bootmanager config, backups, harware profile management, and a few dozen other areas I have overlooked.

Yast is a complete environment, even with multiple programming interfaces, for supporting system management applications. Dismissing it because you don't like the package management is like dismissing Gnome because you don't like Nautilus or dismissing KDE because you don't like Konqueror. They're important components, but not solely representative of what the entire infrastructure can provide.

Maybe I just like synaptic or adept and their speed too much. Searching for packages in adept is even faster than synaptic.


.deb will always have an advantage there, since it's a package format that is basically proprietary to debian. It wasn't designed for non-Debian based systems, it doesn't have the file-based dependency system that rpm does (which frankly makes rpm a better "universal" solution that works without requiring an arbitrary set of packaging guidelines), so it doesn't have the same amount of meta-data to parse. I've used .deb on Ubuntu, and I won't deny it's "faster", but if RedHat and openSUSE decided on their own proprietary packaging formats specific to their own platforms, they'd have the same advantage.

On the whole I would describe the apt system and the gui related tools in (k)ubuntu as being much more streamlined and more importantly easy for new users.


This I won't argue, I'll be the first to admit that Yast package management could be a little more intuitive, and it's age is showing. But that is something they're looking at.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Kubuntus fault
by elsewhere on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 05:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Kubuntus fault"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

I've never seen a GNOME user complaining about the shitty suppor of Mandrake towards GNOME.


I never saw Mandrake pledge support for GNOME, and promise to make it a "first-class citizen", as Shuttleworth did for KDE. But of course that move followed the debacle over Novell maybe-or-maybe-not dropping KDE, and since they did an about face on that, he simply forgot about it. It's all about the marketing and generating blog points.

But I do agree with your point. Use the distro that has the best-implementation of the desktop you prefer. Riddell is an extremely talented and high-profile KDE dev, but there's only so much he can do for Ubuntu as a one-man team. If Ubuntu won't invest in KDE, then people should just move on, or make the effort to contribute themselves. Same holds true for distros that may not focus on Gnome, many other alternatives exist. Choice is a wonderful thing.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Kubuntus fault
by _txf_ on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 06:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Kubuntus fault"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Yup kubuntu is second class in the ubuntu world. I wish it were different, but what is interesting is that some estimates point at 30% of *ubuntu users are kubuntu users, which is a larger userbase than many kde dedicated distros.

There are alternatives that are better out of the box like Mandriva and openSUSE but we still stick with kubuntu even whilst we're abused by lack of support.

I wonder what makes us stick to kubuntu? is it cos of the ubuntu kool-aid? or is it because kde users generally are more advanced, hence more able fix problems?

For me personally, is that I guess I like debian but can't be bothered with it (bad I know) and ubuntu tweaked kernels usually work better for me. Another part I guess is a similar familiarity that keeps driving me back even when differences in distro workflow are negligible.

Would canonical bother if all kubuntu users mass migrated to other distributions?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Kubuntus fault
by de_wizze on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 03:35 UTC in reply to "Kubuntus fault"
de_wizze Member since:
2005-10-31

What I don't get is how come the KDE guys don't seem to offer more help with Kubuntu. I know back in the day and maybe even now that SuSE or FreeBSD were the reference Distro's for KDE. But I'm sure if they put a bit more support for the integration of KDE with Ubuntu then there would be a bit more positive feed back. It should be noted it is often cited that Kubuntu is not a well supported project.

Reply Score: 2

It's the applications
by dimosd on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 09:24 UTC
dimosd
Member since:
2006-02-10

I think someone should try the KDE and Gnome equivalent applications and find which ones he likes best.
e.g. K3B vs Gnome Baker, Gwenview vs. gthumb etc

Then pick the desktop environment he feels 70% comfortable with.

Comparing applications in features and ease of use is much more rational than comparing teams and tastes.

As for me... I usually prefer KDE applications although I run them from Gnome 8-)

Edited 2008-03-22 09:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: It's the applications
by bosco_bearbank on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 13:08 UTC in reply to "It's the applications"
bosco_bearbank Member since:
2005-10-12

I think someone should try the KDE and Gnome equivalent applications and find which ones he likes best.
e.g. K3B vs Gnome Baker, Gwenview vs. gthumb etc


I did. The winners are K3B and gthumb. And Firefox and OpenOffice.

Then pick the desktop environment he feels 70% comfortable with.


And the winner is... no DE.

Reply Score: 2

RE: It's the applications
by pinky on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 14:30 UTC in reply to "It's the applications"
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

>think someone should try the KDE and Gnome equivalent applications and find which ones he likes best.
e.g. K3B vs Gnome Baker...


i have done it and the winner was... no one!

For me CD/DVD burning apps are one of the big mistakes in the software world!

At the time the first CD recorder came up people started to ask "how do i use it" and the first reaction was "write a application". But in my eye this was a mistake. We don't have a special app to write to a floppy, we don't have a spcial app to write to a memory-stick, we don't have a special app to write to a memory-card, etc. So why should we have a special app to write to a CD/DVD?

Writing to a CD/DVD should be as normal as writing to any other storage. This means: burn files to a CD/DVD? Use the filemanager. Burn a Audio-CD? User your Jukebox. Burn a Video? Use your Video app. etc.

GNOME is going this way: You can burn your data right from nautilus without open an extra app and you can burn your music directly from rhythmbox without open an extra app.

Sure the current GNOME solution is far away from beeing complete and perfect. But i'm sure that's the right way to go. An extra app to burn CD/DVD is a basic design error. This should happen where the data are like for any other stoarge medium too.

Edited 2008-03-22 14:31 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: It's the applications
by Sophotect on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 17:04 UTC in reply to "RE: It's the applications"
Sophotect Member since:
2006-04-26
RE[2]: It's the applications
by leos on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 00:16 UTC in reply to "RE: It's the applications"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

At the time the first CD recorder came up people started to ask "how do i use it" and the first reaction was "write a application". But in my eye this was a mistake. We don't have a special app to write to a floppy, we don't have a spcial app to write to a memory-stick, we don't have a special app to write to a memory-card, etc. So why should we have a special app to write to a CD/DVD?


Because writing to a CD is more complicated than either a floppy, hard drive, or USB disk. Now I have no objection to integrating CD burning into a file manager, to allow people to put a couple files on a CD quickly, but that does not negate the need for a dedicated burning app. You still need to be able to burn CD images, you need to be able to set options like disk at once or similar, you need the ability to burn video discs, etc.

Writing to a CD/DVD should be as normal as writing to any other storage. This means: burn files to a CD/DVD? Use the filemanager. Burn a Audio-CD? User your Jukebox. Burn a Video? Use your Video app. etc.


Awesome. So now we need every application to be a jack of all trades. No thanks, I don't want my video player to be a burning program as well. Even if one video player had that capability, not all of them would, so you still need a burning app. I like my apps to be reasonably lightweight. I play music all day, and burn a CD maybe once a year. Definitely doesn't justify the extra bloat, both code and UI wise.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: It's the applications
by thewolf on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 02:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's the applications"
thewolf Member since:
2007-12-27

No you don't need every application to be the jack of all trades, you just need Nautilus.

Rhythmbox is a special case, and using it to burn a CD makes quite a lot of sense and cuts down on much of the fuss.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: It's the applications
by pinky on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 12:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's the applications"
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15


Because writing to a CD is more complicated than either a floppy, hard drive, or USB disk. Now I have no objection to integrating CD burning into a file manager, to allow people to put a couple files on a CD quickly, but that does not negate the need for a dedicated burning app. You still need to be able to burn CD images, you need to be able to set options like disk at once or similar, you need the ability to burn video discs, etc.


you don't need a special burning app...
burn a image? Right click on the image -> burn to CD; Done!
options? A small dialog which ask you the necessary questions.
video discs? As i said: Do it from the video-player or/and give the filemanager a special option where you can define Data-CD or Video-CD if only video files are in the "burn window".



Awesome. So now we need every application to be a jack of all trades.


No you just need one burning-library and use it from every app you need it. Like you have gstreamer, phone, etc. which you use from every app that needs e.g. sound support.

Edited 2008-03-23 12:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: It's the applications
by leos on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 16:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's the applications"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

No you just need one burning-library and use it from every app you need it. Like you have gstreamer, phone, etc. which you use from every app that needs e.g. sound support.


But you still need the UI for it, because CD burning is not as simple as writing to a rewriteable medium, where everything can be undone. So every media player has to think about how to integrate a cd burning UI into their interface. Do we want to burn audio discs, or do we just want to put mp3s on it? We need to expose the concept of "finalize" where the burning actually takes place. It all ads to a much more complicated UI than you need for writing a music file to a USB disk for example. Sure, some apps can integrate this stuff and become big music managing things, but a lot of apps have no need for it. I'd much rather have one dedicated app to do the burning for me, which I only load up once in a blue moon when I need it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: It's the applications
by WereCatf on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 18:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's the applications"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15


burn a image? Right click on the image -> burn to CD; Done!
options? A small dialog which ask you the necessary questions.
video discs? As i said: Do it from the video-player or/and give the filemanager a special option where you can define Data-CD or Video-CD if only video files are in the "burn window".


There a huge problem with your idea actually...Burning a video-cd is INHERENTLY much more complicated thing than just burning a few random files/folders to a CD, or writing the whole CD at once from premade data. First of all, there are different kinds of video-CD formats available, like VCD, SVCD, Movix etc.. Then about the input files: if they are not in the correct format the app would have to first convert them, if they are not the correct size they would have to be either cropped, stretched or add black bands around the picture. Then there's any subtitle streams, one might also want to add several audio streams on such a disc, and how about PAL vs NTSC? No, it would be just plain stupid to try to stuff all that into a file-manager app! A video-player app is not any better for that, video-players are for playing video, they are not meant for tweaking the video, adjusting it to NTSC/PAL standards, then converting it from one format to another..

No you just need one burning-library and use it from every app you need it. Like you have gstreamer, phone, etc. which you use from every app that needs e.g. sound support.

Mkisofs + cdrecord. Does that say anything to you? Well, that is an often used combination of standard tools for writing files on a writable CD or DVD. They can even burn image files too. But even they still need proper data to be submitted to them, so you'd still have to convert your video files somewhere to a proper format and to a proper disc layout. A cd-burning-library is not the right place for such stuff.

Reply Score: 3

Balance Between Gnome/KDE
by vermaden on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 14:23 UTC
vermaden
Member since:
2006-11-18

While there was KDE 3.x and Gnome 2.x available users generally were balanced between them with some small amount of people that wanted something more, like XFCE, Fluxbox or dozen of other solutions, but KDE 4.x broken this "market share".

KDE 4 is something like Vista of the UNIX world, its still alpha quality and do not bring any reasonable improvements beyond some useless eye-candy (rotating icons on desktop? please ...)

Reply Score: 2

KDE was in rewrite
by siki_miki on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 17:03 UTC
siki_miki
Member since:
2006-01-17

KDE3 was in maintenance mode lately (while Gnome was gaining more polish and new features). Of course this was because of KDE4, which will should start to shine later this year or next year.

Anyway, I use Gnome now, but I'm of the opinion, for example, that KDE has much better applications for playing music and burning CD/DVD's, as opposed to Gnome's too-simplistic apps for the same purpose. Menu in gnome also isn't the best designed piece of softwsre.0 I hope they have something better in the works.

OTOH, Gnome at the moment looks visually nicer and less cluttered (and I also dislike KDE3 icons, Oxygen is great though).

Reply Score: 2

Nice description of the Windows desktop
by gustl on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 18:05 UTC
gustl
Member since:
2006-01-19

I had a good laugh about this statement:

Windows feels a lot more Linuxlike to me than Mac OS. In many ways it seems as if it's a slightly clumsy knockoff of KDE

It very well summarizes my own feelings about the Windows desktop.
Windows would not need much to become a good desktop. Add virtual desktops, a decent shell which works better in the Windows environment than cygwin and a Filebrowser with the capabilities Konqueror has. I could increase my productivity to almost the level I can reach with KDE now.

Reply Score: 3

It depends on the user.
by Kokopelli on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 21:28 UTC
Kokopelli
Member since:
2005-07-06

Gnome is not intrinsically better than KDE, nor is KDE intrinsically better than Gnome. It really depends on the user, how he likes to work, and what he does.

For users who tend to stick with the defaults (voluntarily or due to corporate desktops), or only change things a little I would rank the DEs Gnome, XFCE, KDE. Gnome presents a usable desktop out of the box without risking overload from options. KDE can also present a usable desktop but it is not as visually appealing IMHO and does present more options to the user upfront. From a personal perspective I do not understand or see the argument that the menu options for KDE apps are too busy. I honestly do not find them at all confusing or cluttered. Enough other people on this board have made the comment though that I will accept it as a limitation. Kicker on the other hand can get outrageous if you install a lot of software and do not prune the menu. In contrast the Gnome menu seems to stay clean by not presenting the user with all installed options.

Conversely if you are a person who wants maximum control over appearance and behavior of your environment I would rank the DEs KDE, XFCE, Gnome. This is not to say that Gnome can not be changed around, or that the amount of changes allowed by Gnome are not enough to satisfy many users. What I am arguing is that KDE allows more options than Gnome. My situation is an example of a user who hit limitations in Gnome. First and foremeost I use a lot of keyboard shortcuts, some multi-key, and of late some even dependent on what window has focus. Gnome's ability to set hotkeys for application launching and macros are extremely limited compared to KDE. Short of installing a 3d party application I could not find a way to set global shortcuts for arbitrary applications, much less contextual shortcuts. Even then I could not find one with a friendly UI.

Next came another limitation. I like my desktop to be completely empty by default, no visible toolbars or icons. While Gnome could do this I was having a problem where even when hidden the panel was acting as a strut and apps would not take the whole screen. KDE on the other hand let me:
a) set the panel to not act as a strut even when visible,
b) only become visible when I hit a corner (versus side), and
c) set the panel to be visible for a timed setting once the mouse left the area.

Sure these are minor things but I spend a lot of time in front of my computers and the little things like this make a difference to me. Then there came windows options. I prefer for my windows function buttons to be on the left of the toolbar and the context menu on the right (similar to OS X). I could not figure out a way to do this in Gnome whereas in KDE it was quite simple. Then I narrowed the size of the menu bar, set transparency levels for certain programs, and so forth. Again the options might not matter to many but there are users who like to have this scope of configurability not only available, but apparent without searching.

In the end it really comes down to the user, his personality, and how he likes to operate on a computer. There is no right or wrong answer. The question should not be whether Gnome or KDE is better but which is better for how you use a computer.

On a side note: sbergman27. I would think KDE would be easier to administer for a XDMCP setup. Yes you can use a 2 line gconftool script to push down changes and that is nice. You can copy the corresponding config file for KDE in one line. For that matter in a shared setup you can specify some config options to be immutable at the system level and change it on one location for all users (while letting them change setthings that make sense to set for the individual.) You would need to know what config file controls what, but you had to learn what settings in gconftool controlled what at one time as well. This is not a dig or an attempt to refute your statements, merely my thoughts. On the other hand I have never tried maintaining such a configuration for a group of users before. There are probably some tools to help administer accounts in mass in Gnome that I have not used and do not have an equivalent in KDE, gconftool does not count though.

Edited 2008-03-23 21:31 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: It depends on the user.
by kelvin on Mon 24th Mar 2008 12:15 UTC in reply to "It depends on the user."
kelvin Member since:
2005-07-06

There are probably some tools to help administer accounts in mass in Gnome that I have not used and do not have an equivalent in KDE, gconftool does not count though.

This functionality has been built right into gconf from the very beginning, and you can use gconf-editor or gconftool to set any keys as default or mandatory (provided that you have write-access to /etc/gconf/).

Reply Score: 2

There are other options
by colonel crayon on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 23:05 UTC
colonel crayon
Member since:
2008-03-23

I don't use GNOME or KDE. Xfce is my favorite desktop for its lightweight power, and I am also a fan of Fluxbox. Why should I use a bloated and junky DE such as KDE or GNOME when there are better choices?

Reply Score: 1

I'm with this view - GNOME needs improvement
by lemur2 on Mon 24th Mar 2008 02:24 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

IMO, GNOME needs improvement, and it would be wise to drop the mono bits.

See one opinion here:

http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3736091_1

For the most part I concur, but my final conclusion is a bit different ... I would go with KDE 4 when it becomes a bit more mature, and give up on waiting forever for GNOME improvements.

Reply Score: 1

My experience.
by Old IT Guy on Mon 24th Mar 2008 23:57 UTC
Old IT Guy
Member since:
2007-05-01

Use Gnome all the time = now.
Used KDE when first learning linux.
Continue to download distros based on KDE and try them all out.
Never have been able to get comfortable with it.
Then I tried Ubuntu and based on Gnome really enjoyed it.
Oh well.
I still read about KDE developments, but I just can get around to using it. Something in my brain just fits better with the Gnome environment.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Summary of Mono's Danger to GNU/Linux and the Free Desktop :
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/03/24/mono-danger-to-linux/

Patent Alert: Is GNOME Growing a .NET Dependency? :
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/07/23/gnome-mono-dep/

Caveat: This material is admittedly from a biased source, but that bias in and of itself does not necessarily mean that the basic message is wrong.

See here: http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9900817-16.html

http://www.mono-project.com/GtkSharp

Edited 2008-03-25 09:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

As a test, install Fedora 7 using the defaults, then (post-install) try to remove the gtk-sharp and mono-core packages. Chaos ensues. It rips out half the system.

Doesn't that just mean that the packagers have done a poor job if you can't remove mono without messing up your GNOME installation >_< It's not the fault in GNOME itself!

It’s only a matter of time before the Gnome core libs will be mono dependant, I’d stake my life of that fact. I’m ready to ditch Gnome permanently.

Not going to happen. That would be a remarkably stupid move. And why would they even do that?

This guy seems to believe a raving lunatic here, and should choose his sources better. Tomboy is considered part of the GNOME desktop, but it is in no way a particularly important app and removing Mono will only make Tomboy defunct. It does not cripple the whole DE in any way.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Not going to happen. That would be a remarkably stupid move. And why would they even do that?


I haven't read all of these, and I repeat my earlier caveat that this comes from a biased source, but there is a potential "follow the money" reason why Novell & hence SLED in particular would want to see a mono dependency in the Linux desktop:

http://boycottnovell.com/2007/06/19/mono-moonlight/
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/06/24/moonlight-pet-project/
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/07/01/novell-sets-focus-on-net/
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/09/09/mono-patent-novell/
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/10/01/novell-mono-patent/
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/

Novell alone amongst the major players has a "patent covenant" from Microsoft for its Linux distribution.

Just as you can only get Windows from Microsoft, Novell would (apparently) very much like to make it so that you could only get (US legal) Linux from Novell. The major thrust for achieving this comes via the major push towards siverlight that Microsoft is undertaking at this time.

The hope is that in order to view online content, one would need siverlight (or moonlight on a Linux desktop). To get moonlight, one needs mono. Microsoft will claim mono as one of the technologies for which Microsoft owns patents (not siverlight itself, because they are trying to push THAT as a web standard and a cross-platform technology). The idea is that you will need mono on a Linux system in order to run moonlight or any of a number of programs that are written in .NET and are currently Windows-only but could be ported to Linux via mono.

This is all part of Microsoft "interoperability" push. To Microsoft, "interoperability" means other desktops using Microsoft proprietary interfaces (and paying a royalty to Microsoft), rather than Microsoft supporting open standards (such as ODF and Ogg Vorbis, etc).

... at least, that is the way that the theory and the FUD goes, anyway.

There is a logical consistency to this argument, and a strong correlation to Microsoft's tactical moves, that makes it carry more weight than just being a "lunatic rant".

Edited 2008-03-25 10:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I haven't read all of these, and I repeat my earlier caveat that this comes from a biased source, but there is a potential "follow the money" reason why Novell & hence SLED in particular would want to see a mono dependency in the Linux desktop:

Thanks for the links in your post, I got the laugh of the day ^^ <3 "”Therefore the core of Gnome is now Mono dependent, just as I predicted it would eventually become.“" written in biiig bold characters just so no one would miss the FUD ;) No, Yelp is not dependant on Mono :3 Yelp can be used just fine without having Mono installed ;) And I don't really understand all this fuss about them adding support for Beagle...It's there to make searching for files or words easier, and they support Tracker too nowadays.

Sure, Novell may wish for Mono to be widely adopted and even become a hard-dependancy for GNOME core. But it just won't happen. Not all GNOME developers work for Novell, and not all of them support Mono. If those developers were "fired" it would cause such an uproar and huge negative PR throughout any Linux-related website that Novell/GNOME wouldn't be able to hide it.

Beagle support I can understand, it is a handy utility. It was not chosen because of it being Mono-app, it was chosen because it works well. And even then it is a soft-dependendy, not a hard one. I just can't even imagine GNOME devs being so inherently stupid to somehow make the core libs or apps Mono dependant when it is still not clear if it is safe or not.

Reply Score: 2