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?"
Thread beginning with comment 306074
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 2

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 Parent Score: 9

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 Parent 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 Parent Score: 3

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 Parent Score: 5

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 Parent Score: 3