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 306133
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

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 Parent 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 Parent Score: 3

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 Parent Score: 3

earlycj5 Member since:
2007-04-12

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

Reply Parent Score: 1