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 306320
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

You're arguing that gconftool is somehow slicker than cp .kde/share/config/whatever destination.

Absolutely. Try setting Suzzie's default home page, and make her pdf viewer default to full screen using cp.

Different strokes for different folks.

No. Necessary granularity and flexibility for the admin.

In fact, to be pedantic, if you're administering multiple clients, then KDE's Kiosk infrastructure is optimized for that,

Perhaps. But the DE needs to work for both the admin and the users. KDE might be great for me. But although I keep an eye on it, try out each new release, and respect some of the technology, it is nowhere near suitable for my users. And I would not subject them to it.

Edited 2008-03-23 18:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Kokopelli Member since:
2005-07-06


Absolutely. Try setting Suzzie's default home page, and make her pdf viewer default to full screen using cp.

sed is your friend assuming you want it only for one user. $I if you want it global.


No. Necessary granularity and flexibility for the admin.


familiarity perhaps but a entry in a config file is just as granular as a gconf value.

Perhaps. But the DE needs to work for both the admin and the users. KDE might be great for me. But although I keep an eye on it, try out each new release, and respect some of the technology, it is nowhere near suitable for my users. And I would not subject them to it.


I won't disagree with you since you know your users. For one thing converting from gnome to KDE would be traumatic and unnecessary. Assuming you were starting from the beginning though, without a trained user base, what features in gnome make it more suitable than KDE3 in the environment you run? I am not fighting for KDE here. KDE4 is utterly unsuitable for now and KDE3 is on the way out. I am just curious what the limitations you hit are. The one obvious distinction that comes to mind is Epiphany versus Konqueror. Konq is nice but also crash happy, especially if flash is involved. I also can understand the argument for gconftool, though I would say that it is a matter of familiarity more than granularity. What else?

Ah well, maybe we could revisit the subject in about 2-4 years after KDE4 has had a time to claw its way into the sunlight.

Reply Parent Score: 3

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

sed is your friend assuming you want it only for one user.

I hope that was intended as a joke. :-0
Sure, one could do it with sed. But why?

familiarity perhaps but a entry in a config file is just as granular as a gconf value.

I mentioned gconftool-2 because someone claimed that it took them 3 hours to configure a Gnome desktop, and I was recommending an easy way to record and load a configuration and make fine adjustments to one or more users' config all in one go. To save them that 3 hours per desktop that they were wasting, you see. And then someone else said you can do all that by copying config files around. That's where the granularity topic arose.

Assuming you were starting from the beginning though, without a trained user base, what features in gnome make it more suitable than KDE3 in the environment you run?

It's not so much limitations. It's the total disregard for usability and the fact the the devs seem totally oblivious, complacent, too busy playing with transparency, or whatever they are that causes them not to care about UI quality.

The one obvious distinction that comes to mind is Epiphany versus Konqueror. Konq is nice but also crash happy, especially if flash is involved.


Well, yes there is that. I've certainly seen too much of the KDE crash dialog. But my number one problem is sites that only work with IE. There are more of those in the realm of business related sites, like manufacturer warranty claim processing, than you see in everyday web surfing. It's a damned pain. The webmasters of these sites don't even listen. And Konqueror would be an absolute disaster. Even if I *were* going to set someone up with KDE, Konqueror would be dismissed out of hand. If KDE goes with WebKit, I would test and reevaluate. I've heard conflicting reports on the plans, or not, for that. And I'm not sure if it would be suitable or not.

I also can understand the argument for gconftool, though I would say that it is a matter of familiarity more than granularity.

See above. And I, personally, would not object to switching tools if it were to move to something that was better for my users. But that's really a side issue. (There have been quite a few side issues in this thread.) And besides, someone said that KDE has equivalent functionality in... I believe it was called kwriteconf.

Ah well, maybe we could revisit the subject in about 2-4 years after KDE4 has had a time to claw its way into the sunlight.

I've been a KDE advocate in the past. (From pre-1.0 through 2.x it was the best.) And I may well be again someday. But it's going to take more than fancy libraries to win me over.

Edited 2008-03-24 01:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2