Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Mar 2009 18:43 UTC, submitted by elsewhere
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Any discussion about GNOME vs. KDE is sure to end in tears. It's basically impossible to discuss which of these two Free desktop environments is better than the other, mostly because they cater to different types of people, with different needs and expectatotions. As such, Bruce Byfield decided to look at the two platforms from a different perspective: if we consider their developmental processes, which of the two is most likely to be more successful in the coming years?
Thread beginning with comment 355898
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: ...
by _txf_ on Mon 30th Mar 2009 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
_txf_
Member since:
2008-03-17

even so...It would be great if there was a distro that had kde 1st class and gnome 2nd. There are plenty in the reverse (and yes, kubuntu doesn't count).

All distros that put effort and major support into kde all advertise that they are desktop env. agnostic. It may just be that the reality is that they need to support gnome to have any chance at things like enterprise, but still, it would be nice...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by mabhatter on Tue 31st Mar 2009 15:46 in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

even so...It would be great if there was a distro that had kde 1st class and gnome 2nd. There are plenty in the reverse (and yes, kubuntu doesn't count).

All distros that put effort and major support into kde all advertise that they are desktop env. agnostic. It may just be that the reality is that they need to support gnome to have any chance at things like enterprise, but still, it would be nice...


The historical problem is that QT was always licensed GPL or PAY on Linux with Mac and Win being only PAY. For Distros GTK and Gnome started off LGPL, allowing proprietary software to be written on any of the platforms, in fact Gnome was a direct result of the QT licensing.

Now that QT is licensed LGPL too, it should start picking up steam. I always felt KDE was more feature complete than Gnome, but Gnome did a better job with polish. Gnome is more consistent, but hard for users to modify outside the "sandbox" they give you. On the other hand KDE (at least the 3.x series) could be reconfigured to mimic whatever you wanted it to out-of-the-box. Windows, Mac, Gnome...

My biggest problem with KDE is that there was no "KDE" identity, no community (like Ubuntu is for Gnome) that made a good, distinctive design for laptop, netbook, & server and then enforced the HIG across all the "K" apps. All the distros I used only "rebranded" KDE to copy another OS... never giving it it's "OWN" feel, let alone between distros. Now that they've broken KDE4 badly from the past, and added the raw foundation for new and exciting tools that other OSes may not have yet, now is the time for a distro to step up and lead KDE someplace new... that's something missing from Linux distros in general though.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: ...
by superstoned on Wed 1st Apr 2009 08:30 in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Slackware, Mandriva, OpenSuse, PCLinuxOS, Ark Linux, Red Flag Linux, Pardux Linux, Alt Linux - besides Red Hat "the desktop is not important" and Ubuntu "We do marketing before anything else", KDE is still going strong. Asia, Russia, South America, Turkey and East Europe - 90% of the linux desktops you'll find there are KDE based. How about 50 million Brazil users in one deployment? The Russian school system will move to KDE desktops, the turkish government doesn't sponsor a KDE-only distro for nothing etc etc...

Reply Parent Score: 3