Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Apr 2011 17:50 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Gnome The day is finally here, the day that the GNOME team releases GNOME 3.0, the first major revision of the GNOME project since 2002. Little of GNOME 2.x is left in GNOME 3.0, and as such, you could call it GNOME's KDE4. We're living in fortunate times, what, with two wildly divergent open source desktops.
Thread beginning with comment 469414
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Alternative other than KDE
by lemur2 on Thu 7th Apr 2011 04:39 UTC in reply to "Looks like a parody of the desktop"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

If I saw the youtube preview without knowing I honestly would have thought it was a parody of the desktop. I think Linux distros should go for speed and build around OpenBox. Going after Windows or OS X users is a waste of time. The Linux desktop is too far behind in usability.


Say what? The KDE 4.6 desktop on suitable hardware is the best desktop out there. It is eminently useable, and ahead of Windows or OSX.

But I would actually rather leave a new user with OpenBox than Gnome 3. G3 is a case of engineers designing a desktop without any feedback from average users. The KDE team should send Gnome a cake to thank them for driving users away.


For anyone thinking along these lines and yet wishing to stay GNOME 2.x-like (rather than migrate to KDE/Qt), then might I suggest Linux Mint Debian Edition?

http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1725
"With KDE 4 and Gnome 3 bringing drastic changes to their environments, and with the emergence of Fluxbox and LXDE on the lightweight scene, Xfce represents a nice alternative for PC desktop users who are looking for a light yet full-featured desktop solution. Its relevance is becoming more significant and this is another reason for us to support it in both 32-bit and 64-bit and to give it a mainstream software selection."

This is an Xfce desktop system (gtk-based) built on the Debian testing rolling distribution. It would appear that the RAM use is quite modest (between 128MB and 256MB), depending on how many applications are loaded, as opposed to 800MB for GNOME 3.0 or about 600MB for KDE 4.6.

Edited 2011-04-07 04:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Alternative other than KDE
by WereCatf on Thu 7th Apr 2011 06:01 in reply to "Alternative other than KDE"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Say what? The KDE 4.6 desktop on suitable hardware is the best desktop out there. It is eminently useable, and ahead of Windows or OSX.


That is an opinion, not a fact. Every single time I've tried KDE4.x I've either had the panel go in endless crash-loop, KWM crashing, the whole desktop going unresponsive or similar stuff. It has every single time been REALLY unstable, even 4.6 which I just recently tried! Such unstability doesn't quite make it "best" in my opinion.

Reply Parent Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Say what? The KDE 4.6 desktop on suitable hardware is the best desktop out there. It is eminently useable, and ahead of Windows or OSX.
That is an opinion, not a fact. Every single time I've tried KDE4.x I've either had the panel go in endless crash-loop, KWM crashing, the whole desktop going unresponsive or similar stuff. It has every single time been REALLY unstable, even 4.6 which I just recently tried! Such unstability doesn't quite make it "best" in my opinion. "

Very strange indeed. I've never had any kind of a problem with stability of KDE, (except minor flakiness for KDE 4.0), even with compositing on. This is my experience across a number of different machines (ordinary desktops, laptops and netbooks, ATI, VIA and nVidia, Intel and AMD, a whole range of clock speeds) a whole range of KDE distributions (OpenSuse, Kanotix, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, MEPIS, Sabayon, Arch and Kubuntu), and a range of KDE 3.x and KDE 4.x releases.

I can't say the same for Windows, for example. I have never had a Windows installation last for more than a few years before the person who was using it came back to me and asked me if I could fix it. Again.

So this is not just my opinion, it is my experience.

PS: I haven't seen any instability in GNOME, either, BTW, it is just that the KDE applications are IMO generally better than the GNOME equivalents.

Edited 2011-04-07 06:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Phucked Member since:
2008-09-24

"Say what? The KDE 4.6 desktop on suitable hardware is the best desktop out there. It is eminently useable, and ahead of Windows or OSX.


That is an opinion, not a fact. Every single time I've tried KDE4.x I've either had the panel go in endless crash-loop, KWM crashing, the whole desktop going unresponsive or similar stuff. It has every single time been REALLY unstable, even 4.6 which I just recently tried! Such unstability doesn't quite make it "best" in my opinion.
"

Wow that has never happen to me since the KDE 4.0-.4.1 days, using KDE 4.4.3 and its been really stable, more so than windows 7 64-bit. Even with those flaky fglrx drivers. Of course this could be do the fact that I use KDE under Slackware....

Reply Parent Score: 3

roverrobot Member since:
2006-07-23

Every single time I've tried KDE4.x I've either had the panel go in endless crash-loop, KWM crashing, the whole desktop going unresponsive or similar stuff. It has every single time been REALLY unstable, even 4.6 which I just recently tried! Such unstability doesn't quite make it "best" in my opinion.


If you experience horrid stability problems in KDE4, you will very likely experience the same for GNOME3, as these problems all come from graphics driver problems. If you run KDE4 in a virtual machine, or disable all the bells and whistles, you will see what I mean.

And, just to remind you, in KDE4, it is not possible at all to crash the panel without bringing down the whole desktop.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Alternative other than KDE
by kiddo on Thu 7th Apr 2011 13:40 in reply to "Alternative other than KDE"
kiddo Member since:
2005-07-23

What is interesting is that I have been testing GNOME Shell on Fedora 15 (to be released in May), on a machine with only 512 MB of RAM.

I have no idea where those people get the "it uses 600 MB of RAM" figure.

On my machine (without any tweaks whatsoever), GNOME3 with GNOME Shell uses less than 180 MB of RAM on startup. I don't even touch the swap file. And you know what? This RAM usage is the same as GNOME 2.x!

Reply Parent Score: 2

kiddo Member since:
2005-07-23

Bleh, can't correct my previous comment since I posted it >20 minutes ago.

My "180 MB of RAM" figure was actually quite pessimistic. It actually uses less than 120 MB: http://jeff.ecchi.ca/blog/2011/04/07/gnome-3-0s-ram-usage/

Reply Parent Score: 2