Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Apr 2011 18:30 UTC, submitted by Megatux
Gnome Ars has reviewed GNOME 3.0, and concludes: "The solid technical work that has been done under the hood really complements the new user experience features in GNOME 3.0. Despite some of the gaps in the feature set, I think that the environment and the new shell is a good starting point for building something even better. The GNOME contributors will be able to iterate on the design and move it forward in future updates."
Thread beginning with comment 469903
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Soooo ....
by sorpigal on Tue 12th Apr 2011 13:47 UTC in reply to "Soooo ...."
Member since:

No. There is the perception that KDE is for tweakaholics, but I don't think that's true. Certainly you should not think "Oh, since I don't like to change my settings every day I should not use KDE." This is the kind of mistake people make when talking about GNOME vs. KDE; they hear about the differences and then read in to it things which are not there.

Most users don't change their settings most of the time. The GNOME people hear this and say "Aha! So all we have to do is provide the most average set of behaviors that satisfies the largest set of people the largest set of the time and then we can do away with all of the complex configuration dialogs!" What you're left with is just what GNOME people consider the "most essential" options, which is an assessment with which most users will probably disagree on at least a few points. If what GNOME picked as your settings is good for you then you'll probably like GNOME just fine.

If the GNOME-given defaults are not good for you then you might be able to get what you like by going through third party tools or gconf and changing the "hidden" settings. Sometimes that will be sufficient to get what you want and then you will probably be satisfied with GNOME.

Although most users don't change their settings most of the time if you're a KDE person you think "Ah, but doesn't everyone want to change some of their settings some of the time?" And so you make an environment which can be changed. Most KDE users don't change most settings and sometimes are daunted by the options when they find there's something they do want to change, which leads to a perception that KDE is complex. But, I think, what happens for the majority of KDE users is that when they want some behavior they just go and change it, usually just after installation, and then it's set and their system works for them.

Beware people saying "Shrug, GNOME works for me." Do these people also share your tastes in clothes, food and music? If you're just like them then perhaps GNOME will work for you. Beware people saying "KDE has too many options!" Do you really care about something you don't look at very often? It's not as if you are required to tweak any settings; the defaults on KDE are good (except for single-click selection!) and better on a good KDE-based distribution. Perhaps you really like GNOME's choices and perhaps they're exactly what you need, but there's at least as good a chance that you'd really like to have an environment where whenever you find that something doesn't work just the way you want it to you can go and set it just so and not have to just shrug your shoulders and say "Oh, I suppose it's not that important."

Reviewing this I note that it comes off as kind of pro-KDE. That was really not my intention. I'm just trying to say that the environment must suit the individual. I find it unlikely that GNOME really suits everyone (so I suppose this is an anti-GNOME post more than a pro-KDE post) but more that people are used to being okay with almost-perfect. Don't be afraid to try new things and decide for yourself if you like them.

Reply Parent Score: 2