Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 5th Nov 2005 17:51 UTC, submitted by AdriAn Avila
Novell and Ximian Rumors circulating that Novell is going to kill off its popular Linux desktop lines are completely false. [However,] Novell is making one large strategic change. The GNOME interface is going to become the default interface on both the SLES and Novell Linux Desktop line. KDE libraries will be supplied on both, but the bulk of Novell's interface moving forward will be on GNOME. "The entire KDE graphical interface and product family will continue to be supported and delivered on OpenSuSE."
Thread beginning with comment 56403
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
KDE vs. GNOME
by on Sat 5th Nov 2005 18:07 UTC

Member since:

After spending two years as a Gnome-only user, last night I installed KUbuntu via Synaptics, and man, I was really impressed by what I saw.

Not only KDE is much more appealing in an aesthetics point of view, its components are better designed compared to Gnome.

Konqueror outperforms Nautilus in every single detail. I liked KPDF more than Evince. Even Konqueror was more usable than Firefox (but it wasn't rendering the pages as good as Firefox). I could go on and enlarge [ ;-) ] this list...

So why is Novell turning its back on KDE? Because Novell is an American company, and Americans prefer Gnome over KDE (a European technology)...

Reply Score: 1

RE: KDE vs. GNOME
by japail on Sat 5th Nov 2005 18:57 in reply to "KDE vs. GNOME"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

So within the timespan of one evening you have become an expert not only on the technical and aesthetic supremacy of KDE, but also how to introduce nationalism as the motivation for Novell's strategies.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: KDE vs. GNOME
by somebody on Sat 5th Nov 2005 19:10 in reply to "KDE vs. GNOME"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

No, they did that for one simple reason. The same reason that KDE developers realised with planning 4.0

Simplicity. If you want to give desktop to the masses you can't give them tweak'n'trick-whole'lot'a'bunch'o'mess like kcontrol. Every preference in KDE (in any KDE software) is designed to tweak even the last detail on desktop (that probably no one even looks at). Which is all and well (probably even better) if you're either unemployed geek who likes flashy things and you'd do anything to have your desktop just a little bit flashier than your friends.

The only single reason why KDE is heading the wrong way (or is loosing) are old KDE users. Buggin' for new features and tweaks and not considering that JoeSixpack might be just confused with them.

Here is a question for you. Why is design for 4.0 completely different and focusing for simplicity without so many features (or better said, having more features, better designed and less options. As far as I read the 4.0 papers, KDE finally turned into the right direction. Even I'm probably gonna take a good look at KDE when 4 comes out)

Take me for example. I was using KDE back from 1.2 times (or even sooner).

I'm no JoeSixpack. But I still preffer clean and simple design. I left KDE completely as soon as G2 came out. And "simple, non confusing and well designed" were the only reasons. I don't need zillion buttons, options and preferences. And yes I know I can disable them. But why waste my time when there already is desktop which I consider as better in its basic and preinstalled state.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: KDE vs. GNOME
by morgoth on Sun 6th Nov 2005 05:17 in reply to "RE: KDE vs. GNOME"
morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Oh Dear. We have y.a.g.t (yet another Gnome troll). How the f--k did you get modded up to 5?

Quote: "If you want to give desktop to the masses you can't give them tweak'n'trick-whole'lot'a'bunch'o'mess like kcontrol. "

huh? kcontrol is no where near as messy as you're trying to indicate. Stop spreading fud. Oh hang on, osnews.com is a pro Gnome site. Fud is allowed here ;-)

Quote: "Every preference in KDE (in any KDE software) is designed to tweak even the last detail on desktop (that probably no one even looks at)."

That's right. Is someone holding a gun to your head saying that you MUST change and play with all of the settings? No. The default settings are relatively sane, just as sane as what Gnome offers.

Quote: "The only single reason why KDE is heading the wrong way (or is loosing) are old KDE users. Buggin' for new features and tweaks and not considering that JoeSixpack might be just confused with them."

I'd personally disagree here. To me, as a former Gnome user, it lost the plot around v1.4, and KDE picked up the plot around v2.0. Just my honest 2.2c (inc GST) worth.

Quote: "But I still preffer clean and simple design. I left KDE completely as soon as G2 came out. And "simple, non confusing and well designed" were the only reasons. I don't need zillion buttons, options and preferences."

And some people do like that. Neither Gnome or KDE are totally right. Desktop environments are a preference. I see many things wrong with Gnome, that I personally dislike. That is part of the reason why I use, and prefer KDE. Someone else might be the exact opposite - they might prefer fluxbox to either Gnome or KDE for a variety of reasons.

What you are basically saying is that "I like Gnome, and everyone else better like Gnome as well, or else! Because I dislike KDE, it must be shit, and everyone else must not use it because they should agree with why I dislike KDE!".

Dave

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: KDE vs. GNOME
by on Sun 6th Nov 2005 05:48 in reply to "RE: KDE vs. GNOME"
Member since:

What you call simplicity, I call it dumb-down. If you want to dumb-down linux DE just to attract more JoeSixpacks, then linux DE would just be heading in the wrong direction. Part of the appeal of linux DE, KDE in particular, is the ability to change/customize settings to suit my need and how I use my computer. For those who do not want to change/customize settings, they can just leave everything default. It is simple as that. There is no need to dumb-down KDE. Leave Gnome and Windows GUI to JoeSixpack and those who like dumb-down DE. I seriously doubt that taking away choices form users would make them more productive. If people spend too much time worry about having too many buttons, then they probably not very productive to begin with.

Reply Parent Score: 2

v RE: KDE vs. GNOME
by on Sat 5th Nov 2005 20:58 in reply to "KDE vs. GNOME"
RE[2]: KDE vs. GNOME
by on Sat 5th Nov 2005 21:03 in reply to "RE: KDE vs. GNOME"
Member since:

> KDE is way to childish for my liking, jees it even
> makes WindowsXP look mature! Keramik practically is XP
> and Crystal is MacOSX.

KDE doesn't use Keramik, jeez, when did you last use KDE ?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: KDE vs. GNOME
by ma_d on Sun 6th Nov 2005 02:54 in reply to "KDE vs. GNOME"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm an America, I prefer KDE. KDE is not a European technology, and Gnome is not an American technology. What a silly idea, simply because KDE's geographical center of development is in Europe does not discount the contributions of people outside of Europe.

What a horribly rude thing to say...

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: KDE vs. GNOME
by raver31 on Sun 6th Nov 2005 08:11 in reply to "RE: KDE vs. GNOME"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, both DEs and in fact, almost all of the development of GNU/Linux is geographically independant. It does not matter where the HQ for a project is, the programmers can submit their code from anywhere

Reply Parent Score: 1