Without tip-toeing around the matter, Linus Torvalds made his preference in the GNOME vs. KDE matter quite clear on the GNOME-usability list: "I personally just encourage people to switch to KDE. This 'users are idiots, and are confused by functionality' mentality of Gnome is a disease. If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it. I don't use Gnome, because in striving to be simple, it has long since reached the point where it simply doesn't do what I need it to do. Please, just tell people to use KDE." Also, "Gnome seems to be developed by interface nazis, where consistently the excuse for not doing something is not 'it's too complicated to do', but 'it would confuse users'." Update: More of the discussion here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-08-18
"They are just as much Gnome applications as e.g. Winamp is a Windows application."
Nope. They are X applications, not GNOME applications.
WinAmp is a Windows application wether MS made it or not.
"The whole point behind cmd.exe is to provide a different UI."
Uh hu. Explain how the totally different Window decor makes sense.
"The difference in the way c&p works results from the requirements of a CLI (i.e. you don't want to rob the cli of all that keybindings, especially as there are lots of legacy apps that expect those keys)."
Because a lot of people runs textmode legacy apps in cmd.exe in 2005, especially with the "awesome" DOS compatibility in XP....
Either way, it is still an inconsistency and the fact of the matter is that Windows isnt as consistent as is generally touted.
Member since:"They are just as much Gnome applications as e.g. Winamp is a Windows application."
Nope. They are X applications, not GNOME applications. WinAmp is a Windows application wether MS made it or not.
You really lost it, didn't you?
Ok, "Gnome applications" are more consistent than "Windows applications" but "Windows Explorer" is more consistent than "Gnome applications". I really don't see why Winamp should be inherently the fault of MS when xdvi isn't the fault of Gnome developers. In both cases the named party had nothing to do with the program in question.
Uh hu. Explain how the totally different Window decor makes sense.
? I use classic mode and it uses the same window decorations as any other app. Perhaps it's different in Loony err Luna.
Because a lot of people runs textmode legacy apps in cmd.exe in 2005, especially with the "awesome" DOS compatibility in XP....
If you can't handle the different interface required by some aspects of a CLI you're definitely not in the target group for a CLI. Does gterm bind Ctrl+C to copy?
Member since:2005-10-02
Winamp is a Windows application. Winamp cannot run on other platforms that Windows.
However, Winamp isn't a Microsoft program, but it's still a Windows program.
Honestly, this is something everybody knows.
If you cannot see the difference, then OSN isn't the place for you.
Member since:2005-10-02
No, they are not as much Gnome applications as Winamp is a Windows application.
They are however as much Gnome applications as Winamp is a Microsoft application, but none has said Winamp is a Microsoft application. Only you has blended being coded for Windows with as being coded by Microsoft.
Look at Totem if you want to see the Gnome media player.
And compare it to WMP written for Windows by Microsoft.
Result: Gnome is consistent - Windows is inconsistent - EVEN for programs coming from Microsoft.
Look at Gaim in Gnome, look at MSN in Windows.
Result: Gnome is consistent - Windows is inconsistent - EVEN for programs coming from Microsoft.
KDE is consistent here as well, for its own applications.
Member since:
Those arent GNOME applications and you're missing the point. The point is that Windows isnt as consistent as people want to make it out to be.
They are just as much Gnome applications as e.g. Winamp is a Windows application. MS didn't program Winamp, it doesn't ship it, Winamp is just an app that runs on Windows. You can say the same thing about k3b.
Not at all and I wasnt referring to how you use cmd.exe but how the window looks different (on XP) and how cut-and-paste works different etc.
The whole point behind cmd.exe is to provide a different UI. The difference in the way c&p works results from the requirements of a CLI (i.e. you don't want to rob the cli of all that keybindings, especially as there are lots of legacy apps that expect those keys). Similar for many of the other differences.