Linux.com

Well its sure nice to know that there is some division and opposition all around. Perhaps if we ever want GNU/Linux to succeed we need to stop opposing each other and get along? Try to make what we have work together better? Of course this is a lot easier in word than action. And some people are doing this, and I say great work. But a bit less aggresive would perhaps make it all more nice. But remember part of the whole idea of GNU/Linux is that everyone can have everything customized.

In my opinion, GNOME does make some things too simple, and I have not seen all that I wanted to see in it. On the other hand, if there are going to be newbies going to linux they will want a simple and easy Desktop Environment; so you could just call GNOME the easy DE. I guess everything is going to have its advantages and disadvantages...

#

The FOSS community won't get along, if linux fanboys keep thinking it's about *linux* instead of Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OpenSolaris, and whoever the fuck is using GNOME - using and contributing.

#

Who actually uses the term GNU/Linux aside from RMS?

Not to start up that old debate, its just that I've never seen anyone actually use that before (aside from him).

#

It's clumsy, it's pedantic<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and it's accurate.

#

GNU/BSD/X/Freedesktop/Mozilla/Apache/Linux

is more clumsy, more pedantic<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and more accurate.

#

don't forget Gnome, KDE, and the good folks writing programming languages.

#

Gnix? Bah gnu is such a bad name, hardly rolls off the tounge and I spent years calling it G.N.U

#

No, we need this. We need this very badly. It's these sort of fights that instigate the change which free software thrives on. It's these sorts of fights that keep the passion alive, because passion is all a lot of us have to go on.

#

Isnt as easy as you say. Sometimes code has to be replaced, and seldom the previous author(s) like this.
It is often worth the conflict to improve code. They're developers, not chat clubs. (if they wont enter patches you think improve, can always fork, ofcourse)

#

I would like to see a brawl. I got your back Linus, I'll take the dude out on the left.

#

I`m at home in front of my computer deciding upon the difference upon linux and microsoft, my wife to my left is watching one of her favourite programmes on tv about our past and how it was before we "moved on" "devolped" as humans,(Lillies,TV PROG). I then stumble upon the discussion, dialogue or outright slanging match between linus and gnome( I won`t put either in capitals while they behave like childeren)I`m new to computer technology, I`m hoping to devolp what I`ve already learnt and to do better. Perhaps for myself it would be good to start with gnome and move on to a more challenging programme, that is my choice as pointed out by ALF people have a choice. And while we do we will vote with our keyboard! There`s an old saying which every goverment knows very well and lets us down because of it "you can`t please all the people all the TIME." So why not put your differences behind you and remember the small people out there the people who matter, the users of these programmes. A message to either if it`s money your after then dissapear to the commercial world and fight your corner there otherwise stay and help the community.

#

Guys (Linus, Andrew) you are a joke. Do you think KDE is the best? It is still sluggish compared to MacOS10-x and Windows 2000-XP-Vista

get your eyes horted

#

wow u obviously dont know a single thing about linux based os's in anyway otherwise you would know that for one macosx is the worst os on the planet. i mean come on wuts the point of having an os that only uses software created by the original developer. and second of all windows is laggy as balls compared to any linux window manager. do some research b4 talking. that would be greatly appreciated by all

#

I hate to see bad blood spread, but
I have to agree with Linus.
Gnome just drives me up the wall.
Idiot-safe is nice, but it's also expert-proof.

On the other hand, there are many desktops.
If you don't like Gnome then just ignore it.

#

I think you can have both simple and configurable. Just put the higher end configurable parts under "Advanced Configuration" or something to that effect.

This way if you don't want to mess with it you don't click the "Advanced Configuration" button, but the option is still there.

The biggest issue I find with OSS software is the lack of understandible graphical configuration menus. I shouldn't have to know where a text file is, login as root, and then change one word to some obscure command (that I couldn't possibly guess) for something that could be handled by a checkbox.

Instead of removing the ability to make changes to make it stupid safe, they should be creating difficulty tiered configuration menus. Functionality and simplicity is better than both lack of functionality or lack of simplicity.

#

I'm a fairly long-time Gnome user. As long as Debian has supported Gnome, I've used it. That said, I'm VERY disappointed in the current state of Gnome. I USED to be able to configure just about everything. Now I can't even edit the freakin menus - they REMOVED the menu editor!!! What, I'm supposed to hand code obscure XML files now??? WTF is that all about????

Nope, in my next refresh, I'll be moving to KDE. I just can't handle the stupidity of Gnome anymore.

Hint to the Gnome team: Removing configurability does not make the system easier to use: It makes it IMPOSSIBLE to use.

#

The Menu editor is back, and much better. It's a massive improvement over the old Debian menu system and it actually has the tools to configure it _properly_ as well (that means properly merging user configuration with System configuration). The only grievances I have anymore with it is inability to drag and drop menu items (which it looks like they're working on implementing) and not being able to specify theme-independent icons, which has been a problem in everything I've used but XFCE. The best part is maintained compatibility with a fallback of XML file editing. That's a major strength of most of the GNOME config tools actually, they don't keep their own configuration somewhere; they actually work with the underlying configuration files.

#

I guarantee that you will use KDE for about 3 days and come back to Gnome in no time. Why? Gnome is a well thought out GUI. KDE is a Windows-like wannabe that's really annoying to use.

Don't take my word for it. Go ahead and use KDE and I will see the pride burning in you "oh boy, now I have to swallow hard and accept that Gnome gets the job done in a much nicer and enjoyable way"

Just my 0.02.

#

It's just what I did and I never looked back. KDE applications are unmatched by anything in the GTK world, which is just a mixture of apps with no integration whatsoever and that do not form a coherent, integrated desktop as KDE apps do.

Sure, KDE could use a little help with the look and feel, but that's doable. I fear Gnome's architectural and design problems do not have such an easy solution.

#

I used Gnome exclusively from 2001-2006. A few months ago, I built a new system and tried KDE, just to see how it had changed since I last ran it. In the past, it would have this annoying habit of changing my font sizes from HUGE to TINY, from login to login, somewhat arbitrarily. The last time I used KDE, the toolbars also had an irritating penchant for instability.

I've been running KDE now for probably about 4 months. I don't miss Gnome at all. I still have it installed on my system (I assumed I'd just mess around with KDE but use Gnome most of the time - this has not turned out to be the case), amd while I think Gnome looks a little less cartoonish, overall, I'm happy to have all of the coniguration options that Gnome was missing and I definitely like the file selecter better in KDE.

I've heard people claim things like they "can't get work done" - whatever that means - in either environment, but as a user now of both KDE and Gnome, I find that to be a trollish comment, because of course you can "get work done" in either, or any of the smaller WMs out there. Statements like this say far more about the poster than either WM/WE.

KDE feels more modern, more forward-looking, and definitely more configurable. I left Windows back in 2001 because I got sick of it assuming it knew better than I did what I wanted and because of its idiotic defaults (hide file extensions!?), and because it treated me like a child (sure those defaults could be changed - changing them was the first thing I did after the initial install - but they represented a mindset which pervaded the rest of the OS).

In hindsight, after a few months of KDE, I realize that Gnome suffers from a milder form of this same elitism by burying its configurability of many options, as well as some asinine (but changeable) defaults. For example, I have no doubt that Gnome devs and probably some of its users LOVE spatial windowing. I do not, and I tried really hard to love it for several months. It is a stupid default, and while it can be changed, it strikes me as presumptuous that they wouldn't make that option easily accessible.

Since the annoying instabilities of KDE were cleared up, there are only a few minor things I miss from Gnome - its weather applet, which is better than KDEs (which is horrid), for one, and Pan is definitely more fully featured than KNode, speaking in terms of gtk+ vs qt apps.

I haven't run Gnome in several months and probably won't again unless it changes its crusty presumptiveness. If I were to sit down in front of a Gnome machine and had to do serious productive work on it, I could, but it's definitely not my first choice anymore. I have no loyalty to any software; I simply use what I like best, and Gnome is no longer the WM/WE I like the best.

As for KDE being a "Windows wannabe" let me shock you and cause a major furor(e) here: Like Gnome, KDE can actually be *configured* to look *however you want it to look*. You better sit down for this next part. You can move your toolbars around and even make it look vaguely like a Mac. And, beyond this - you can even use different icon sets or themes. Oh my. And beyond which, in KDE, you can tweak the color and spacing of just about *everything*...easily. Which is more than I can say about Gnome. Note: I don't consider this a MAJOR advantage of KDE. That look/feel stuff is more "nice to have" than essential.

Nothing impresses me less than some kind of judgement of a windowing environment more than the criticism of its default out-of-the-box look, which differs from distro to distro anyway, at least among those that customize things.

What makes KDE look like Windows is, primarily, where its toolbar is placed when you first install - the bottom, with a sort of "Start Button" on the lower left and a clock on the right. Gnome installs a toolbar with a menu and clock up on top, like a Mac.

If that, alone, affects your decision on which to use, your opinion isn't worth a lot to me, personally.

Because guess what? I moved my KDE toolbar up to the top, where it is on Gnome. Why? Because I'm used to Gnome. Problem solved.

Lastly, as for "choice", the primary value worshipped by anyone who gets upset about arguments over WM/WEs...Choice is not without a price. It dilutes the developer pool, forces those of us who want to run whatever we want to install two sets of libraries (at least), and requires more package maintainers for each distribution. Yes, I'm happy to have some choice, but I have to wonder what KDE or Gnome would look like if every developer was working on one major WM/WE.

I could still use Gnome, but I can't find a good reason to. Both Gnome and KDE are completely stable for me. I've noticed no difference in that between either, and I am suspicious of people who claim one is stable and one isn't, because I push my desktop pretty hard, and I have had no problems with either - this wasn't the case in the past, but it is now.

Also, one man's "bloat" is another man's "feature." I haven't noticed any performance difference between the two nonetheless.

In summary, I gain a bunch of small things from KDE, and lose one or two things from Gnome. In balance, KDE wins, and I'm sticking with KDE. If Gnome should do some major innovating and fixing its spartan configuration menus and dialogs, I'd not hestitate to switch back. Right now though, for me, KDE is better. Gnome, in comparison, feels stunted, and even a little dated. I don't personally give a crap about whether someone's grandmother can use my WE, either. As someone else pointed out, given all of the Linux users in the world, how many of them fall into the category of people who would be confused by more configurability, as opposed to less?

It may well be that there is/will be a place for Gnome among these kinds of "grandma" users, but it won't have much purpose on my desktop. I don't know how many people who use Gnome use it because its what they've always used, vs. those who actually like less configurability, but it would be interesting to see the breakdown.

#

I agree. I tried Ubuntu Dapper after it launched and my first thought was that GNOME was better than I remembered. Unfortunately it was only skin deep because I'd find behaviors that I'd want to change and it just wasn't possible.

Chad
<a href="http://linuxappfinder.com/" title="linuxappfinder.com">http://linuxappfinder.com/</a linuxappfinder.com>

#

Well it is possible. You just have to edit the f---ing registry. GConf anyone?

#

Beats hand editing some obscure config file format.

#

Sorry, it's not idiot-proof: not to call myself an idiot, but at the end of a contract position I had last Spring I was going through my Evolution inbox, to filter it: I did Ctrl-a and went to press Ctrl-j but accidently pressed Ctrl-k. So, I ask you: "What happened?" To find out, go and look it up or just remember what you have used Ctrl-k for... Well? Times up: nothing... except for in Evalution: it deleted everything selected. Only later did I find out that I could have selected 'view deleted (something)' and at least seen what had been removed. But, the documentation in Gnome is so absolutely piss-poor there was no mention of Ctrl-k nor of using 'view what I didn't want deleted'!

Whats more: I use the Dvorak keyboard layout. While that's not why I accidently pressed k instead of j, it is something that allows me to type at my normal pace. The simple matter of switching keyboard layouts in Gnome, wait: that's an oximoron. I have never found where to switch the keyboard layout in Gnome. It is really so simple as doing a search for 'keyboard' in the KDE Control Center. Why have the Gnome developers made this impossible? It must be because they know better than I as to how I should give my input on MY DESKTOP! How Microsoft is that? Is that why Gnome loves Mono so much: because they think just like Microsoft?

So, your right: it is definitely expert-proof.

I also believe the Gnome desktop is between 2-4 years behind KDE in usability.

#

I am not an expert by any means. I can readily admit that one of the reasons I stopped using redhat back with version 8 or 9 was due to the gnome only interface. It appeared to make things simpler for folks like perhaps my mother to find. It did not however make kdm simpler to customize. With that said I have customized gnome,kde,flux extensively for several organizations I've worked for. Overall I would have to say that if you want simple flux is perhaps the most simplistic. I would however have to agree that kde is a much more well designed desktop interface.

On my personal and corporate workstations I choose to use kde/kdm/slackware. If I need a speedy and versatile gui on a remote station... fluxbox. Gnome in my opinion (which matters very little) has not changed much since 2000/2001!?

In short, I agree with Linus... everyone switch to KDE!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

#

What a spank! Everyone knows the best interface hands down is a serial console using screen. I mean come on.

#

Wrong! The best interface is the nipple!

The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
-- Bruce Ediger, bediger at teal.csn.org, on X interfaces

#

I think Linus hould switch to KDE. Why waste any more time on Gnome if it is causing such a headache. Don't give it any more energy. It already receives too much attention.

KDE deserves more recognition IMHO.

#

Unfortunately a lot of applications are already using GTK even KDE uses some of the gnome libraries for their XML support.

If QT drops their theming and just relegates it to GTK or someone creates a GTK fork that forwards all their rendering and UI stuff to QT that would be the best way of getting around it.

Notice I didn't say QT should fork, because I think if they did have time they would probably do it. Heck they already started moving to SVG to do their rendering and they are already using some Gnome libraries. However, I doubt the Gnome teams would make the same move though.

#

Me too. I like some of the things about Gnome. But there are just too many things I like doing that aren't there or I can't enable.

I can work quite happily with it but not as happily as with others. And it annoys me that performance of remembering what I had open and where is so poor.

#

Well if linux in and open souse why call idios somthing like gnome I remember the first book
about linux and the word hello word if you´re treatin to make something god stop cursing the crw members nsted on that try to help on a diferente way Idiot is an ofensive word for every one. Thank you

#

"Gnome in my opinion (which matters very little) has not changed much since 2000/2001!?"

What's that that you're using? Ecstasy, PCP?

GNOME has regular releases at each 6 months and it damn well has changed...

Just see for yourself a few of the releases:

BTW, 1.4 was released in 2001... I guess they wouldn't do releases just for the sake of it.

2.4
<a href="http://www.gnome.org/start/2.4/notes/rnwhatsnew.html" title="gnome.org">http://www.gnome.org/start/2.4/notes/rnwhatsnew.h<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> ml</a gnome.org>
<a href="http://www.gnome.org/start/2.4/screenshots.html" title="gnome.org">http://www.gnome.org/start/2.4/screenshots.html</a gnome.org>
<a href="http://www.gnome.org/start/2.4/notes/" title="gnome.org">http://www.gnome.org/start/2.4/notes/</a gnome.org>

2.8
<a href="http://www.gnome.org/start/2.8/notes/rnwhatsnew.html" title="gnome.org">http://www.gnome.org/start/2.8/notes/rnwhatsnew.h<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> ml</a gnome.org>
<a href="http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/teams/marketing/en/2004/two-eight-screenshots/html/index.html" title="gnome.org">http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/teams/marketing/en<nobr>/<wbr></nobr> 2004/two-eight-screenshots/html/index.html</a gnome.org>

2.12
<a href="http://www.gnome.org/start/2.12/notes/en/rnusers.html" title="gnome.org">http://www.gnome.org/start/2.12/notes/en/rnusers.<nobr>h<wbr></nobr> tml</a gnome.org>
<a href="http://www.gnome.org/start/2.12/notes/en/" title="gnome.org">http://www.gnome.org/start/2.12/notes/en/</a gnome.org>

2.14
<a href="http://www.gnome.org/start/2.14/notes/en/rnusers.html" title="gnome.org">http://www.gnome.org/start/2.14/notes/en/rnusers.<nobr>h<wbr></nobr> tml</a gnome.org>
<a href="http://www.gnome.org/start/2.14/notes/en/rnadmins.html" title="gnome.org">http://www.gnome.org/start/2.14/notes/en/rnadmins<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> html</a gnome.org>
<a href="http://www.gnome.org/start/2.14/notes/en/rndevelopers.html" title="gnome.org">http://www.gnome.org/start/2.14/notes/en/rndevelo<nobr>p<wbr></nobr> ers.html</a gnome.org>

#

Hmmm. No one SHOULD switch to anything one person wants. The reason we have so may desktop environments and WMs is because we CAN. That's the freedom of Opensource/FOSS. I have been a Gnome user since the 1.4 days and mod at Gnomesupport.org. I love Gnome and am a software developer, so am not technically challenged. I love Gnome because it works with no fuss. I don't like KDE, but am not going to slam it because that would be pointless.

So, that being said, I'll bet the idiots over at m$ are laughing at us because we are fighting over something stupid. We need to stick together and just solve issues like we've been doing for years instead of bickering about something that doesn't matter. This makes me want to switch back to FreeBSD....

#

Why must they whine and fight about silly stuff like that.
Let people use whatever desktop environment they use.
I am not saying GNOME is good or bad, but Ubuntu uses it, and it seems to work fine for them?

Maybe GNOME prefers a simplistic approach, maybe GNOME is aimed at less computer literate people, maybe GNOME is not aimed at computer experts, but whatever, just let it be, if you don't like it, then don't use it.

All people are different. People think different, and people prefer different things.

Annoying hearing people whine/rant about which is better or worse, GNOME or KDE. vi or emacs, etc.

Just use what you happen to prefer, and be happy.

#

<a href="http://www.ubuntu.com/" title="ubuntu.com">Ubuntu</a ubuntu.com> is a bad example because <a href="http://www.kubuntu.org/" title="kubuntu.org">Kubuntu</a kubuntu.org> (Ubuntu with KDE as the default desktop) is part of the Ubuntu project.

#

It's not a bad example. Canonical doesn't give a shit about Kubuntu and KDE. Kubuntu it's basically a one-man's job, very far from the care Ubuntu (with Gnome) receives.

#

<a href="http://www.kubuntu.org/announcements/kde-commitment.php" title="kubuntu.org">In his opening remarks at the start of the conference Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth announced that he was now using Kubuntu on his desktop machine and said he wanted Kubuntu to move to a first class distribution within the Ubuntu community.</a kubuntu.org>

#

> I am not saying GNOME is good or bad,
> but Ubuntu uses it, and it seems to work fine for them?
I am not saying Ubuntu is good or bad, but they use GNOME and spread profanity by the name of humanity.

Sorry, just don't buy that. Not a higgie type.

--
Michael Shigorin

#

I always understood that 1) any project can set it's own rules. Linus should fork Gnome if he doesn't like the rules 2)nobody forces me to use a particular application - if I don't like it, I use another. Linus should just respect that principle. 3) Bullying and abuse are the mark of a weak argument. Linus is bullying and being abusive.

#

I find it very annoying the the apple developers fail to provide many of the features that have been standard with oranges for years. For example in oranges there is a very hand segment feature which allows the fruit to be broken up into small convenient bite size peaces. With apples the only way to do this is to use a third party utility such as a knife. I have tried to submit patches to get segments into apples but the developers arn't interested telling me that it is just to much the orange way and thats not the way apples are. Against this kind of mentality what can you do. Lets not even get on to oranges convenient juice feature and how hard it is to get juice out of apples. (Hint requires a full application suit).

Peter

#

I had to re-read your illegible post three or four time to decipher what you were trying to say.

The comparison of Gnome and KDE, two rival Desktop Environment projects, is a very valid comparison that is regularly made by Gnome oficianados as well as KDE users. Only an apologist would attempt to deny the validity of the comparison with the apples vs. oranges cliche.

Regardless, I find that you are leaving out some important little details.

Apples don't beg people to use/eat them. Apples don't tell people that they are better than oranges. Apples don't condescendingly tell people to eat apples for a month, instead of oranges, and then come to their apple conference, at the people's inconvenience, to tell apples what people think of them.

The only questions in my mind are why Linux was frustrating himself with Gnome at all? Was he trying to give the Gnome desktop another chance, after writing it off a year ago? Was there a feature that KDE was lacking that he hoped to find in Gnome? Why does he waste his breathe and his programming skills on the Gnome camp when they repeatedly continue to rebuff him and everyone else that doesn't goose step to their ideals?

#

And why mess with apple... they use bsd... leave em alone. hahaha

#

Look, we're comparing apples and oranges. Now you want to bring Apple into this. We're talking about fruit comparisons not music and record labels. Try to stay on topic This thread is about apples and oranges and has nothing to do with Apple, Apple vs. Apple, Apple vs. apples or even Apple and Orange.

Don't even get me started on *BSD. I'm so confused!

Vinny Barbarino

#

BSD? Which one? I've heard there are like 80 different flavors or so!

#

80 different flavors? That sound great. Are both the apple and the orange flavor included? What do the other 78 BSD flavors taste like?

#

I don't think Illegible means what you think it means which does rather spoil your argument. ( il·leg·i·ble
–adjective
not legible; impossible or hard to read or decipher because of poor handwriting, faded print,) - as well as being ironic. I do not deny that comparisons are made frequently, simply that it is foolish to complain that something is not the way you want it to be when the way you want it to be goes against the goals of that project.
To continue the analogy, the Apples only suggested that Linus try them for a month after he complained that they were not more orange like!
As to why Linus felt the need to reopen the Gnome/KDE debate...well deity only knows, maybe he had a hankering for the good old days!! Or maybe he was finding that KDE was not meeting his needs at the moment and thought he would see if gnome was a better fit. The truly beautiful thing is that his patch is now in the wild and can be included in any distribution which agrees with Linus.

#

Apples don't beg people to use/eat them. Apples don't tell people that they are better than oranges. Apples don't condescendingly tell people to eat apples for a month, instead of oranges, and then come to their apple conference, at the people's inconvenience, to tell apples what people think of them.

Maybe because....they don't have vocal mouths?

From a design and usability standpoint, they are as different as night and day. This is absolutely NOT to say that one is better than the other...unless it is to say that one might be better than the other in a specific situation. GNOME has the "less is more" thing going on and KDE seems to go the other way and be all things to all people. For some folks, I set them up with GNOME when "they just want to get things done" such as my boss whereas my sister who likes all the foofoo stuff, I set up with KDE because she has less experience and frankly, KDE is more likely to help her if she gets stuck and I am 100 miles away. For me, sometimes as a developer KDE feels like it gets in the way so I prefer GNOME....most days.

They are different though and the analogy is apt, if your response is not.

#

The only questions in my mind are why Linux was frustrating himself

The guy's name is "Linus". "Linux" is the name of an OS kernel.

#

Bleh. Another orange fanboy. Oranges have seeds, oranges don't make crunchy shakes and oranges have an inedible skin that they call a 'feature'. You have to reconfigure oranges with by deskinning them and all that - what a waste of time. With apples you just pick it up and eat it and all you have is an easy to devour core. If you don't like apples go back to orange world I wonder how you ever get things done.

#

Interesting conversation...


    I myself prefer KDE to GNOME exactly because I can customize every little detail I like... which in my opinion makes a software much more powerful. But nonetheless in order to customize something you first need to be familiar with it... KDE can seem a bit overwhelming to a starter. Thus the solution would be somewhere in between: having a base/easily configurable DE for beginners, but allowing more experienced users to go wild<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;).


    But what I really don't understand is why people start arguing in such a matter over this?!?!? KDE is customizable, GNOME is easy. Time will tell which solution is better, or which solution wins a larger audience. I agree with constructive criticism, or even with simple criticism... until you criticize the work and not the man behind it! The project may be well written or badly... users will decide... but the coder should be respected for the efforts of contributing to an OSS.

#

The problem is the lack of consolidation of these 2 fortresses and lots of doubled solutions for the same problem. For gnome purists Qt is too half commercial, but for what I know, Qt is much more developer friendly and without dirty hacks like gtkmm. There is only one solution: create third desktop environment that is GPL, highly object oriented, source-compatibile with kde and gnome (by include wrappers and/or code parsers) and certainly with very usable embedded database controls for professional purposes to make it quicker to adopt. Alea iacta est.

#

In other words, the desktop equivalent of the Hurd kernel. That's not a realistic option.

#

think windows95 or ubuntu -- much too much hype, and then you learn about "KWirelessManager in Ubuntu..." from hopeless luser who doesn't care it was "KNetworkManager developed at SUSE". Just as nice as a corporate type telling to run Windows servers "because... because... dammit, because!"

--
Michael Shigorin

#

Because "no one ever got fired for buying windows"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

#

'I myself prefer KDE to GNOME exactly because I can customize every little detail I like... which in my opinion makes a software much more powerful.'

In my opinion it makes little difference. I am a programmer and technician. I have been working with various interfaces and systems since I started playing video games as a child. I am not afraid of something different or complex.

I have found that either KDE or GNOME can suit my needs. KDE is more configurable but why on earth would you waste time configuring WM behavior? Gnome ships with a reasonable environment out of the box and having learned that default environment I can be productive. I can work with KDE as well but I found Gnome behavior to be more intuitive by default and that is all that matters.

It makes little difference which mechanism the wm uses to shade a window just so long as there is one and I know how it works. What possible PRODUCTIVITY gain could there be in changing this behavior to something non-standard?

Honestly, I don't understand even the idea that someone would want to switch when they become more savvy. If KDE were a more powerful interface then I could see it but KDE's power lies in the ability to change settings that have no practical benefit. At the end of the day, the ability to customize the behavior of the UI doesn't actually isn't worth anything beyond bragging rights. It isn't like YOUR arbitrary preference is going to be a substantial practical improvement over the default
.

#

Rather than re-write my post here, I'll ask you to click one more time to my comment at News Forge:

<a href="http://trends.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=62116&cid=132378" title="newsforge.com">http://trends.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=62116<nobr>&<wbr></nobr> cid=132378</a newsforge.com>

Arguing about details is a necessary part of the engineering process. If everyone was always warm and fuzzy and did not speak their mind, great things would never happen.

Let 'em rant. It's really good for the community as long as the focus stays on the product and process.

#

- I agree with Linux opinion as far as usability is concerned. KDE did a much better job on this for me.
- I prefer GTK over QT actually. The reason are language bindings. I dislike the slot-signal system of QT to that of GTK.
- There ARE great GTK applications... whole DEs. I like Xfce for example.
- I completely disagree with Linux in regard to his stupid, idiotic flaming. Linux should shut the fuck up and focus on kernel development than to bother about what OTHERS do. He may be right, but he has to shut up about this. If he would have cared so much, he could have written a whole LINUX-OPERATING-SYSTEM, from the grounds up, including GUI and so forth.
But he for several reasons decided to go with a kernel.

Linux is the worst troll here. This is very very sad.

Anyway, to put this back into perspective, I repeat what I said again, and want to put it for the GNOME devs:

* KDE does several things BETTER.
Gnome devs, LEARN from that.

Nuff said.

#

His name is Linus, not Linux. WTF is wrong with you people?

#

he is the all powerful and mighty linux... night and day he watches over your systems...

#

It's his time. If his leadership is adequate that no one needs to fork to yet another development kernel to get the features that they need, then he's doing enough. He isn't working for *you*. I don't know what his motivations for fixing GNOME are, especially after he has been told that it's a snobs-only-slobs-need-not-apply party, but until *you* are signing his paycheck, then I guess it's *his* time.

If you cared so much you could write your own kernel... Oh! That's right! You can't.

Geek Unothodox

#

I know, the KDE vs Gnome WAR has been around as long as I've used Linux. The fact that Linus also has thrown himself into the middle of it conserns me. I'd think he would keep himself above all of this. but then again, he's also only a human.

my personal opinion is that I like the KDE way of configuring things, but I really hate the way KDE looks, even though I've skimmed through lots and lots of themes It still looks to shiny, to glossy to... to much. When it comes to view I like things neat and tidy, clean. But I agree with the guy tha t suggested that there could be an "advanced" menu. For people who would like to do more than just basics. But I also agree with the guy who said that this is just foolish to argue about. It's like Mac/Win, vi/emacs etc etc. All to its own I say.

But it seems it's all about gnome/kde. What about the rest of many excellent desktops? xfce is really coming along these days. Lightweight and clean. Runs on almost anything. And there are tens and tens of more out there. Ion is a lightweight window manager(note: not desktop environment) that really kicks ass. It is frame based and is highly configurable. Allthough most of it are configured in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.lua files you can really make it your own. And there are lots of others. What about them? Why does it always have to be; gnome gnome gnome; kde kde kde??

Besides, one of the things that really appealed to me when I switced os was that I could finally choose. I could choose one base, and i could choose one look. Or more even. That is the POWER of Linux. Versatility, flexibility and configurable to the max.

Let people choose whatever they want. But keep silly wars out of it. I really thought this community was bigger than this. Strong resemble to Balmer/Jobs wars...

#

What about the others?

They suck even more than Gnome so no one uses them. This renders them irrelevant and not worth arguing about. Everyone agrees that Gnome and KDE are the most used desktop environments, by far!

Many argue that Gnome is more widely used because it is the default desktop in Fedora and Ubuntu and even tops the list with openSuse. My anecdotal experience contradicts this in that, everyone I know uses KDE. The argument rages on but KDE is superior in my opinion. So is vi!

#

notepad notepad... rah rah rah...

#

..you make comments like these. ^^<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..you're unable to see further than your freckled nose<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..you spend your time posting shit like this. ^^

If you are a member of any open source dev community I am ashamed on their behalf.

#

Feel ashamed... feel _very_ ashamed...

Notepad is an irritant.

#

They suck even more than Gnome so no one uses them. This renders them irrelevant and not worth arguing about. Everyone agrees that Gnome and KDE are the most used desktop environments, by far!

Wow, such a killer, smart argument! Following your logic, the only obvious choice, the best environment is by far... Microsoft Windows, since it's being used on more than 90% or personal computers around the world...

Thank you for showing me the light.

#

You're too used to use a "use" word, perhaps you should stretch a little?

#

Indeed, KDE is just to glossy, to childish, to much. You can configure KDE to hell and back and it still looks ugly, and shows this disgusting script kiddie attitude, look and feel.

Gnome, on the other hand in general looks tidy and non-distracting. If I only could configure some of its broken behavior, e.g. getting serious control over the menu structure and contents.

#

I think this is probably why Linus cares in the first place. He wants to like Gnome, since among other things it looks nice, but he wants to be able to configure it too.

I'm in the same boat, actually, and I imagine there are many others out there like me.

Maybe we need a "PowerGnome" environment, much as we have a "SimpleKDE". Linus can start it with his patches<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-).

#

To is not the same word as too!

#

We run labs at my University with Red Hat Linux.
(RHEL 4) Gnome is the default but KDE is also availible
from the session menu at login time. And the desktop switching
tool can make KDE your default desktop for every session
so you don't have to select it at login time.

Tha *vast* majority of our students use Gnome
and don't bother to switch to KDE. Of course
there are a few people who use KDE but I think
most of our users don't care / don't know about it as an option.

#

Okay, okay, I want to contribute some constructive thing here, not flame more. Point.

>configuring things, but I really hate the way KDE looks, even though I've skimmed through lots and lots of themes It still looks to shiny, to glossy to... to much.

THAT is interesting, as a KDE preferer, I feel exactly the opposite. Gnome is old fashioned and looks like designed be engineer that have no clue about design. Drab, stiff, plain. I am an engineer and have not much skill in designing, but I still like it a lot. SO, this is a matter of opinion, no way to find a solution about it. Just as tastes differ.

>But I agree with the guy tha t suggested that there could be an "advanced" menu. For people who would like to do more than just basics.

No, I like that "expert thing" If you get that into Gnome, I will switch back. I think it is just wrong what Gnome does in FORCING expert users to use a computer like a newbie user does.
I can't understand the decision and believe that it is too radical. Radical things often don't work, since the world is not black and white.

>But I also agree with the guy who said that this is just foolish to argue about. It's like Mac/Win, vi/emacs etc etc. All to its own I say.

No, I disagree. We cannot just use KDE and be happy, we cannot get around using Gnome, and are touched by this. It is not like Win / or Mac or VI or Emacs...

#

And this post... sensible and logical. Awesome... +10!

#

Well fucking said, Linus. GNOME sucks ass, it should be discontinued already and the developers should find something better to do.

#

Hey kid! How old are you? 15?

#

I'm not so sure that GNOME itself should disband, but they should really just discontinue GTK altogether and go for something like Qt instead. Or, they could design a new toolkit that works like Qt but in C so they can continue using C as much as they do.

Really, my biggest issue with GNOME (besides the extreme simplicity that Linus talks about) is that it uses GTK, and as a programmer, I'd prefer if they used a graphics toolkit that didn't suck.

#

Apart from that you didn't mention why GTK sucks, from my point of view it's the other way. I really don't like QT, but unlike you I don't tell people what to do or to use. If you like QT so much then use it and let others use their favorit.

#

First you say... I don't tell people what to do or to use.

Immediately followed by... If you like QT so much then use it and let others use their favorit

Hey, genius! You just told him what to do and what to use.

You're exactly like all those that you think you are above. You're smug, condescending, hypocritical, clueless and moronic. You try to impose your narrow views and opinions on others while denying to yourself and everyone else that you are doing exactly that.

Welcome to the flame fest Wile E. Coyote! Things are just warming up.

#

I suppose you to speak english so might I remember you that "if" gives somebody an opinion and is no command.

"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and let others use their favorit"

It's my right to use what I want and it's sad that some seem to disagree. It's also my right to defend my decisions and that's what I'm doing. Nothing more.

If you have nothing better to do than attack Gnome users then I'm sorry for you.

#

The problem with your point is that wireless doesn't have anything to do with KDE or Gnome. Its a configuration/driver issue with the distro itself.

Its simply because Ubuntu has priority over Kubuntu.

Overall, I don't get why there is an issue to begin with. If Linus prefers KDE, why doesn't he stick to it? Why does he bother complaining about Gnome?

If Gnome is shit, then it will naturally fade away. Its open-source evolution...Survive of the fittest.

#

Except survival of the fittest it just a theory. In the real world, the moment a product gets traction, users get used to it, and ISVs start developing for it, it becomes very hard for others to compete on equal conditions. Open source or not it does not matter, these rules still apply.

#

To me, I use GNOME because it doesn't try to do everything like KDE (e.g. konqueror ==> file explorer + browser). And it also looks cleaner. But it's lack of "eye candy" and "deep configuration".

Peronsally, I think GNOME is more for business and they can work on keeping themselves simple and "business" KDE is better for "personal"

#

I may be wrong, but I don't think it is inherent in Gnome to detect your wireless and not in KDE. It is probably a different app that is something other than the flavor of desktop.

Also, I think Linus has taken a stand because he is a user just like the rest of us. He doesn't live in a terminal window. My guess is he would probably prefer a gnome interface with a few more options, and that is why he even rants about it.

I personally like Gnome for its simplicity, but I also get very frustrated not being able to do some more complex things straight from the desktop.

#

He could say the same to you. If you don't like the way he does things, fine use a different kernel on another OS or contribute codes into the kernel and stfu already. neeeners nneeennerrrs

#

I do contribute on all three fronts in one capacity or another so
my statement stands.. Neener back<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P

#