Not trying to start a flame war or anything, but I've had enough with Windows and will soon be moving over to Linux, wee!
One question though, what's the main differences between Gnome and KDE? As far as I can tell from the research I've done, KDE is bundled with loads of stuff and is more functional. Gnome just looks sexy (and is apparently more "free", whatever that means).
I'd like to get some personal opinions on the two, correct me if I've made any wrong assumptions, recommendations on other environments, that kind of stuff.
Cheers.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-12 19:39
I've had enough with Windows and will soon be moving over to Linux
People who make comments like that never come over, that's what. You don't say you're going to do it, you do it. Anything else is fagtastic dramawhore posturing.
Regarding KDE and Gnome: how about trying both DE, as well as XFCE and some window managers. Amazing idea, I know...
Is right, most decent distros include both so you can just use each of them for a few days and then stick with whatever one you want.
You can still use KDE apps under Gnome and vice versa, so it doesnt really matter which comes bundled with more shit.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-12 22:26
>>Gnome just looks sexy (and is apparently more "free", whatever that means).
KDE looks sexy too, and is more functional than Gnome, I find. A win for KDE in my books. As for the comparitive freeness, that's a myth at best. Both satisfy the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which is widely regarded as a good yardstick for measuring freeness of software.
>>You can still use KDE apps under Gnome and vice versa, so it doesnt really matter which comes bundled with more shit.
To a certain extent, you're right; it doesn't matter. But KDE apps tend to look better (or at least more consistant with everything else) under KDE, and the same is true of Gnome apps running under Gnome.
But yeah. Give both a try and make up your own mind about it.
Don't worry. He'll soon go back to using Windows or maybe even a Mac.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-13 3:18
KDE looks sexy too
No. It redefines ugly.
and is more functional than Gnome
Yes. Gnome continues to get more useless^H^H^H^Hr-friendly.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-13 3:34
The difference isn't hugely important to a newbie. Just use whichever one is the default with your distro. If you later find that it's annoying you for whatever reason, try the alternative.
Name:
Anonymous!TpifAK1n8E2006-03-13 6:32
>>7
Not sure about that, I end up using linux every day at uni as opposed to windows (before you ask, they use a customised interface), and I quite like it, although I do have the luxury of not having to set up anything on those computers which is probably why my experience with it has been positive thus far.
As for the reason why I haven't installed it on my home PC yet, I'm waiting to get a new hard drive, my current one is a bit knackered.
One question, are there any DEs that have nice 3D effects like Mac OS (no fag answers like "move to mac then" or "why would you need features like that?" please, I'm just curious). Thanks.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-13 7:04
>>10
Why would you need to waste your CPU/GPU time like that?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-13 7:07
As it happens Novell has recently released XGL, which brings some amazing technology to the Linux desktop. The distros haven't had time to integrate it into their standard desktops yet, but it's possible to get it working with a little hackery. The next releases of Ubuntu and Suse will have it.
It's not DE dependent, so it'll work in both KDE and GNOME. And XFCE and GNUStep and anything else more advanced than a simple windowmanager for that matter.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-13 7:08
>>11 is stupid. It's not a waste of your GPU time since you're not using your GPU for anything else anyway. In fact it's been reported to improve desktop performance since it takes the load of drawing the desktop off the CPU.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-13 9:23
>>12
Wow! XGL looks like pure sex. Look foward to giving that a go. Also looks like it's managed to top the effects in Vista before it's even come out (although Vista has a lovely alt-tab).
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-13 13:08
>>12
After two minutes of watching that movie I'm filled with the desire to break kneecaps. That stretching and bouncing and weaving is aggravating.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-13 13:20
>>13
So you never run 3D applications in a window? Perhaps all you want your $500 graphics card is to play Counter Strike?
And I bet my ass that desktop is going to be slower.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-13 13:38
Not trying to start a flame war or anything, but I've had enough with Windows and will soon be moving over to Linux, wee!
Save yourself months of trouble and go directly to OS X.
When I have to use Linux, I prefer KDE to Gnome, because you can manhandle KDE into something decent, unlike Gnome, where configuration is considered too hard for the end-user.
You play CS while getting on with something productive? I hardly think so, so since you are playing CS and doing very little else, why worry about resources.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-13 15:26
>>18
I do everything with my machine, which includes gaming as well as windowed 3D applications which will run slower because some fucktard end users want the same interfaces they saw in Star Trek, wowza!!1 pres butan role window!
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-14 3:28
>>16 And I bet my ass that desktop is going to be slower.
You owe me one (1) ass. GNOME/Xgl has been reported to be snappier and more responsive than Blackbox/Xorg. Hardware rendering ftw.
>>19 windowed 3D applications which will run slower because some fucktard end users want the same interfaces they saw in Star Trek
Stop posting. Seriously. No one deserves to look that stupid. How exactly does other people - that is to say people who are not you - using hardware to render their desktop slow down your computer?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-14 4:15
>>20
By having the CPU control all that crap when you could just BitBlt a window (hardware accel too).
>>8
In your opinion, perhaps. There is no single ideal of beauty, what looks good to one person does not necessarily look good to another.
And as it happens, I think Gnome is fugly, but decided it was counterproductive to a decent discussion about the two to say so. But since you brought it up...
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 1:18
You must be smoking something pretty intense to think KDE is beautiful.
It's one thing to say KDE is functional; it's quite another to claim it's pretty. You're probably one of those pengiun fuckers who thinks Gimp is the bomb.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 3:28
>>25
I'm not a big KDE fan, but I have seen screenshots that were jaw-droppingly pretty, and then I'd see the K icon and go "holy shit, that's KDE?"
KDE is ugly by default, but it can be fixed. I've never bothered though to be honest.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 3:28
You're probably one of those pengiun fuckers who thinks Gimp is the bomb.
Well, it's using GTK, but I don't understand why people need to bash it without trying it (or just trying it 5 minutes thinking that it should behave just like their warezed photoshop)
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 4:24
>>25
Anonymous does realize that you can fully skin widgets and window decoration, does he?
>>27
I've used it for over 5 hours and I can say it sucks, and I GUARANTEE IT. Seriously, that's a fubared interface and design. Every tool is annoying to use, it's even hard to get the fucking thing to tell you what's the size of the image you are using, it pops windows when you less expect it (try cropping: nice popup will ruin your selection), windows are huge even with tiny shitty text, it's made of separate windows so when you task switch you need to pick all of them up, it looks like ass, etc.......
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 4:25
y helo thar. Contrary to popular belief among penguin fuckers, some of us have tried Gimp quite thoroughly.
I've been using both Gimp and Photoshop since 1997-8 or so. I do several hours of image editing a week (I used to do a lot more); even though I'm not a pro, I know several raster editors inside-out, upside-down.
There is no contest between Gimp and practically any well-known raster editor out there, whether that be Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, Fireworks, or even more unusual things like Painter. Using Gimp is like pulling teeth, only marginally less painful. It has enough features, but most of them are half-baked, and the UI makes me want to hurl my machine across the room every time I use it. The only reason I still use it is due to certain circumstances that require me to. And fucking hell, it's not like I haven't tried to like it; I used to drink the OSS koolaid too!
If you think for a moment that Gimp is anything but a hacker chewtoy, you've never used any of the others. It's night and day, man.
Name:
YHBT2006-03-15 4:37 (sage)
I love /comp/ because however blatant my trolls are I always find suckers!
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 4:45 (sage)
And your point is...?
Name:
DV2006-03-15 15:03
Its all about the Gnome! I mean sure, KDE is fun and quite a bit cotomizable (word?) but i dont think anything can beat good old fashioned linux when it comes to that aspect. Word of advice tho, get the suse pack if you dont mind spending a little, it comes with a good dozen desktops, including gnome and others.
The answer to the real kde vs gnome speed debate: both gtk and qt are of equal speeds once they start, but they become slow when you use themes that are slow and poorly made.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 19:26
>>29
You have used the Gimp for 20 years, why have you not fixed it then? If software is not up to the task, and there is no alternative, I simply fix it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-15 19:51
>>34
Let me guess, you're a high-school loser living in your parent's basement? Just wait until you get out into the big wide world, and then we'll see how much spare time you have.
In reality the choice is like this: many months to fix Gimp, or buying something from the store (30 minute trip, and max one week's pay).