GNOME. While both KDE 4 and GNOME are at it, GNOME has a longer tradition of becoming stupider every release and lacking features while being bloated to hell.
In any case, both GNOME and KDE 4 target complete retards. Every time I have no choice but to use either of them I feel deeply insulted.
CDE IS THE ENTERPRISE STANDARD SCALABLE AND ROBUST X WINDOW MANAGER THAT ENFORCES INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES BY LEVERAGING RAGING ANAL RAPE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF USER INTERFACE DESIGN
>>8
I'm using KDE 3.5 (stripped down and customized way beyond what you can do with KDE 4.1 stupid edition). I don't use kdesktop but I like kicker and Kate is my primary text editor for development, while Konsole is my primary terminal. Both were stripped of shit (i.e. no toolbars, sidebars, tabs, or any other sort of crapbars that waste my screen space).
>>9
Yes, I want to try some of these for a more minimalistic approach once I get some time.
KDE is full of cruft, like a preference windows in every damn application.
Gnome only resorts to them after extensive debate against real-world user stories and extensive professional usability testing with computer beginners.
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-25 22:20
gnome is like os x in that you can't customize shit.
kde 3 is ok if you have time to make it work the way you want and don't mind bloat.
kde 4 might be cool once it's actually nature enough to be useable.
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-25 22:32
Gnome sucks more. KDE 3.5 is the best KDE currently available. Once we get to KDE 4.3 or 4.4 maybe the 4.x line will be usable, but until then I'll stick with 3.5.
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-25 22:50
>>22 I'm using KDE 3.5 (stripped down and customized way beyond what you can do with KDE 4.1 stupid edition).
You're like one of those guys who suddenly became a Windows XP die-hard when Vista came out.
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-25 23:09
>>25 gnome is like os x in that you can't customize shit.
That's only true if you're an idiot.
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-26 0:07
>>28
how do i make gnome use a global menu bar at the top of the screen instead of a menu bar in each window? how do i make all the buttons in dialog boxes not fucking huge? how do i make the fonts not look like shit?
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-26 0:09
>>29
You can change the look of fonts.
I prefer antialiasing+no hinting, everything else looks like crap.
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-26 0:38
ITT we ponder why open source developers can't design GUIs worth shit.
>>29 how do i make gnome use a global menu bar at the top of the screen instead of a menu bar in each window?
Off-topic, but that's the worst idea in the history of usability, and proof that Apple fanboys don't know the difference between shiny and usable.
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-26 2:08
>>33
Explain how it beats out the desktop, the dock, the Start button, and the file open/save dialog.
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-26 2:40
>>34
"Beats out" as in "is worse than". Also how is it worse than the concept of a menu bar in general?
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-26 3:13
>>35
Menu bars belong to windows, so the only sane place to put them is attached to the window, especially when you can have more than one window on the screen at the same time. The fact that some seemingly unrelated part of the desktop changes when I select a different window is retarded.
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-26 4:40
>>36
only one window can be selected at a time, and unless you're a faggot who uses the mouse for everything, you aren't going to be opening menus in other windows without switching to them first.
the menu bar is only there for when you forget the keyboard shortcut for something anyway, it makes sense to only use up space for one menu bar instead of plastering over 9000 of them all over the screen.
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-26 10:18
>>36 uses emacs, >>37 uses vi >>36 is Jewish, >>37 is Palestinian
in b4/armageddon
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-26 10:47
>>37 over 9000
Your argument has lost all validity.
Name:
362008-11-26 10:49
>>38
Actually, I use vi. Though I am indeed Jewish.