From GNOME to KDE and Back Again

Slashdot's own Roblimo has an interesting introspective on what makes us so prone to liking one window manager over another. More than likely it's just the inherent laziness of most users that precludes change. "I used KDE as my primary desktop from 1996 through 2006, when I installed the GNOME version of Ubuntu and found that I liked it better than the KDE desktop I'd faced every morning for so many years. Last January, I got a new Dell Latitude D630 laptop and decided to install Kubuntu on it, but within a few weeks, I went back to GNOME. Does this mean GNOME is now a better desktop than KDE, or just that I have become so accustomed to GNOME that it's hard for me to give it up?"

That's the beauty of open source...

[bagboy]

Choices! I find myself alternating every so often, but really prefer KDE (v4 is looking good).

Here we go again

[El Lobo]

Nothing is "better" than nothing... I like "Lost", you like "Heroes"... None of them is perfect. The same is true with any OS/Tool/Religion, whatever... Keep your taste for yourself, man and let other use what they want.

Real brain-twister

[SnoopJeDi]

Does this mean GNOME is now a better desktop than KDE, or just that I have become so accustomed to GNOME that it's hard for me to give it up?

Neither.

It just means you prefer GNOME to KDE. That's all. Saying something is more superior because you prefer it over everything else (without any other grounds) is something the Slashdot crowd should recognize from a mile away: fanboism.

Personally, I prefer Fluxbox. Does that make Fluxbox superior? No, it just means that as a minimalist user, a more trimmed window manager does the trick for me.

it's like Extentions of your own body

[infonography]

I remember a article here about how the brain tricks the body into thinking a tool is part of the body.

http://science.slashdot.org/science/08/01/29/2241257.shtml [slashdot.org]

I think it's just a more advance form of that. This won't go over well with the Linux Proselytizers, with regards to Linux/Windows. Makes ya feel for those stuck in bad OSes.

Laziness

[David7]

Most decisions of this sort are driven by laziness. We end up using the system/interface/whatever that allows us to get the most done with the least effort. Sometimes the multitude of options available in the default KDE setup allows a person to get to an application faster. Sometimes the uncluttered default GNOME setup gives you the feel of a more lightweight window manager without sacrificing most of the creature comforts. In either case, laziness is the underlying driver for our decision-making. It's the underlying driver for most software decisions.

In fact, it's one of the reasons software was invented: So I can sit on my ass all day getting paid to turn my day-dreams into reality.

Re:That's the beauty of open source...

[Daengbo]

Some people prefer one thing over another. This whole article should be marked as flamebait. Roblimo's next accomplishment will be to describe how he has tried Emacs but always goes back to Vi. Rob, do you just like to stir up trouble? Meh.

It is a problem of Kubuntu.

[xtracto]

In the article, the author describes several uses he had when using Kubuntu. I have had similar issues, but all is reduced to the fact that Kubuntu is a hack "KDE-patched" version of Ubuntu. When you use Kubuntu after using Ubuntu you can "feel" that it seems as they just threw the kde libraries and desktop into the Ubuntu distro. There are a lot of integrity issues. Particularly I have also had the wireless network issue, while it is working flawlessly in Ubuntu, Kubuntu is a complete mess.

But that does not mean that KDE is better or worst than Gnome, if you use a KDE-oriented desktop (such as SUSE or Mandriva) which have KDE preconfigured out of the box, the experience will be different...

False dichotomy

[Cultural Sublimation]

I think you are making a false dichotomy here, and that at least a third option should be considered: Kubuntu might not be the best KDE desktop around. Bear in mind that Ubuntu was initially Gnome-only, and that to this day that's the desktop that gets most of Canonical's resources. Kubuntu doesn't get nowhere near the same level of attention, and that shows. Kubuntu mostly lacks polishing, ie, the "little things" that end up making a substantial impact on the user's experience. Moreover, there have been in the past a number of serious, potential data-loss bugs in Kubuntu that festered for *months* because there was just not the manpower to fix them. That is substantial evidence that Kubuntu is a second-class citizen for Canonical.

While I find KDE overall a superior desktop to Gnome, I have to agree that Ubuntu is generally a better desktop experience than Kubuntu. However, I just wish people would stop equating Gnome==Ubuntu and KDE==Kubuntu, and therefore Gnome > KDE.

Talk about funny names...

[xtracto]

, Mac OS seemed alien and unintuitive. And the software had funny names,

Haha, that made me laugh. Funny names, as opposed to Hardy Heron, Gutsy Gipsy, amaroK, Pidgin... and those are just on the top of my head. What is the problem with iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, GarageBad?? you can pretty much guess what are they about just with the name? ask anyone in the street "if there was a program called amaroK, what do you think it will do?" haha... they would surely tell you it was some sequel from Turok or whatever.

BTW, I do not use Macs, proud Win/Lin user since I have memory...

Re:That's the beauty of open source...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I thought that Konqueror service menus [kde.org] are the equivalent of Nautilus actions? (I'm just making sure that you know about these, if that is the reason why you moved to Gnome. ;-))

Re:Real brain-twister

[dreamchaser]

It's a bit like "For years I used to love Quarter Pounders, then I switched to Big Macs and found that I liked them. Recently I started to eat Quarter Pounders again, but switched right back to Big Macs. Does this mean that the Big Mac is better?"

It's crazy what passes for front page news here these days.

Re:KDE and Gnome

[Sadsfae]

I believe GNOME appeals to the "simple" user more and KDE to the bleeding edge more of a "programmer user". Correct me if I'm wrong

I find the exact opposite. Where I work 99% of our developers use GNOME (with default settings/background etc) with a few that basically run screen or ratpoison.

Re:That's the beauty of open source...

[Naughty Bob]

This whole article should be marked as flamebait.

Does that mean we can't talk about this stuff?

Sure, there will be some people who, coming from a different timezone and so freed from the need to be civil, start acting all shouty- that's why we have moderation. But I appreciate this as a record of one man's experience, and as an opportunity to talk about why one interface works for some, and others for others.

I have Ubuntu (my main workstation), Mac OS Tiger (for my photographer girlfriend), and Win XP (for when I have no other option) machines at home.

Each has their good points, and maybe discussing them will somehow show us where we need to be headed next, regardless of our preferences.

I find especially insightful the suggestion that 'we like what we know', though for me, I made the switch from XP to Linux 2+ years ago because 'Familiarity breeds contempt'. There are some things I miss, but I usually - eventually - find that there's a way to do what I want, and that my initial frustration was borne of my lifetime's worth of Windows expertise.

My GF finds her MacBook Pro to be a massively capable machine, but hell hath no fury like a woman who, in the face of an impending deadline, can't figure out how to do something simple, something that would have taken 5 seconds on XP. Her first reaction is always 'what a stupid fucking way to do that'. The next time, she just does it, and is happy to acknowledge that it's not so much a 'stupid fucking way', but a different way to that which she is used.

Re:Here we go again

[wanderingknight]

Says the guy who's got a sig that mocks Mac users.

Re:No, he's right.

[gambolt]

Is there a KDE user out there who doesn't change every single panel and menu around first thing? My impression has always been that the KDE devs don't care much about defaults because 1) That should be left to the distros and 2) The user is going to change it all around anyway. Criticizing the default UI for KDE is dumb. You're not supposed to use it.

This is the polar opposite of the Gnome policy of assuming the user is too stupid to know how they work best.

Too Much KLutter

[christurkel]

I used to love KDE in the 1.x days. My first experience with Linux. But these days there is just too much clutter; so many K-apps just piled on. If KDE was more modular; i.e;, I can pick and choose what I want to install I'd be happy but I can't, so I go with Gnome which is modular and I can start with a minimal Gnome and work my way up.

Re:KDE

[mrsteveman1]

KDE3 is cluttered because it's unorganized, not because it has features similar to Windows.

I'm not saying this is you in particular, but people spend far too much time trying to NOT be like Windows instead of just trying to do things well.

Easy ;)

[arodland]

KDE is technically superior, better-designed, and more usable -- but you run Ubuntu, and GNOME gets all of the system-integration love. Kubuntu folks try to keep up but they don't have enough people to make it possible. So, some of the (pretty damn nice) whiz-bang features aren't there, not because KDE can't do them, but because the integration army has chosen to support someone else.

Re:KDE

[treeves]

It's not offtopic, but some mod didn't like it, was too lazy to comment, and preferred modding it Offtopic since there was no "-1, Disagree" option.

Re:That's the beauty of open source...

[dlZ]

I use Gnome on my main desktop, but I really like xfce on pretty much every other machine. It's not very flashy, but I always found it an easy to use desktop. I still do most things with the CLI, and a GUI that doesn't get in the way is nice. Most of the time I just have a ton of ssh sessions going into other machines, and the GUI just makes hopping between them easier (normally about 3-4 shells, and I usually have screen running on the machines I'm ssh'd into.)

Efficiency is ...

[rohan972]

laziness + ambition?

Re:Interesting quotes from the article

[Todd Knarr]

Except for the applications that don't store their stuff there, they store it in the "All Users" profile instead. Which they shouldn't, but the number of applications that have problems under Vista is testimony to the number that ignore the rules.

Re:Don't think i matters all that much.

[trjonescp]

This sounds like a great idea for minimizing IT work involved in maintaining machines, but is this best for the company? The first thing that comes to mind is all the talented employees that are lost because they cannot customize their work environment to their liking. (obviously not solely for this reason, but it could be the last straw)

Re:KDE

[mirshafie]

All this article really manages to do is to explain that different applications are different. Linux users should already know that, but strangely many of them seem not to, so I guess there's a place for an article like this. (For example, the thing about Blowfish, gedit and Kate being different text editors that suit different people.) I'm a KDE user now. It took me a long time to get accustomed to KDE. I tried many different desktops at a quite regular basis but ended up going back to GNOME. The reason then was because it is so plain and un-cluttered. This was important because I had primarily used Windows before and everything from the architecture of the OS to the applications were unfamiliar to me. The problem is that as I became more and more accustomed to Linux I also wanted more from it. And KDE simply has much more to offer. Take for example the menu you get when you right click on the title bar of a window. Most desktops/WMs give you some very basic options. KDE alone gives you advanced options and the possibility to always apply certain rules for a window. Of course this might scare you off if all you wanted to do was to Close or Minimize the window, but still there can be no argument about how powerful KDE is. I don't think KDE is nonsensical in any way (above post). All the KDE applications have a similar structure in the File menu; something I hope other desktops will copy. Everything is well structured, take for example the Configure Shortcuts option that almost every KDE application has. It is the most neatly integrated desktop that I've seen. The argument about default looks in distros and desktops is valid, but scary. I don't like KDE's default look or behaviour, but the point is that I can easily change it. This is true for GNOME and other Linux WMs aswell. If people do not want to use this power, then maybe the problem lies with them and not the desktop. You can't expect anybody to give you a perfect default look since we all like different things. The best you can ask for is tolerable defaults and easy configuration, which KDE does have. It is true as the article claims that we dislike change (because it means we have to learn new ways to do things that we need to do). I think this will be less of a problem for KDE in the future, since many KDE 4 applications are being ported to other Windows. Perhaps in the future people that are already accustomed to using Konqueror or Amarok under Windows will find the transition to the powerful but cluttered KDE much easier than a transition to GNOME. Finally further down in the thread some people express that there is no point in discussing what we like/dislike about this kind of software. Which is weird because computer interfaces will play an increasingly important role in the lives of millions of people for the next few decades. Of course we need to have this discussion.

Re:KDE

[mirshafie]

(I'm sorry for the post above, it was supposed to be divided into paragraphs. I'm posting it again since it's pretty much impossible to read my last post.)

All this article really manages to do is to explain that different applications are different. Linux users should already know that, but strangely many of them seem not to, so I guess there's a place for an article like this. (For example, the thing about Blowfish, gedit and Kate being different text editors that suit different people.)

I'm a KDE user now. It took me a long time to get accustomed to KDE. I tried many different desktops at a quite regular basis but ended up going back to GNOME. The reason then was because it is so plain and un-cluttered. This was important because I had primarily used Windows before and everything from the architecture of the OS to the applications were unfamiliar to me. The problem is that as I became more and more accustomed to Linux I also wanted more from it.

And KDE simply has much more to offer. Take for example the menu you get when you right click on the title bar of a window. Most desktops/WMs give you some very basic options. KDE alone gives you advanced options and the possibility to always apply certain rules for a window. Of course this might scare you off if all you wanted to do was to Close or Minimize the window, but still there can be no argument about how powerful KDE is.

I don't think KDE is nonsensical in any way (above post). All the KDE applications have a similar structure in the File menu; something I hope other desktops will copy. Everything is well structured, take for example the Configure Shortcuts option that almost every KDE application has. It is the most neatly integrated desktop that I've seen.

The argument about default looks in distros and desktops is valid, but scary. I don't like KDE's default look or behaviour, but the point is that I can easily change it. This is true for GNOME and other Linux WMs aswell. If people do not want to use this power, then maybe the problem lies with them and not the desktop. You can't expect anybody to give you a perfect default look since we all like different things. The best you can ask for is tolerable defaults and easy configuration, which KDE does have.

It is true as the article claims that we dislike change (because it means we have to learn new ways to do things that we need to do). I think this will be less of a problem for KDE in the future, since many KDE 4 applications are being ported to other Windows. Perhaps in the future people that are already accustomed to using Konqueror or Amarok under Windows will find the transition to the powerful but cluttered KDE much easier than a transition to GNOME.

Finally further down in the thread some people express that there is no point in discussing what we like/dislike about this kind of software. Which is weird because computer interfaces will play an increasingly important role in the lives of millions of people for the next few decades. Of course we need to have this discussion.

Re:KDE

[kwilliam]

"cluttered, nonsensical and in a way, just plain ugly."

I am SICK of KDE vs. Gnome wars. WE GET IT! Many Gnome users don't understand KDE, and many KDE users don't understand Gnome. Thank godness many KDE and Gnome developers understand each other. That's why many of KDE4's new technologies (like Strigi and D-Bus) are not dependent on the KDE libs at all, but work equally well in any environment.

it depends

[Anonymous Coward]

I have generally been more fond of gnome than KDE. However when I installed Sabayon, I was really taken by their implementation of KDE. For some reason I really liked KDE on sabayon. After that experience I decided to install Kubuntu, but I found that KDE just annoyed me. I think both environments have bennefits over the other, but how they are implemented and how well the distro applies them can be hugely important. (And I know you can customize them to look like any other distro, but that doesnt change initial impressions).

Re:KDE

[fwarren]

I am a Slackware refugee myself. It is very much a your millage may vary situation.

When prefer the look of many GNOME apps, but there are just to many good KDE apps out there. K3b, Amarok and Konqueror being the ones I use the most. Since Slackware droped GNOME. It was pretty easy. Slackware with KDE, XFCE4 and Fluxbox. I tend to spend most of my time in Fluxbox.

I would just spend 3 days setting up my system. Install Slackware and all the WM's. Then go to linuxpackages and pick up everything there that I can use. Then download, compile and rundown missing libraries to build all the apps, dock apps, drivers and things that I like on my system. Then tweak the configuration on everything to make it work on my network and start up the way I like it. As I said, about 3 days. The system was how I liked it and much faster than Fedora. Things like VMware were a pain to set up, thus it the Slackware way.

Now days. I just install xubuntu, do an apt-get update/upgrade, apt-get install kubuntu-desktop fluxbox. A few more apt-gets to get all of my needed apps, dock apps,goodies and eyecandy. I am then left to download and configure by hand maybe 10 or 15 apps. All of which seem to do so without compliant and library hell (i.e. needs imlib1.2 but imlib1.2a to be installed). Then tweaking very few config files by hand.

Now setting up a new system MY WAY takes a few hours instead of a few days. As a bonus, the forums are very helpful. There is much more likely a tweek or info on how to work around a problem for Ubuntu than for any other distro. I have hot tried Fedora in the last 2 years. But the ubuntu based distros run almost as fast as slackware and much faster than Fedora. Not to mention Fedora making KDE a second class citizen. No contest.

If I want to play around, tinker, and tweak. Slackware is where I will go. Believe me, when RedHat drove me back to Slackware, I knew I had it better. But if I want a system 97% of the way to where I like it in just a few hours. Ubuntu/Xubuntu/Ubuntu is the way to go.