GNOME vs. KDE: the Latest Round 344
jammag writes "The debate about whether KDE or GNOME is the better Linux desktop is longstanding. Yet as Linux pundit Bruce Byfield discusses, it has entered a fresh chapter now that both desktop environments have versions that are radically different from their incarnations just a few years back. Moreover, 'the differences in KDE 4.6 and GNOME 3 (the latest releases) are greater than they have ever been,' he writes. Casting aside his usual diplomacy, Byfield acknowledges that he's heard rave reviews about GNOME 3, but disagrees: 'I suspect that the majority of users are more likely to be satisfied with KDE 4.6 than GNOME 3.'"
Workstation Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
I run an architecture firm entirely on Linux. All our workstations have two reasonably big screens and use Gnome. I have used Gnome since its earliest inception in various flavers of Redhat, Fedora and Ubuntu.
I have to say that as much as I don't want to, we are going to have to change to Xfce or some other alternative. Gnome shell is a disaster for the way we work. I can't believe that the developers and UI designers have completely failed to take into account those of us that are actually using our workstations to do heavy duty computational, graphic and design work.
We have spent the last 20 years moving to ever larger and multiple screens because we need the real estate. Now we are supposed to work as if we were using a cell phone? What a joke.
The developers need a good whack will a clue stick. As does Redhat. The least they could do is have a fall back to the Gnome 2 series.
We don't want to be the subject of an experimentet about how we "should be working."
This is serious business to us and has a big effect on our bottom line.
Kurt
I Gave Up on Both Years Ago (Score:3, Insightful)
One was too austere, they other over-eye-candied. Neither had any significant impovemnets in functionality over earlier versions.
Now, Gnome and KDE just get in the way of using my desktop environment to complete actual work.
Hello to IceWm and LXDE.
He's being overly polite... (Score:5, Insightful)
Byfield acknowledges that he's heard rave reviews about GNOME 3, but disagrees: 'I suspect that the majority of users are more likely to be satisfied with KDE 4.6 than GNOME 3.'"
I've actively sought out reviews and have yet to read a single positive review of Gnome 3. Not one. In fact, they are as universally bad as they are universally duplicates of each other. They all seem to very quickly identify and cite the same core problems with Gnome 3's usability, the specific and seemingly broken process which yielded Gnome 3, but also touch on Gnome's process failures and general lack of specification and healthy process.
I'm personally excited to see what all the brouhaha is about with Gnome 3 (hell, can always revert to Gnome 2 or KDE), and I say that as a current Gnome 2 user, but frankly, based on a wide number of reviews, I have exceptionally low expectations of Gnome 3.
Seriously, if you know of some good, unbiased Gnome 3 reviews, please post them here. Thus far, I've never read a single one.
Close, but no banana (Score:5, Insightful)
'I suspect that the majority of users are more likely to be satisfied with KDE 4.6 than GNOME 3.'
I'm certain that the majority of users are likely to wish developers would stop fucking with the interface they're already comfortable and familiar with and find something more useful to do with their time.
Re:And your point is???? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think his underlying point was that many of us users do (or will) miss the old choices.
I used to prefer KDE 3. Then KDE4 came along and replaced it; and the new design just made too many fixed assumptions about things I wanted to configure, and constantly threw in my face things I didn't want to *have* to configure. I never really cared about the stability / completness issue of the early 4.x series - I respect it took a while to refactor all that code. Still, with the fundamental interface changes they made, even today, I just don't want to use KDE4.
So I migrated to Gnome 2. I liked it ok. It's not as configurable, but I could get it close enough to how I like to do things. But instead of polishing it, and fleshing out the details, Gnome seems obsessed with removing features unless 80% of the users are using it (and everyone has some feature that's in that 20% category, so it slowly annoys the whole userbase). But it's at least currently usuable for me.
Now Gnome3 comes along. I appreciate everyone's trying to improve the desktop metaphor. But personally, I'm a spacial person - I remember where my virtual desktops are relative to eachother, what windows I put where, it maps nicely to an actual desktop you just can see only a part of. Gnome3's workspaces break that spacial mapping for me, and make it much harder to use.
And then there's XFCE. I like XFCE, it's been hanging on for a long time. But I'd like a little more integration and polish than it offers (I respect the fact that they're trying to be minimal. They've done a great job, given their goals).
But all that comes down to the fact that, for me and others: linux may be choice, but I feel like my choices are being taken away, as when Gnome2 goes away to bitrot, there won't be a desktop that I consider usuable. And forking and picking up the codebase of one of these environments is just way too big a task for individual coders - the only way it'll happen is if one of the projects has a schism, and they all seem way too in agreement for that to happen.
It feels like we're heading towards 15 years ago, when all the desktop environments were either incomplete, or different for different's sake.
Re:Gnome/KDE division discourages developers (Score:5, Insightful)
Around ten years ago, I was interested in building some GUI apps for Linux, but there was no clear path as to which of the two GUI APIs I should learn. I found the lack of a clear path to be enough of a discouragement that I ended up losing interest. I doubt that I'm the only one who has felt that way about it.
You're doing it wrong. Go with whatever API / toolkit you prefer. I'll use your software if its good even if it isn't 100% with my desktop environment of choice. In fact, I'm more likely to continue using your excellent software no matter how much taste might change and motivate me to move to a different environment.
I understand that this seems strange to someone from a different environment. But this is Linux. The chaos is a feature.
Re:Workstation Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
100% agree. IMO, gnome shell wouldn't be that bad if it was configurable, but users aren't allowed to configure anything. My feed reader has a systray icon with a number that tells me the number of unread posts. With a traditional desktop the systray icon is always visible and I know if I have unread posts, but gnome-shell decided that the systray must be an extra lower panel that hides automatically. The upper panel has a lot of unused space 100% of the time, and the systray could be put there, but configuring things is not allowed in the default configuration. Even the accesibility icon can't be removed.
Now I understand why Linus called them "interface nazis". Gnome shell makes OS X look like a OS for geeks.
Re:Why only these two? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to pick on you in particular but I am sooooooo tired of hearing the claim that "choice is a good thing". It's not. In fact, a good way to frustrate people is to give them too many choices [scientificamerican.com]. Moreover, the wide choice of windows managers is an example of Linux market failure. People don't use computers to run various windows managers, they use computers to run applications that perform tasks. The fragmentation of low-level libraries for sound, graphics, UI, packaging, etc., means that developers don't have a clear target for Linux apps. For open source efforts, this means wasted efforts on ports, plugins, and duplicate projects. For commercial ventures, it means that additional money must be invested to reach a more restricted market segment.