What desktop environment do you prefer?
- Thread starter Jayce
- Start date
- Status
Jayce
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 3,056
- Location
- /home/jason
Well, after a week or so of using KDE full time I figured maybe it was time I posted back with my opinion. Keep in mind I've used Gnome for nearly 4 years, while I've only used KDE for about a week.
Operating systems in use:
Ubuntu Jaunty 9.04 64 bit
Kubuntu Jaunty 9.04 64 bit
Dual booting on the exact same system linking to the same home directory partition.
Once I booted into KDE for the first time, I could see why a lot of Linux users suggest that KDE is easier for Windows users to adapt to than Gnome. It's quite simple, really - Windows has a start button in the lower left corner. When you click it, it launches your available menu choices. With KDE, you click on the kickstart menu (the blue square with the K) and there's all of your menu options. It's not that Gnome is difficult... you just have your "start" button(s) in the upper left corner instead of the lower left. Once I kicked the KDE panel to the top of the screen, I felt like I was back to my Gnome roots - a place I felt comfortable with, and from what I've read, a common practice among Linux users.
At this point, the big difference with KDE and Gnome (before going into the menus) is quite simply that you only have 1 panel with KDE. I began to grow tired of Gnome's 2 panels, and replaced the lower panel with an auto-hide dock long before I even considered trying out KDE. This was pretty nice, and I stuck with it for quite a while.
One thing that annoyed me about Gnome is there'd be times I'd install an application, and I'd have no idea where it'd go. Then I'd have to play a game of "where's the new application at?" for a few minutes until I finally got it. Sometimes it'd be under system tools, or internet, other times under preferences or administration. Nonetheless, the applications still were there, I just had to figure out where. I didn't feel as though I had this problem in KDE. I think the problem is, Gnome strives to be as user friendly as possible by splitting up menus so users can quickly think "bam bam bam, there it is" when in actuality it can be confusing for a moment or two. Other users may disagree, but that's my take on it.
Installing themes, although very easy in Gnome, is more practical in KDE. There's no doubt that KDE out of the box is a ton more attractive than Gnome. But like any typical computer user out there, who cares, right? We're all going to put our own theme on the system anyway. This is an area that both KDE and Gnome are great in. In Gnome, you go to Gnome-Look.org, download your theme, it comes packaged in a tar.gz and you drop it in your Appearances window. Couldn't get easier, right? In KDE, you open your Appearance Settings window within the OS itself, select "new theme" and KDE-Look.org themes are linked right to you without having to fire up Firefox and hit up the web site on your own, showing you available themes without having to even download them externally. So you can browse through the list of latest, highest rated, most downloaded, and just hit install, install, install, install on all of them that you want to try out. Scratch what I said about "couldn't get easier, right?" This is easier. After you're done installing, you can exit out of that menu and select which theme you want to apply. Like Gnome, themes can often be in pieces. You can apply different window decorations, different color schemes, icon sets, etc. All of these options react the same way, linking you right to KDE-Look.org. Very nice, I was impressed.
And then you have Nautilus vs Dolphin. Well, I've always liked Nautilus, but when you sit it next to Dolphin, it looks... old. Nautilus is very robust and user friendly, but I preferred Dolphin, with it's available view of columns (which I like) as well as an undo feature, which was a nice touch.
Some of you may be wondering why I even bothered to try out KDE. What sparked the interest? Curiosity? Well, I like to "keep up with the times" and play around with the new stuff people are putting out there. Gnome Shell is being developed, set for release sometime during 2010, and so far there are several things that have been circulating about it. As of now, I've read:
A - It's a major overhaul.
B - It will have only 1 panel at the top, which is not customizable.
C - As of now, developers are saying it will not be compatible with Compiz. Kiss your spinning cube goodbye. It will however have some light duty Compiz-like eyecandy built in.
Being a Gnome fanatic, I tried it out for a while. I installed it on top of Karmic on my spare rig. I even signed up to the mailing list to stay in contact with developers and give my feedback and suggestions in a productive manner. I thought Gnome Shell was interesting. Everything is activated by 1 button in the upper left corner, labeled "Activities." When you click it, you can see your favorite applications, along with a small button to see the rest of your menu that would typically be under "applications" in the current release of Gnome. The small button is something I emailed developers about to increase in size, and the response I got back was it actually got smaller. Ha? Anyway, when you click on Activities, it activates the overlay, minimizing all active windows into a large thumbnail format, downsizing your screen enough to fit in the menu for your applications, home directory, etc. See this picture as an example:
http://fishsoup.net/blog_images/gnome-shell-20081122.png
I thought this was cool. A unique spin on a desktop environment, and something that can be actively used, seeing as though whatever window you click on on the right side thereby becomes the active window. So you can just click Activities, bam, open VLC. Click Activities, bam, open Thunderbird. Bam, Firefox. Totem. Exaile. Amarok. So your activities menu doubles as an application launcher, as well as a way to navigate between workspaces and active windows.
There's only one problem. When you're as quick of a user as I am, zipping through menus, applications, home directories, folders, files, etc, this is -extremely- nauseating to the eyes since doing anything activates the overlay. This is where I decided KDE deserved a fair chance, seeing as though if this was the future of Gnome, I wasn't so sure it was something I wanted on a production system. When I tried KDE out, I realized right away that KDE had the overlay option built in, but it wasn't part of the menu. You can customize KDE to activate the overlay by mouse movements, simply by moving the mouse to the very edge of the bottom of the screen, sides, top, or any corner. Further building on that, the overlay doesn't activate every time you browse to the menu.
One thing that I used to hear a lot is KDE is bloated and sucks up a good bit of RAM to run. I decided to see exactly how much it needs to run in comparison to Gnome. I booted into Ubuntu Jaunty 9.04, opened NOTHING, and checked my system monitor. I repeated this same step for Kubuntu Jaunty 9.04, also opening system monitor to see.
Ubuntu w/ Gnome = 365MB of RAM.
Kubuntu w/ KDE = 274MB of RAM.
Bloated? No. Not at all.
Back on the topic of my opinion of Gnome Shell, I know it's not entirely fair to judge stable production software versus software that is in alpha/beta stage, but nonetheless, the direction of the Gnome Shell isn't something that's overly appealing to me. It may be released and I may be back here praising it, I just don't know. But I feel as though KDE has a solid hold on providing any user with a very simple to use, easy to navigate menu, while still providing users with advanced customizable features to make their system "their own" while STILL providing the undeniable advantages of the Linux platform.
I encourage any user out there to at least -try- KDE. I love Gnome, and I always will. It's a production workhorse. But I think KDE is a very worthy competitor, and it's one I believe I will be using full-time from now on. At the end of the day, this is a great thing that Linux has to offer. Not only do you have an arsenal of available choices of flavors (Fedora, Ubuntu, SuSE, Debian, etc) but you have desktop environments to choose from as well (KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc). You really can't go wrong, since everything (including everything I said above) is a matter of preference.
To throw out some more personal preference point of views, I've read that Linus Torvalds (creator of the Linux kernel) prefers KDE, while Mark Shuttleworth (creator of Ubuntu) prefers Gnome.
Gotta love it!
Operating systems in use:
Ubuntu Jaunty 9.04 64 bit
Kubuntu Jaunty 9.04 64 bit
Dual booting on the exact same system linking to the same home directory partition.
Once I booted into KDE for the first time, I could see why a lot of Linux users suggest that KDE is easier for Windows users to adapt to than Gnome. It's quite simple, really - Windows has a start button in the lower left corner. When you click it, it launches your available menu choices. With KDE, you click on the kickstart menu (the blue square with the K) and there's all of your menu options. It's not that Gnome is difficult... you just have your "start" button(s) in the upper left corner instead of the lower left. Once I kicked the KDE panel to the top of the screen, I felt like I was back to my Gnome roots - a place I felt comfortable with, and from what I've read, a common practice among Linux users.
At this point, the big difference with KDE and Gnome (before going into the menus) is quite simply that you only have 1 panel with KDE. I began to grow tired of Gnome's 2 panels, and replaced the lower panel with an auto-hide dock long before I even considered trying out KDE. This was pretty nice, and I stuck with it for quite a while.
One thing that annoyed me about Gnome is there'd be times I'd install an application, and I'd have no idea where it'd go. Then I'd have to play a game of "where's the new application at?" for a few minutes until I finally got it. Sometimes it'd be under system tools, or internet, other times under preferences or administration. Nonetheless, the applications still were there, I just had to figure out where. I didn't feel as though I had this problem in KDE. I think the problem is, Gnome strives to be as user friendly as possible by splitting up menus so users can quickly think "bam bam bam, there it is" when in actuality it can be confusing for a moment or two. Other users may disagree, but that's my take on it.
Installing themes, although very easy in Gnome, is more practical in KDE. There's no doubt that KDE out of the box is a ton more attractive than Gnome. But like any typical computer user out there, who cares, right? We're all going to put our own theme on the system anyway. This is an area that both KDE and Gnome are great in. In Gnome, you go to Gnome-Look.org, download your theme, it comes packaged in a tar.gz and you drop it in your Appearances window. Couldn't get easier, right? In KDE, you open your Appearance Settings window within the OS itself, select "new theme" and KDE-Look.org themes are linked right to you without having to fire up Firefox and hit up the web site on your own, showing you available themes without having to even download them externally. So you can browse through the list of latest, highest rated, most downloaded, and just hit install, install, install, install on all of them that you want to try out. Scratch what I said about "couldn't get easier, right?" This is easier. After you're done installing, you can exit out of that menu and select which theme you want to apply. Like Gnome, themes can often be in pieces. You can apply different window decorations, different color schemes, icon sets, etc. All of these options react the same way, linking you right to KDE-Look.org. Very nice, I was impressed.
And then you have Nautilus vs Dolphin. Well, I've always liked Nautilus, but when you sit it next to Dolphin, it looks... old. Nautilus is very robust and user friendly, but I preferred Dolphin, with it's available view of columns (which I like) as well as an undo feature, which was a nice touch.
Some of you may be wondering why I even bothered to try out KDE. What sparked the interest? Curiosity? Well, I like to "keep up with the times" and play around with the new stuff people are putting out there. Gnome Shell is being developed, set for release sometime during 2010, and so far there are several things that have been circulating about it. As of now, I've read:
A - It's a major overhaul.
B - It will have only 1 panel at the top, which is not customizable.
C - As of now, developers are saying it will not be compatible with Compiz. Kiss your spinning cube goodbye. It will however have some light duty Compiz-like eyecandy built in.
Being a Gnome fanatic, I tried it out for a while. I installed it on top of Karmic on my spare rig. I even signed up to the mailing list to stay in contact with developers and give my feedback and suggestions in a productive manner. I thought Gnome Shell was interesting. Everything is activated by 1 button in the upper left corner, labeled "Activities." When you click it, you can see your favorite applications, along with a small button to see the rest of your menu that would typically be under "applications" in the current release of Gnome. The small button is something I emailed developers about to increase in size, and the response I got back was it actually got smaller. Ha? Anyway, when you click on Activities, it activates the overlay, minimizing all active windows into a large thumbnail format, downsizing your screen enough to fit in the menu for your applications, home directory, etc. See this picture as an example:
http://fishsoup.net/blog_images/gnome-shell-20081122.png
I thought this was cool. A unique spin on a desktop environment, and something that can be actively used, seeing as though whatever window you click on on the right side thereby becomes the active window. So you can just click Activities, bam, open VLC. Click Activities, bam, open Thunderbird. Bam, Firefox. Totem. Exaile. Amarok. So your activities menu doubles as an application launcher, as well as a way to navigate between workspaces and active windows.
There's only one problem. When you're as quick of a user as I am, zipping through menus, applications, home directories, folders, files, etc, this is -extremely- nauseating to the eyes since doing anything activates the overlay. This is where I decided KDE deserved a fair chance, seeing as though if this was the future of Gnome, I wasn't so sure it was something I wanted on a production system. When I tried KDE out, I realized right away that KDE had the overlay option built in, but it wasn't part of the menu. You can customize KDE to activate the overlay by mouse movements, simply by moving the mouse to the very edge of the bottom of the screen, sides, top, or any corner. Further building on that, the overlay doesn't activate every time you browse to the menu.
One thing that I used to hear a lot is KDE is bloated and sucks up a good bit of RAM to run. I decided to see exactly how much it needs to run in comparison to Gnome. I booted into Ubuntu Jaunty 9.04, opened NOTHING, and checked my system monitor. I repeated this same step for Kubuntu Jaunty 9.04, also opening system monitor to see.
Ubuntu w/ Gnome = 365MB of RAM.
Kubuntu w/ KDE = 274MB of RAM.
Bloated? No. Not at all.
Back on the topic of my opinion of Gnome Shell, I know it's not entirely fair to judge stable production software versus software that is in alpha/beta stage, but nonetheless, the direction of the Gnome Shell isn't something that's overly appealing to me. It may be released and I may be back here praising it, I just don't know. But I feel as though KDE has a solid hold on providing any user with a very simple to use, easy to navigate menu, while still providing users with advanced customizable features to make their system "their own" while STILL providing the undeniable advantages of the Linux platform.
I encourage any user out there to at least -try- KDE. I love Gnome, and I always will. It's a production workhorse. But I think KDE is a very worthy competitor, and it's one I believe I will be using full-time from now on. At the end of the day, this is a great thing that Linux has to offer. Not only do you have an arsenal of available choices of flavors (Fedora, Ubuntu, SuSE, Debian, etc) but you have desktop environments to choose from as well (KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc). You really can't go wrong, since everything (including everything I said above) is a matter of preference.
To throw out some more personal preference point of views, I've read that Linus Torvalds (creator of the Linux kernel) prefers KDE, while Mark Shuttleworth (creator of Ubuntu) prefers Gnome.
Gotta love it!
Having tried both extensively (both for longer than a period of a year, although KDE not nearly as long as Gnome), I must say gnome. KDE, in my opinion, looks messier with the single giant task bar than gnome with it's two somewhat minimalistic panels lining the top and bottom. I also like Gnome due to the fact that the gnome panels use pictures to change their appearance (meaning, I can make a 1280x24px image and use that as the background as my gnome panel) - Instead of a solid color, I make it sort of a gradient from ~80% opacity to ~60%, giving it a nice look.
EDIT: And I just tried out that Gnome-Shell. It looks like it would be something that a netbook would use.. Just not up to the full task of a full desktop experience to me..
EDIT: And I just tried out that Gnome-Shell. It looks like it would be something that a netbook would use.. Just not up to the full task of a full desktop experience to me..
Jayce
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 3,056
- Location
- /home/jason
Tell me about it. Gnome would be doing a good thing if they leave the panels as an option, but it sounds like an all-or-nothing game for the future of Gnome 3.x.
Also - KDE, single 'giant' taskbar? My panel in KDE is just as big as the panel in Gnome, except I only have 1. *shrug*
Jayce
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 3,056
- Location
- /home/jason
For some reason what you're saying is familiar to me, but I'm not sure if that was the previous version of KDE or not. I installed Kubuntu on several computers in the last couple days (all of them 9.04) and I haven't had an unusually high panel since.
I'm willing to bet though that you can customize the size of the panel. I mean, geez, you can customize your right click button on your mouse to spin the cube if you want instead of showing more options like it does by default, so I'm sure there'd be SOME way to customize the size of a panel. Offhand though, I'm not entirely sure.
Jayce
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 3,056
- Location
- /home/jason
When you say run lean, are you referring to less resources being used? KDE on my computer uses less resources than Gnome does, which wasn't something I really expected.
I'm downloading XFCE right now to toss on a spare Pentium 3 machine I have sitting around. I keep hearing XFCE makes old rigs screeeeeeeeeeam.
- Status
