Kde Vs Gnome

[rob86 2]

What's the difference between Gnome and KDE? Are they basically just "themes" or is there more to it? I run KDE apps on Gnome, so I figure it must be just a different appearance. I've been checking out KDE after hearing it mentioned a lot. It looks easy enough to try out so I plan to do that. What's everyones opinion on this though? Gnome or KDE?

[rayzoredge 2]

I think it's just the way they look and how each "engine" renders things. Mostly, it would be a personal preference. I also believe that there are more differences with things like the introduction of Dolphin (file manager for KDE) and whatever Gnome has, not to mention the software (like window managers) that power each desktop environment.I first played with KDE just because I'm so used to having the Windows interface with the start menu at the bottom, and by default, KDE has its panel at the bottom. I've settled with Gnome now because I think there's more customizable potential with it, but maybe I wasn't looking at the right places for KDE info. (Gnome has a Mac-like look to it by default with the panel up top.) Both have different tools and different schemes to customize your desktop, so maybe it might be a case of looking for what you want your operating system to look like before you actually make a choice. And it will be a hard one, because there's a ton of nice-looking themes for both desktop environments.

[Spyke Jones 0]

Like the difference between Chevy and Ford....they both make cars trucks and vans....well, not really anymore. Now it's Mexicans and Canadians making them!

[rvalkass 5]

What's the difference between Gnome and KDE?

By default, Gnome looks like this: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
And by default KDE looks like this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/KDE_4.png

Both contain slightly different software packages, although Gnome apps will run on KDE and vice versa. So, for example, the default media player on KDE is Amarok, and in Gnome it's Rhythmbox. However, either one will run on the other environment.

Neither KDE not Gnome is better than the other, but for some reason people cling fiercely to their chosen one and defend it like their lives depend on it I honestly can't see any reason why though. Yes, you'll have a preference but if someone has a different preference then that's fine - it's not a war!

Are they basically just "themes" or is there more to it?

As much as the developers and other people seem to hate it being said: yes, they are basically themes that change only the look and feel. Fundamentally they also control things like the login manager, administration applications and controls and other such things, but none of that really matters to the end user.

For me, I like KDE. Gnome always looked a little bit too childish for me, and I've now just got used to KDE and love it. I do try to keep on top of Gnome developments and try it out every so often, but I still prefer KDE at the moment.

[mahesh2k 0]

I think gnome vs kde discussion don't fetch much good if we compare look and feel and minor differences. Gnome is selected by those who are having experience from apple platform. And KDE is usually selected by those who are using windows. I find KDE as easy as windows. There needs to be lot of improvements in KDE since version 3 to make it more effective like Windows shell. And with KDE 4 they succeed as well, and because of this many distros have selected KDE as default window manager. To name a few Opensuse, mepis are bundling KDE window manager with their distro. Red hat gives you option for multiple window managers, so can't say this famous distro chosen what etc. I think even linspire also uses KDE as window manager. KDE or Gnome is more of personal choice. Cause KDE packages can work under gnome and vice versa. KDE is getting more popular cause of popular features are added with every new feature. I find KOffice bundled with Mepis much better package on linux. I don't know if there is any alternative package gnome ships. If we compare gedit/kate/kwrite then certainly with comparisons like that sometimes KDE gets votes sometimes or Gnome gets vote sometimes. So choice of window manager is more of personal these days. Both are easy to use and can get your workdone,that's the point.

[rob86 2]

I did notice there seems to be a lot of heated debating going on regarding KDE vs GNOME and I couldn't understand why. It seemed like it was just about appearance and a minor change in functionality in stuff like the file explorers and the "task bar" panels. It doesn't make sense to me, because these are linux gurus who spew out command lines a mile long, and then argue about whether a simple GUI menu is better than an even simpler GUI menu. I had no trouble adapting to GNOME's desktop from Windows, in fact I find it rather limiting and simplistic. The file explorer on GNOME (and probably KDE too) is so featureless and in-versatile it isn't even funny. I know it's on par with Windows' default functionality but I had software on windows that replaced Windows Explorer. For example, when renaming a file, I can't just click on it, I have to right click and go through the menu. In KDE, it looks like renaming even has a POPUP box! I don't need that kind of newbie guidance, just let me click on the name and rename please! Gnome straight out of the box (so to speak) is nothing to write home about. It's fine and works okay, sure, but I wouldn't fervently defend it's honor or anything. It's like a starting point for the desktop functionality I really want. I don't expect anything fancy out of KDE either though.I've been searching everywhere for something to replace the Gnome file explorer. I prefer a more "power-user" approach. I saw a glimmer of hope in "Worker" which I've yet to try. The more I'm using Linux, the more I'm liking it. It just feels right. I don't have much desire to go back to Windows anymore, even though I'm missing a bunch of stuff from it. I just need more "Power-user" tools to bring it up to the functionality I had on windows.

[truefusion 3]

What's the difference between Gnome and KDE? Are they basically just "themes" or is there more to it?

The proper term for it is "desktop environment." A desktop environment consists mostly of a session manager, a desktop, a window manager and a desktop panel or dock. GNOME uses GTK+ for its GUI; KDE uses Qt. Essentially, i do not think they can be simply passed off as "themes." Nevertheless, they both use the X window system.

I run KDE apps on Gnome, so I figure it must be just a different appearance.

KDE and GNOME both provide their own tools and libraries for creating applications that are dependent on these desktop environments. This allows them to take on the appearance that you set for these desktop environments. But if you were to use GTK+ or Qt by itself, they would take on their own styles, which can differ, however slight, from GNOME or KDE.

I've been checking out KDE after hearing it mentioned a lot. It looks easy enough to try out so I plan to do that. What's everyones opinion on this though? Gnome or KDE?

I prefer KDE because it's more complex and because PulseAudio in Ubuntu is really, really annoying. Before 9.04, GNOME used to give me problems in other areas, but those problems seem to have gone away in 9.04. I hear PulseAudio isn't to blame but how the Ubuntu devs have implemented it, but until all annoying things about PulseAudio in Ubuntu is fixed, i don't see how i can stand GNOME. But in 9.04, they've seem to have made KDE dependent on the libpulse package, so there is some problems in KDE also, but those are bearable—i just have to make sure the flash player is no longer active.
There are many more desktop environments out there; just go with the one you like. You might even want to consider LXDE.

[The Simpleton 2]

Ha ha when you start a topic like this you're inviting heated discussions!! It's like rvalkass said - none is better than the other. They both have their own set of pros and cons. In the end it's all a matter of taste.As for me, I've tried both of them and have noted that GNOME is lighter on system resources than KDE. That's why I've been using it on a regular basis than KDE. Whenever I feel bored of the static look of GNOME, I pop in a live CD of Kubuntu and KDE's ready to play!

[rob86 2]

Have you tried that other lighter desktop, Simp? I forget the name, but it's supposed to be faster than both Gnome and KDE -- though it sacrifices a lot in the looks department. I haven't tried it, but I think I might, I don't care too much about the appearance of my desktop, especially when it takes more RAM. I just like my Desktop Environment messy. Icons everywhere, monitors and buttons flashing all over the place.. the more confusing the better. :lol:On windows, my desktop had thousands of files on it and about a dozen folders. I couldn't see them all of course, which made the desktop relatively useless for anything other than launching programs installed half a decade old ago. I used to get lazy and extract all my archives on the desktop because it was convenient and they kept building up! My start menu was a mile long too, I made it one scrolling column (I liked it that way) and I would literally put the mouse on the scroll arrow and walk away for a minute and wait for it to scroll down to the newly installed program......

[rob86 2]

I've been trying Xfce for a Desktop Environment. I can understand now that "Theme" is probably an inadequate way to describe these full fledged desktop environments. They're completely different and it's almost like using an entirely new OS since all the settings, the terminals, the windows, file managers, are different.

 

I was quite surprised by how good Xfce was. It is much faster than Gnome and it's not too shabby in the looks department. It came with quite a few decent looking themes (in my opinion, I'm not too fussy about appearance). It's not as fancy as Gnome, but I don't find it ugly. The Xfce file manager doesn't have the arrows that expand a folder, but it's much speedier than Gnome's. I still dislike them both though. I just don't like the look and feel, the text is so far apart, so little information on the screen and they both lack features I used a lot on windows, like filtering. I I'm still searching for my dream file manager.

 

I can see how Xfce/Xubuntu would be an excellent Desktop Environment / OS for an older PC. I have 512MB, enough to run Gnome fine (but not great), but I can still notice a big difference in the speed using Xfce.

 

It's got a Windows style start button, which isn't too bad, and takes up less space than Gnome's way of doing it. One gripe is that stuff that doesn't fit a category like Graphics, Network etc, for example Wine programs, doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the "Start Button" menu. I thought I saw it in an Other menu, but I can't find it now. Either way, it's hard to find.

 

Anyway, Xfce is pretty good. Better than Gnome or KDE (which I haven't tried yet) ? I don't know. They're all pretty good. I'm liking the increase in speed, but this might be minimal on a new computer anyway.

 

I know one thing for sure, though, there sure are lots of options when you're on Linux... I can't believe I didn't install it years ago!

 

I'm not sure it's increasing my productivity though, I stopped working on my webpage and other things to make time to play with Linux..

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_X_window_managers

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Edited September 8, 2009 by rob86 (see edit history)

[iGuest 3]

My first distro was Gentoo, and I was playing around with it A LOT. I recompiled my system many times, as I was maximalist all the time, and screwed some minor things, which I couldn't correct, and couldn't live with it. At that time KDE became for me rock stable only very few times. Usually I found something freezing stuff, but I mainly thought it was my fault.

Then I choosed Gentoo, and it was more stable, although I missed a lot of configuration options.

Then I got tired of all the reconfig stuff, and started with ubuntu, as I just wanted to use the system. As kubuntu really sucked - it wasn't tuned for stability but for new features -, I sticked to gentoo, and got used to the looknfeel. And yeah, it was really rock solid and two click simple. But you see simplicity comes where are no alternatives.

Because of that my heart still cries for KDE, but for a rock solid one. My impression at present with Kubuntu was, that it does not give any sh*t on stability. And not just Kubuntu... Lately I have tried openSuSE which I liked very much. It seemed to me a little slower than ubuntu, but on the other side, it is rock solid, and I feel myself much more "like at home". Yast is simply amazing. A One-for-all tool I not even thought it could exist. Let me just tell, I liked synaptic (ubuntu maintain tool) also very much.

So, there is my dream system,SuSE, solid, nice, feels like flying. And when I try KDE 4.1.3 - which was marked as stable for at least a half year already - ... So well. Clicking 3 "crashed" window right after boot was an everyday stuff. I would say KDE states its prealpha stage stuff as stable without hesitation. And that's not the first time, but when I look back in time, that's a conclusion of 3 years of repeatedly big hopes.

I can say KDE 3.5.9 became in the stage where it can be called stable by others too. And it still has more shiny tweaks, and has more built in "push button, move mouse, roll wheel"stuff, which I really like. So I am sticking now to an openSuSE with latest old KDE.

So my conclusion is, if you want to have a waterbed with shiny installments, which may leak sometimes, but is all the way fun, go with KDE. If you prefer to sleep well, use Gnome.

But. I would attach, that Gnome can be very shiny too. As the whole art concept is more robust than KDE, the compiz features become visually more catchy here. In KDE there is already a lot of tweaks, and it does not change on the overall lookandfeel that much.

So both can look good, and both can be used well.

I my impression on the two system was that Gnome has a "way of thinking", and everything becomes simple to do, if you can catch that. KDE is rather for open possibilities.

And we can see that in the builds too. Gnome has mainly one app for one task. All are sharpened for that one. At start they decided to pick existing projects and maintain the, but none of them tries to save the world. It has a ton of relaitvely small apis, which all do it's job very well.

KDE decided to create all by own. It created much more sided program. Think on konquer, and kate. Both are designed to do almost everything.

That lead to KDE has more sided apps, more ways to go, more errors, more freedom.

Gnome sticks to usability and clearness.

That was all just in my (not humble ) opinion.

-reply by kobor42

[iGuest 3]

I've been a Windows user since "95".I've been a Linux user since Ubuntu 9.04 Release. Not long @ all, but I am very confused when people say KDE is Like Windows & Gnome is like Mac???  To me it's the total opposite, in fact. In Gnome **** just works especially in Ubuntu. KDE on the other hand U can customize the customization until hours have wizz'ed  by, and still haven't done any real work. But I wish I could add Kate & Gedit together to create the ultimate text editor (Please some programmer do this!). Also the merger of  Nautilus & Dolphin would make for a very interesting file manager. Not 2 mention the combination of GDM & KDM. Basically just add the best of the best in one, with the best of the best in the other, and combine to produce the ultimate OS that Linux, the world has ever seen. I don't write code, program, or anything like that. I just make it better. This would be the best hands down for Power Machines and Power Users. This would be the most sought after, downloaded, remastered, Linux distro the NET has ever seen. I think I will look into GTK+ and QT a little closer and try this for myself. There is no better in Linux of these two. There is only MERGER, Gnome & KDE together. The other Window Managers & DE's pail in comparison to the merger of the the top 2... Someone do this then watch as all attention shifts to Linux. Now manufactures have one distro they could pay real attention to. Microsoft & Mac would really be in trouble as more and more people buy bare bones equipment, instead of pre installed crap.  Just a few words from a layman.

-reply by DaMad-Man