Which Is The Cool Desktop? KDE Or Gnome?

[Qrntz 0]

I used to prefer Gnome because it was less kiddy looking than KDE. I liked the professional looks of it, tough lately I've switched to KDE and I just can't imaging anymore why I liked Gnome. KDE looks just way better and more up to date than Gnome, which is a bit old-fashioned imho. Now, of course, this is only based on looks.
Functionallity wise, both desktop environments are okay, no real reason why not to choose one.
Speed wise I guess Gnome is a bit better because it lacks the 'unneeded' extra fancy stuff (tough it just can't win from XCFE or Blackbox, which are bloody ugly but extremely lightweight).

I cannot agree at all with XFCE being ugly. It is just a matter of customization.
Blackbox isn't the way to go if you want to look fancy. LXDE is better in the lightweight category.
As for me, I use KDE. IMO KDE offers more flexibility by letting you customize your system further than GNOME. I also find Qt to be a lot more comfortable than GTK+. Though we'll see when GNOMEv3 steps in.

[wutske 0]

I cannot agree at all with XFCE being ugly. It is just a matter of customization.Blackbox isn't the way to go if you want to look fancy. LXDE is better in the lightweight category.
As for me, I use KDE. IMO KDE offers more flexibility by letting you customize your system further than GNOME. I also find Qt to be a lot more comfortable than GTK+. Though we'll see when GNOMEv3 steps in.

Being a ligthweight desktop environment, it's customization possibilities are of course limited and out of the box it's ugly, but it's indeed true that you can make it look better.

[labstuffs 0]

I agree Gnome is the way to go!

[Atomic0 0]

Personally, Gnome is the best desktop environment for me when I am using Ubuntu linux. I think the feature of Gnome that appeals to me the most is the simple menu structure at the top of the screen. This simple menu structure is unlike KDE's menus, which in my view are overcrowded and lacking in organisation. Gnome simply has a better user experience the KDE,Also, the KDE desktop environment has become more Microsoft Windows-like that in the past, with the introduction of features such as the sidebar and modern 3D graphics for windows in the KDE desktop environment. I do not think this was a wide idea, because it does not do justice to the image of Linux being an stable and lightweight operating system.Gnome, on the other hand, possibly has these 3D windows effect but are more subtle, rather focusing in allowing users to use the operating system productively rather that play around the novelty 3D features.

[yordan 10]

And, of course, each time I can, I work without desktop : I simply start mwm&, and I work with stardard X-Windows, without any desktop - neither gnome nor kde.This way is far more lightweight, so for server purposes or even for home use, no need to start a lot of useless processes. It's not so complicated to type "firefox &", it sometimes goes faster than looking where is the damned icon to click onto!

[manuleka 0]

i'm a Gnome user... have been since day one of trying and using Linux... one of the main reasons for using Gnome on the first place was not only the distribution i got had Gnome by default but also have tried KDE and it's a bit more resource hungry especially with Graphics... but to be honest i always see KDE as the fancy desktop with a lot of effects readily available..

[8ennett 0]

KDE from the start opted for integration. A number of programs and services running in the background along with the rest of the system and allow the programs that the user is using to send information. GNOME is made "in pieces", each developer writes their program independently, and then try to integrate. Anyway, we are developing a series of software, basically database servers as the evolution-data-server and some other for programs such as GAIM, which are exponentially increasing integration of the various components of GNOME. Each environment has "star programs" that although they could swing the balance toward one of the two desks, in practice they are used independently. We could cite K3B , the KDE CD burner, or KGhostView , and PS PDF viewer. GNOME has to Evolution , an incredible manager mail and groupware tasks and the GIMP , the best photo editor for UNIX. To conclude, it is fair to mention the program that certainly is the heart of every desktop: file browser. KDE has Konqueror, 100% integrated with the entire system through components such as KParts or kio, to manage remote files as if they were local, web browsing and access to information fully categorized. GNOME has Nautilus, much slower and less integrated, although in version 2.8 and can work remotely without breaking a sweat, is not nearly as advanced as Konqueror. In version 2.6 included the "spatial mode, which basically is to work as with Windows 95. If we stick to the many people who do not use this mode, I think the nautilus guys messed up Having seen, keep one or the other is a matter of taste. We have tons of software for both GNOME and KDE , we can change the appearance of the two desktops and applications can even use each other. I'll stick with GNOME for simplicity, the look and it just works. I load KDE too, sorry. And you, what do you prefer?