Gnome Vs. KDE

[Asch]

To all Linux users[i know, some of them are their in the wilderness], which desktop environment between this two you like, or use and why[you might be using other ones too, no problem in mentioning them ]. I cannot form a opinion myself, if it was like 2 years before, I would have gone with Gnome, but now KDE is polished enough, and uses QT, while Gnome uses GTK+, on the top of it The back-ends in KDE are more slicker to work with, as working them on Gnome. But Gnome is more stable[as far as I have seen]. What are your opinion on this revelry, or its just meh ?

P.S. With 4.6.x I guess KDE has "that" upper-hand now.

[† L4ugh]

I would have to go with Gnome, but I haven't used KDE since SUSE 8.0. In my opinion KDE tries to be like windows explorer a bit to much. I moved from windows to find something different and KDE just wasn't different enough. I'm also a big fan of openbox, which is another user of GTK+. Enlightenment is another one I've been keeping my eye on. I think it will be the best window manager once it's allowed to age a bit more. I just can't see a day in the near future were I won't have gnome installed on my linux desktop.

[† Irish]

Im a minimalist and i love how gnome is simple and neat, I dont Really like KDE cause of the overall feel of it...

[nightraven]

I use Gnome most of the time I find KDE way to bloated. I like Linux for the fact that is has a small finger print and I find kde makes it feel slow and clunky like windows. I also use fluxbox or xfce on my lower end machines.

[hynkle]

I loved KDE 2 back in the day, back then it was KDE or nothing, when KDE 3 come out i had a lot of issues with it and swapped to gnome and I have been using gnome since then.

I think of gnome as the dependable work horse who i can all ways rely on, and KDE for me is a shiny play thing i use from time to time. I like gnome but KDE does have some fun bells and Wiesel you can play with.

[Jªvª]

I have to go with Gnome here. Very simplistic, dependable, and my opinion easier to navigate frontend.

[zolockit]

OP: "but now KDE is polished enough, and uses QT, while Gnome uses GTK+, on the top of it The back-ends in KDE are more slicker to work with"

Not sure what this implies... KDE is fully QT. QT is a framework, it handles both graphical and any other interface calls (even termcap). And in general, QT isn't the most awesome thing to mess with.

@Irish

>Gnome

>Minimalist

Brb, laughing.

K, back. I started with XFCE, then I tried Gnome2 one day. Gnome2 was so lame. It requires way too many libraries/dependencies that I was never going to call on. It takes up more resources than it's worth (metacity/panel). Its included/suggested/recommended packages are very lame.

Haven't tried Gnome3. From what I read about Shell/Mutter, not sure if want. Especially considering that "XFCE is [supposed to be] a step down from Gnome2 but a step up from Gnome3." But then again, like I said, Gnome2 was crap to begin with. XFCE is much more superior.

KDE is more of a resource hog, yet. If your box has the power to use it and not drop in performance, have fun. But QT isn't fun to mess with. I can make my desktop look much prettier with less.

They both sux.

I tried Razor-QT with Openbox as the WM, but it's way too young. Maybe in the future it can be the "minimal QT desktop" people want.

Oh and umm...

"I'm also a big fan of openbox, which is another user of GTK+." Dafax?

Openbox uses Glib [git source], which is a collection of headers for routine calls. Most people end up installing GTK+ itself though, for GTK+ applications; but Openbox doesn't have it as a requirement at all.

GTK+ ≠ Glib2.

Whoever said Enlightenment, I am laughing. No, just no.

Openbox, Fluxbox, XFCE > *

[Odeiux]

On my Linux system, I just use DWM. No desktop environment. DWM is so simple all you have to do is open up a terminal and execute the function you want, and then boom.