On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 04:34:10 +0000, Murphy wrote:

> Which is better ?
>
> I'm a newbie and would like to save time time familiarising myself with one
> or the other if eventually I would find one to be superior...

Some people prefer beef to lamb --
Honestly, though, I compile from source, and kde is much easier and much
less tedious to compile from source than gnome.
However, as far as the finished product goes, many flame-wars have been
fought over this.

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

Murphy wrote:
> Which is better ?
>
> I'm a newbie and would like to save time time familiarising myself with one
> or the other if eventually I would find one to be superior...

This is question is something that can cause flamewars...

First of all, I think people should make a difference between Gnome and
Gnome2, most distros today comes with Gnome2. Gnome2 tries more to be a linux
version of Microsoft Windows explorer (the window manager of all the
MS-Windows products), but they have borrowed "request" button orders from the
MacOS world, this can tend you to get up a help information instead of the
"OK" button you by refelx thought you pushed. Gnome2 is more or less locked to
the products that the Gnome2 developers provides (some programs must be there,
even if you don't want to use them and you have replacement programs for
them). Gnome is a bit older and don't have anti-alias fonts by default (there
are two different ways to get that), but allows the user to tweak it a lot
more and easilly.

When it comes to KDE vs Gnome2, I think KDE3.2 and later are the best at the
moment, fast lets you tweak things a lot more to your taste and when it comes
to updating it's far easier than Gnome2 (specially if you would happen to do
that from source like in Gentoo Linux).

But in the end it's all up to your taste what you will be using, you may end
with something different like enlightenment 17 (http://www.enlightenment.org)
and there are loads of window managers/desktops for linux, all is upp to you
what you will be using.


//Aho

J.O. Aho wrote:

> Murphy wrote:
>> Which is better ?
>>
>> I'm a newbie and would like to save time time familiarising myself with
>> one or the other if eventually I would find one to be superior...
>
> This is question is something that can cause flamewars...
>
> First of all, I think people should make a difference between Gnome and
> Gnome2, most distros today comes with Gnome2. Gnome2 tries more to be a
> linux version of Microsoft Windows explorer (the window manager of all the
> MS-Windows products), but they have borrowed "request" button orders from
> the MacOS world, this can tend you to get up a help information instead of
> the "OK" button you by refelx thought you pushed. Gnome2 is more or less
> locked to the products that the Gnome2 developers provides (some programs
> must be there, even if you don't want to use them and you have replacement
> programs for them). Gnome is a bit older and don't have anti-alias fonts
> by default (there are two different ways to get that), but allows the user
> to tweak it a lot more and easilly.
>
> When it comes to KDE vs Gnome2, I think KDE3.2 and later are the best at
> the moment, fast lets you tweak things a lot more to your taste and when
> it comes to updating it's far easier than Gnome2 (specially if you would
> happen to do that from source like in Gentoo Linux).
>
> But in the end it's all up to your taste what you will be using, you may
> end with something different like enlightenment 17
> (http://www.enlightenment.org) and there are loads of window
> managers/desktops for linux, all is upp to you what you will be using.
>
>
> //Aho
Being new to Linux from the Windows world where there was only one desktop
supplier etc I have to ask the question which is more supported by software
suppliers ? For example would it be more likely for a business app to be
realeased for the KDE market or the Gnome market or are they one and the
same thing as they are both simply a front for X Windows ?


--
Thanks

Murph

Murphy wrote:

> Being new to Linux from the Windows world where there was only one desktop
> supplier etc

That really not true, there are optional desktops for the MS-Windows based
operating systems as litestep (www.litestep.org).


> I have to ask the question which is more supported by software
> suppliers ? For example would it be more likely for a business app to be
> realeased for the KDE market or the Gnome market
Some people/companies makes qt based applications, others gtk+/gtk2 based
applications, much is up to the taste for creator of the application.

IMHO the best could be to have a full KDE installation, install the base
libraries for Gnome2 and Gnome, and lastly install Gtk-Qt Theme Engine (this
will allow you to use the qt based theme for gtk, so that all the applications
will look more the same, sadly you have to modify the sourcecode of the
application to fix the button order in Gnome2 based applications).
This way you will be able to use all the applications.


> or are they one and the
> same thing as they are both simply a front for X Windows ?

They are both desktops to be used with a X Windows System, but they aren't
codevise compatible with eachother, you will need at least the libraries of
each desktop to be able to use applications written for the desktop.


//Aho

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 04:34:10 +0000, Murphy wrote:

> Which is better ?
>
> I'm a newbie and would like to save time time familiarising myself with one
> or the other if eventually I would find one to be superior...

Neither one is better. I would suggest you try them yourself (linux is
about choice) and some other alternatives like xfce. In a nutshell, my
impression is: kde is more fully featured - it is also 'heavier' - takes
more time to boot, possibly runs things slower. gnome is a little
'lighter'. In the past I have run kde when I had plenty of 'horsepower'
and gnome on slower equipment. I also prefer gtk for writing programs,
probably because I've never become really comfortable with C++ and am
quite content with a C environment.

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 09:52:58 +0000, Murphy wrote:

> J.O. Aho wrote:
>
>> Murphy wrote:
>>> Which is better ?
>>>
>>> I'm a newbie and would like to save time time familiarising myself with
>>> one or the other if eventually I would find one to be superior...
>>
>> This is question is something that can cause flamewars...
>>
>> First of all, I think people should make a difference between Gnome and
>> Gnome2, most distros today comes with Gnome2. Gnome2 tries more to be a
>> linux version of Microsoft Windows explorer (the window manager of all the
>> MS-Windows products), but they have borrowed "request" button orders from
>> the MacOS world, this can tend you to get up a help information instead of
>> the "OK" button you by refelx thought you pushed. Gnome2 is more or less
>> locked to the products that the Gnome2 developers provides (some programs
>> must be there, even if you don't want to use them and you have replacement
>> programs for them). Gnome is a bit older and don't have anti-alias fonts
>> by default (there are two different ways to get that), but allows the user
>> to tweak it a lot more and easilly.
>>
>> When it comes to KDE vs Gnome2, I think KDE3.2 and later are the best at
>> the moment, fast lets you tweak things a lot more to your taste and when
>> it comes to updating it's far easier than Gnome2 (specially if you would
>> happen to do that from source like in Gentoo Linux).
>>
>> But in the end it's all up to your taste what you will be using, you may
>> end with something different like enlightenment 17
>> (http://www.enlightenment.org) and there are loads of window
>> managers/desktops for linux, all is upp to you what you will be using.
>>
>>
>> //Aho
> Being new to Linux from the Windows world where there was only one desktop
> supplier etc I have to ask the question which is more supported by software
> suppliers ? For example would it be more likely for a business app to be
> realeased for the KDE market or the Gnome market or are they one and the
> same thing as they are both simply a front for X Windows ?

Install them both, and it doesn't matter, because apps for both systems
will be able to be run - BTW disk space is cheap.

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 04:34:10 GMT,
Murphy , in
<6LpBd.98359$K7.98165@news-server.bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>+ Which is better ?

Yes. Wait...that wasn't the answer you're looking for? actually, twm
is FAR SUPERIOR to either BLOATWARE desktop.

>+ I'm a newbie and would like to save time time familiarising myself with one
>+ or the other if eventually I would find one to be superior...

You're not me. You may not like Gnome. I do. You might like KDE
instead. Or you may think XFCE kicks some serious butt.

Pick one, try it. See if you like it. If you do, stick with it. If it
isn't all that in you opinion, try the next, and so on. Find one you
like, and stick with it.

Nameless
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

Murphy wrote:
> Which is better ?
>
> I'm a newbie and would like to save time time familiarising myself with one
> or the other if eventually I would find one to be superior...
>


"Ubuntu Linux" and GNOME
or
"User Linux" and GNOME.

http://www.futuredesktop.org/how2burn.html#mirrors

// moma

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 04:34:10 GMT,
Murphy wrote:
> Which is better ?
>
> I'm a newbie and would like to save time time familiarising
> myself with one or the other if eventually I would find one to
> be superior...

For help groups it is customary to reiterate the question in the
body.

As for an answer, it depends. Personally I prefer Enlightenment,
followed by IceWM, maybe Gnome and KDE. KDE is probably the most
consistent, and is well liked.

YMMV,

Michael C.
--
mcsuper5@usol.com http://mcsuper5.freeshell.org/

If at first you DON'T succeed, Skydiving is NOT for YOU!!

Murphy wrote:

> Which is better ?
>
> I'm a newbie and would like to save time time familiarising myself with
> one or the other if eventually I would find one to be superior...
>
I think KDE is easier to use for a beginner. There are lots of Applications
which look almost the same. Its easily to configure with kcontrol.

2300 wrote:

> Murphy wrote:
>
>> Which is better ?
>>
>> I'm a newbie and would like to save time time familiarising myself with
>> one or the other if eventually I would find one to be superior...
>>
> I think KDE is easier to use for a beginner. There are lots of
> Applications which look almost the same. Its easily to configure with
> kcontrol.

The reason I ask is that being a Linux newbie I don't want to screw around
for ages only to find out i wasted my time and I know it's a matter of
preference but, for example I wish to start with i had been told CUPS for
the superior option for printer control, would have saved me much anguish
if I'd learnt and implemented cups initially.

--
Thanks

Murph

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:38:03 GMT, Murphy wrote:
>2300 wrote:

>> Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> Which is better ?
>>>
>>> I'm a newbie and would like to save time time familiarising myself with
>>> one or the other if eventually I would find one to be superior...
>>>
>> I think KDE is easier to use for a beginner. There are lots of
>> Applications which look almost the same. Its easily to configure with
>> kcontrol.

>The reason I ask is that being a Linux newbie I don't want to screw around
>for ages only to find out i wasted my time and I know it's a matter of
>preference but, for example I wish to start with i had been told CUPS for
>the superior option for printer control, would have saved me much anguish
>if I'd learnt and implemented cups initially.

CUPS is incredibly easy to setup.

As far as KDE vs. Gnome, there's not much difference. Both went through a
major release recently (gnome 2, kde 3) and both strugled to become as
nice as they were before the major release. Both behave so close that
there's really no difference and you can use applications written for either.
IE: konqueror (kde's web browser) under gnome, or ephiphany (gnome's
browser) under kde.

I'm currently running gnome because it has a few more applets. That could
change tomorrow.

TCS wrote:

> As far as KDE vs. Gnome, there's not much difference. Both went through a
> major release recently (gnome 2, kde 3) and both strugled to become as
> nice as they were before the major release.

gnome2 is still far away from what it was before, it seems to bloat more and
more instead of fixing it's short commings. There is a major risk that gnome2
will be dropped from linux distros (only one that wouldn't do that would most
likely be RedHat/Fedora).

KDE has mad major improvements with each minor version number upgrade, as an
old Gnome user, I have been positivly surprised and switched over to it as
Gnome2 suxx IMHO (and shouldn't have been named "gnome", as it don't have
anything common with real Gnome).


> Both behave so close that
> there's really no difference and you can use applications written for either.
> IE: konqueror (kde's web browser) under gnome, or ephiphany (gnome's
> browser) under kde.

Thats only true if you have at least the libraries installed of the other
dekstop. You using KDE and don't have gnome2 installed, you won't be run a
gnome2 based application.


//Aho

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:35:36 +0100, J.O. Aho wrote:
>TCS wrote:

>> As far as KDE vs. Gnome, there's not much difference. Both went through a
>> major release recently (gnome 2, kde 3) and both strugled to become as
>> nice as they were before the major release.

>gnome2 is still far away from what it was before, it seems to bloat more and
>more instead of fixing it's short commings. There is a major risk that gnome2
>will be dropped from linux distros (only one that wouldn't do that would most
>likely be RedHat/Fedora).

>KDE has mad major improvements with each minor version number upgrade, as an
>old Gnome user, I have been positivly surprised and switched over to it as
>Gnome2 suxx IMHO (and shouldn't have been named "gnome", as it don't have
>anything common with real Gnome).


>> Both behave so close that
>> there's really no difference and you can use applications written for either.
>> IE: konqueror (kde's web browser) under gnome, or ephiphany (gnome's
>> browser) under kde.

>Thats only true if you have at least the libraries installed of the other
>dekstop. You using KDE and don't have gnome2 installed, you won't be run a
>gnome2 based application.

I guess if you're running on a 500 Meg drive that might be an issue.

If you want the app from the other desktop and use a package manager the
libraries will automatically get installed.

Dnia Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:22:05 -0600, TCS
napisa³:

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:35:36 +0100, J.O. Aho wrote:
>> TCS wrote:
>
>>> As far as KDE vs. Gnome, there's not much difference. Both went
>>> through a
>>> major release recently (gnome 2, kde 3) and both strugled to become as
>>> nice as they were before the major release.
>
>> gnome2 is still far away from what it was before, it seems to bloat
>> more and
>> more instead of fixing it's short commings. There is a major risk that
>> gnome2
>> will be dropped from linux distros (only one that wouldn't do that
>> would most
>> likely be RedHat/Fedora).
>
>> KDE has mad major improvements with each minor version number upgrade,
>> as an
>> old Gnome user, I have been positivly surprised and switched over to it
>> as
>> Gnome2 suxx IMHO (and shouldn't have been named "gnome", as it don't
>> have
>> anything common with real Gnome).
>
>
>>> Both behave so close that
>>> there's really no difference and you can use applications written for
>>> either.
>>> IE: konqueror (kde's web browser) under gnome, or ephiphany (gnome's
>>> browser) under kde.
>
>> Thats only true if you have at least the libraries installed of the
>> other
>> dekstop. You using KDE and don't have gnome2 installed, you won't be
>> run a
>> gnome2 based application.
>
> I guess if you're running on a 500 Meg drive that might be an issue.
>
> If you want the app from the other desktop and use a package manager the
> libraries will automatically get installed.
So I prefer FluxBox or BlackBox, both are lightweight desktops
perfect for old (and slow computers.


--
Moim programem pocztowym jest Opera: http://www.opera.com/m2/