When I first entered the Linux world a decade ago, my desktop experience was pretty was pretty abysmal: just xterms started by running the 'startx' command. It wasn't until much later, late 2000, that I started using KDE. I was in love.
Don't get me wrong, KDE2 was pretty ugly; Windows 2000 was out and looking damn sharp (I was still mostly a Windows guy back then). But it's similarities, such as the K menu and Konqueror, were familiar enough that I could get by; while not everything worked as I expected (the "Windows" key on my keyboard did not open the K menu, which frustrates me to this day) I found the interface intuitive enough for daily use.
It wasn't long before I learned about this other "desktop environment" (something I still didn't understand) called Gnome. My first impression of Gnome (with it's foot icon) were, unfortunately, very negative. It was more Mac OS-like than Windows, the menu layout seemed stupid and unintuitive to me, and I hated - HATED - GTK. GTK1 looked like utter crap: fonts weren't pretty, the dialog boxes were terrible, and GTK-based applications, such as the file manager, Nautilus, made Windows Explorer look good. Gnome felt and looked childish, unprofessional, alien.
Slowly, I learned more about these two rivals, but my initial poor experience with Gnome left me as a quiet KDE advocate. As my scripting skills improved I discovered KDE's absolutely beautiful and highly under-utilized DCOP interface, allowing me to quickly and easily manipulate GUI objects with simple shell scripts. KDE felt more unified (hint: KIO), more interconnected, than Gnome, and while Qt2 didn't really look fantastic, it was FAR superior to GTK.
Unfortunately, most people - at least, most Linux distributions - didn't see things my way. Many applications written by major companies (like Adobe's Acrobat Reader) were transitioning from Motif to GTK. At the same time, many companies new to the Linux scene were releasing GTK applications, silently ignoring Qt altogether. But why? Qt has a beautiful, object oriented (C++) API with so many delicious features - including cross-compatibility with Windows - while GTK (was) primarily written in C and according to my sources "a fscking bitch to develop in."
Well the answer, it seems, is licensing. GTK is licensed under the LGPL while Qt is (well, was) under the QPL, a restrictive license designed to protect the commercial interests of Trolltech, Qt's creator. Because of this, Qt wasn't adopted by many companies who were unconvinced of Linux's place in the desktop arena and were already uncomfortable spending developer time - let alone money for a Qt license - to release software used by such a minor niche of computer users.
And so it was; slowly things changed, from Qt2 to Qt3 to Qt4, and GTK to GTK2. In the last few years, major players in the Linux Desktop market, including RedHat, Ubuntu, and many others, have switched to being a primarily Gnome/GTK based desktop, leaving KDE an under-used, under-advertised, and under-developed bastard child of OSS.
So why does Gnome make me sad? I still hate GTK dialog boxes, Nautilus (seriously, why is each folder opened in a new window the default, a la Windows 95?), and the taskbar/menu system. But most of all, Gnome makes me sad because it has helped kill KDE.
earhaetr
Air Jordan Shoes, New Jordans, Cheap Air Jordans on Sale, Cheap Jordans, New Air Jordans, Cheap Air Force Ones,
Cheap Jordan Shoes
Cheap Air Jordan
Air Jordan Shoes
Nike Air Jordan
Air Jordans
Air Jordan
Jordan Shoes
WHOLESALE JORDAN SHOES
WHOLESALE AIR JORDANs
WHOLESALE AIR JORDAN
Wholesale Ugg Boot
timberland boot
prada shoes
retro air jordans
Nike Air Jordan Shoes
wholesale adidas shoes
jordan sneakers
air force one
wholesale air force one
air force one wholesale
Wholesale shoes
nike air jordan shoes
cheap nike shoes
retro air jordans
nike dunk
cheap jordans
kid jordan shoes
jordan shoes kids
Bape Shoes
Gucci shoes
wholesale Pumas
air force 1 low
custom air jordans
Yes, KDE is Linux's windows.
Yes, KDE is Linux's windows. Gnome is Linux's OSX - Agree, I prefer KDE, but this is matter if taste
Alex
KDE
Your descriptions and comments are right on the mark VLAD re: GNOME vs KDE. GNOME's is klugey ugly and looks like a CARTOON (except the cartoonist used CRAYONS instead of fine pens). Also, the UGLY INSULTING Gnome foot symbol is a real turn-off. BTW the foot symbol in your face is considered a serious insult in Asia (India/China) and the middle east, and turns people off in those cultures.
Oh and BTW despite what some GNOME fanatics say, GNOME and GTK are SLOW and BLOATED compared to KDE.
That said, GNOME/GTK was free from the start and there was no ambiguity as to the legal status of your apps or distro if you used it. Trolltech reacted too late with a change from QPL to GPL. Now anyone with any observational skill can see that business priorities (i.e. liabilities, cost potential and profitability) usually win out over technical elegance and quality. Look at shitty under-performing MS-Windows winning over better OSs because corporations will go with what they perceive as the lower risk decision over the better engineered solution. In the case of corporations choosing MS-Windows garbage over linux or Unix, I can fault them for making the wrong decision; they've paid a heavy financial price for that idiotic decision. However, in the case of GNOME on major distro's I can totally understand their reasons for going with GNOME and find myself agreeing with their (i.e. Redhat, Ubuntu, etc..) rational. Despite the fact that I like KDE and use it and know the QT/KDE is better.
Also note if it wasn't for GNOME, trolltech would never have had any incentive to change their policy. I hope KDE can make a steady come-back over time, perhaps with KDE4 that will happen.
competition is good
they both rock in my opinion, each to his own. I think that if there was no competition and there was only one leading desktop environment, it wouldn't have to keep up with the other one and therefore wouldn't be as good. And Btw, I like Gnome better than KDE ;)
I appreciate your feedback and comments!
Let me take a moment to respond to some of the comments you've all made:
I've found the recent advancements to Gnome (ie, it's implementation in Ubuntu and RHEL5) very user friendly, very usable, and I've overall been quite impressed with it; especially compared to where it was a few years ago. Those distros have done a great job at their respective themes and polish - but *I* still like Qt more than I like GTK.
When I said "has helped kill KDE" I didn't mean to imply that KDE is dead (indeed, the development continues on KDE4 and KDE 3.5.9 was just recently released). The KDE community is still strong and active. As a KDE advocate, I OF COURSE do not want to see KDE die! PCLinuxOS is a great example of how awesome a fine tuned installation of KDE can perform/look/feel, especially to new users. Even KDE on Fedora is pretty snazzy (the last time I used Kubuntu however, it looked like total crap).
What I'm saying is only ONE major distribution carries KDE as it's default desktop: openSUSE. Losing the backing of major distros will hurt KDE. New Linux users are, for the large part, being exposed to Gnome/GTK. Brand loyalty begins early on. Perhaps more importantly, companies which are FINALLY beginning to invest developer time/money into Linux are looking to GTK for their GUI applications. Trolltech's release of Qt under GPLv3 is just too little too late. This should have been done at least 5 years ago.
What I'm afraid of (and other KDE users should be, too) is that KDE will become marginalized. Obviously it wont just die out; but KDE isn't going to be much of a choice if distributions don't work to offer it as a viable, attractive, and usable alternative to Gnome.
Oh, and yes, I'm aware of themeing and as I said in the article, Nautilus' default mode should be browser mode, not Windows 95 mode (or whatever the hell they call it).
Nice
This seems to me much like my own story, though I stepped into the linux world in the days of KDE 3. Also, having programmed in Qt myself, I understand how vast, powerful and at the same time easy-to-use Qt is.
Now, having said that, I will admit that it's the latest KDE release (4.0) that made me switch to Gnome. After waiting endlessly for months and months for KDE 4, and not seeing any major new feature upgrades in KDE 3 during all this time, what the KDE developers have finally given us now in the name of KDE 4 is a totally unusable and buggy desktop environment, which seems like a software that should still be in its Alpha cycle. I assume many KDE fans like me have also been disappointed due to this.
Having worked in Gnome for the past 2 months, I can say that it is as robust and user-friendly as KDE, maybe even better. Also, whether one desktop environment looks better than the other or not is more of a personal opinion, than any real debate.
For now, I am pretty happy that I made a recent switch from KDE to Gnome.
-Rahul
Simplicity vs features
I guess Gnomes simplicity is Ok with simple people, but KDE is for powerusers.
Welcome to flame fest :-)
This article is a classic, it keeps the flame alive
Simply put GNOME is stupid and ugly and
the next GNOME-like thing will be MONO.
Gnome Sucks
I started the other way round a decade ago. On redhat with gnome and 'discovered' KDE. I have never bothered with gnome since, all the apps that use gtk, like adobe, remind that gnome is still inferior. KDE has always impressed me. You feel like you are going backwards when you use gnome and windows compared to kde. If linux did nor have kde, I would not have persisted with it for a decade, I can tell you.
The living dead?
"it has helped kill KDE"
Not a chance. The hottest Linux machine on the planet, the diminutive Eee, is a KDE beast. The hottest distro, PCLinuxOS, is a KDE showcase.
KDE is doing fine. And KDE 4.0 has gotten quite a lot of attention, too.
I agree with the Mac look of
I agree with the Mac look of gnome. I too when i first saw gnome thought, "that looks like a mac does." For me gnome was the Mac style, unassuming, simplistic (sometimes overly so), Appearance themed desktop. While KDE was the clunky (I began as a Mac user), oversized, too much gray, too many options desktop. Things haven't changed much - I still use Gnome. :)
Yes, KDE is Linux's windows. Gnome is Linux's OSX
I agree
Windows key to KMenu or Gnome Menu
Use the "xmodmap" command to remap keys to the meta key, or whatever one would call the action key. It involves a quick investigation of your current keys' codes, and a remap command based on your goals. Take a quick look with Google's help.
QT looks horrible, GTK clean
Funny, I have the opposite reaction as to which of the two looks better. QT looks like a bubble gum factory and GTK looks smooth and polished. And so the differences of opinion continue, that's what choice is. Neither of them "KILL" the other, they motivate each other and without Gnome's friendly compentition KDE wouldn't be what it is (and vice-versa).
Really?
GTK polished?. I DON'T think so.
It's ugly, it's graaaay and everything looks like 'rigid'
To develop in GTK is pain
Man, I don't understand how GTK can be smooth and polished. It is the same to say than plain C is smooth and polished compared to java. QT gives to developer much more than GTK. It's not just a widget toolkit. It gives tools to work with xml, multythreading, network services etc. Latest version of QT (4.4) has built in support for multimedia features and html rendering. Man, GTK does not have even the small part of this.
theming and such
You know there is such a thing as theming. You can make it look a lot prettier than the stock look. you also can configure nautilus to be in "browser mode"; this will open links in the same window. this option is in the preferences.
Post new comment