›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

KDE

kiwi_birdkiwi_bird
edited September 2008 in Technology
I've just installed Kubuntu, to try out KDE. I've previously had Ubuntu on my machine, thus working with GNOME.

I've heard many people say that GNOME is really dumbed down and that KDE is this awesome thing.
I have to ask you guys now: Do any of you use KDE? If so, why?

KDE is one of the worst DE's I've worked with so far. Though maybe I'm just doing it wrong.

Comments

  • ......
    I use it, at my university, because I haven't bothered installing Gnome. And yes, KDE is crap.
  • kiwi_birdkiwi_bird
    And yes, KDE is crap.
    Thank you, thats all I wanted to hear.. ^^
  • AprecheApreche
    I used KDE way back in the day. I'm talking about KDE1 and KDE2. Back then it was flat out better than Gnome. It had a lot of necessary features way before Gnome had them. Nowadays KDE and Gnome are equal but different.

    The philosophy of KDE is that the user should be able to do absolutely anything and change absolutely any setting. The result is that you have a million options windows, pulldown menus full of a zillion options, and checkboxes all over the place. The good part about that is you can actually easily customize everything to your heart's content.

    The philosophy of Gnome is that most users don't care about 90% of those options. The developers should set the default options that please the most users. Options and settings available in the GUI should be limited to things like wallpaper, where users will all want something different.

    There are plenty of other desktop environments out there, these are just the big two. If you get serious about using Linux I highly recommend you try out all of the major ones such as Xfce, enlightenment 16 and 17, fluxbox, and maybe even some weird ones like ratpoison, ion, or fvwm.
  • kiwi_birdkiwi_bird
    The philosophy of KDE is that the user should be able to do absolutely anything and change absolutely any setting.
    Personally I find it A LOT harder to change things in KDE than in GNOME. I also, using KDE for about 15 minutes, didn't find a lot of options..
  • AprecheApreche
    The philosophy of KDE is that the user should be able to do absolutely anything and change absolutely any setting.
    Personally I find it A LOT harder to change things in KDE than in GNOME. I also, using KDE for about 15 minutes, didn't find a lot of options..
    Wait, you DIDN'T find a lot of options? I don't believe you.
  • LusankyaLusankya
    The philosophy of KDE is that the user should be able to do absolutely anything and change absolutely any setting.
    Personally I find it A LOT harder to change things in KDE than in GNOME. I also, using KDE for about 15 minutes, didn't find a lot of options..
    Wait, you DIDN'T find a lot of options? I don't believe you.
    Open any panel in System Settings and your computer should lag like hell while it renders all the different dropdowns, sliders and checkboxes.
  • kiwi_birdkiwi_bird
    The philosophy of KDE is that the user should be able to do absolutely anything and change absolutely any setting.
    Personally I find it A LOT harder to change things in KDE than in GNOME. I also, using KDE for about 15 minutes, didn't find a lot of options..
    Wait, you DIDN'T find a lot of options? I don't believe you.
    Open any panel in System Settings and your computer should lag like hell while it renders all the different dropdowns, sliders and checkboxes.
    OK, I'll try to put it differently: it wasn't apparent to me.
  • ByronByron
    So I tried KDE for a little bit much more recently than this thread was last contributed to.

    Gnome takes a dump on computers with a lack of resources. My particular use case is a Acer Aspire One netbook. I was running standard Ubuntu, and the UI was pretty slow with limited RAM and proc.

    I investigated KDE using Kubuntu Live, and while it certainly didn't look as nice, it also felt slow. I did not feel it was hard to use at all, however.

    Then I tried XFCE using Xubuntu Live. It will take some getting used to, but it looks nice enough and it is noticeably more snappy on a resource limited machine.

    I might even put it on my desktop for funsies. My desktop is somewhat resource limited when put into the context of video editing; it is 4 years old. So I might go with Mint XFCE on the desktop to free up resources for video editing and other stuff.
  • Not nineNot nine
    edited July 2011
    I was running standard Ubuntu
    You realize there's a netbook edition for a reason, right?

    EDIT: Oh, seems they no longer have it. How silly.
    Post edited by Not nine on
  • Nine BoomerNine Boomer
    I've had to deal with gnome on a pentium 3, it's complete rubbish. XFCE worked sufficiently well. I haven't used KDE since 4.0 while it's now at 4.8 but I can't imagine it working on a slow machine at all.
  • ByronByron
    edited August 2011
    I was running standard Ubuntu
    You realize there's a netbook edition for a reason, right?

    EDIT: Oh, seems they no longer have it. How silly.
    Actually, I had done a lot of research into Ubuntu Netbook Remix, and from everything I could find, it was nothing more than some modifications to the Gnome for the smaller resolutions of Netbooks. For examples, there is a specialized desktop with friendly buttons (that was "more usable" on a small screen) and a program that auto-maximizes every window that opens. There weren't any real processing optimizations that I am aware of. And also, I am running UNR 10.04 on my netbook right now ;)

    UNR can be toggled on and off via a menu setting once it is installed. It really is just a visual thing.
    I haven't used KDE since 4.0 while it's now at 4.8 but I can't imagine it working on a slow machine at all.
    I had thought KDE was supposed to be resource-friendly and usable while Gnome was the beautiful hog; then there was "the rest of them." It seems like XFCE is taking what was (so I had thought) KDE's place as resource-friendly and usable. fvwm FTW lol jk acronyms.
    Post edited by Byron on
  • AprecheApreche
    I had thought KDE was supposed to be resource-friendly and usable while Gnome was the beautiful hog;
    You thought wrong. Both KDE and Gnome are big full-featured desktops. All the other ones are some varying degree of lightness, intentionally sacrificing features to be smaller and faster.

    The key difference between Gnome and KDE, besides Gtk vs. Qt, is the core philosophy. Gnome believes you should have intelligent default settings, and only have user-changeable settings for a few things. This is sort of the Apple philosophy. Make system preferences very small, and tell people they have to learn to live with the defaults. Even so, Gnome is still infinitely more flexible than OSX. KDE has the opposite idea, everything should be a setting. So in KDE there are a gazillion checkboxes, and pulldown menus are insanely long. Of course, there is no setting you can not set, which is kinda nice. That is, assuming you can find it.

    Personally I like Gnome because it has all the settings I personally need. However, KDE has many applications associated with it that I prefer. If I used Linux as my only OS, I would definitely be using Amarok. Kwrite is better than Gedit, even though I'll be using vim. Kopete is better than Empathy, even though I would use Pidgin. And so on.
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    I've heard that OSX is infinitely more flexible than OSX, you just have to know an "infinite" number of terminal commands. Thankfully the only things I want to change from the default are some window resizing issues, and those I just live with.
  • AprecheApreche
    I've heard that OSX is infinitely more flexible than OSX, you just have to know an "infinite" number of terminal commands. Thankfully the only things I want to change from the default are some window resizing issues, and those I just live with.
    My favorite example is displaying hidden files in Finder. You can change the setting on the command line, but it's a global setting. There's no way to turn it on or off on a per-folder basis. I think you also have to restart finder to change the setting. Finder is the only file-system browser to not have this feature.

    Unless of course, they added it in Lion. Apple likes to claim they invented something new when they add a new feature that everyone else has had for 10+ years.
  • ByronByron
    If I used Linux as my only OS, I would definitely be using Amarok. Kwrite is better than Gedit, even though I'll be using vim. Kopete is better than Empathy, even though I would use Pidgin. And so on.
    I never had much love for Amarok. vim and Pidgin, however, I completely agree with.

    I'm unaware of any software that I want or use that can run in one WM/DE but not another. For example, I'm pretty sure my desktop computer running Gnome has all kinds of KDE extensions in it.
  • AprecheApreche
    I'm unaware of any software that I want or use that can run in one WM/DE but not another. For example, I'm pretty sure my desktop computer running Gnome has all kinds of KDE extensions in it.
    They've really done a lot of work integrating the two. It's pretty easy nowadays to have a system with both the Gtk and Qt libraries installed simultaneously with both having the same, or very similar, themes. It used to be back in the day the apps would be completely different in appearance and behavior even though they were on the same screen next to each other. For example, you would make a setting like double click on title bar to maximize, and it would only apply to some of your apps.
  • AprecheApreche
    Are there any KDE 4.7 Live CDs out there?
  • NeitoNeito
    Kbuntu 11.04 can get 4.7, according to their site, but doesn't ship with it native. That seems to be the closest you can get.
  • AriaAria
    Doesn't Mint come with KDE now? Since it's a recent change, it's probably the latest version.
  • AprecheApreche
    Doesn't Mint come with KDE now? Since it's a recent change, it's probably the latest version.
    4.7 came out today, so...

    You can get it on Kubuntu if you use the ppa.
  • Not nineNot nine
    edited August 2011
    Put Kubuntu on a USB stick and install KDE 4.7? It'll just save that on the free space of the stick (if you told it to do so). Or some sort of slipstream? That would be more hassle than it's worth though.
    Post edited by Not nine on
  • ByronByron
    Doesn't Mint come with KDE now? Since it's a recent change, it's probably the latest version.
    Actually, Mint notes releases for Xfce, LXDE, and a version for KDE. I'm not sure what desktop environment Mint 11 is releasing with.
  • AprecheApreche
    Doesn't Mint come with KDE now? Since it's a recent change, it's probably the latest version.
    Actually, Mint notes releases for Xfce, LXDE, and a version for KDE. I'm not sure what desktop environment Mint 11 is releasing with.
    Oh yeah, I never actually tried LXDE. I should check it out.
  • ByronByron
    edited August 2011
    Doesn't Mint come with KDE now? Since it's a recent change, it's probably the latest version.
    Actually, Mint notes releases for Xfce, LXDE, and a version for KDE. I'm not sure what desktop environment Mint 11 is releasing with.
    Oh yeah, I never actually tried LXDE. I should check it out.
    I think Knoppix uses LXDE. The problem is that I never use my Knoppix Live CD *ahem* ThumbDrive for anything but firing up a terminal and hacking. Most often, I run "knoppix 2", which avoids the GUI altogether.
    Post edited by Byron on
Sign In or Register to comment.