KDE also has a neat random desktop background feature that Gnome needs a script to do. Nothing wrong with using scripts if they work, except they can be more of a pain to configure and just feel uglier.
After using KDE for a while, though, I started to notice the little things. I'm sure some of the bugs were distro specific, but quite a few bugs followed me from distro to distro. Yes, in KDE I could select which programs to use for which filetypes, but it would sometimes forget, and I would have to choose again. Editing menus in KDE was hit and miss. USB devices would sometimes mount, and sometimes wouldn't. The extra keys on my multimedia keyboard never worked in KDE, no matter what I did.
Gnome was always much more dependable. Menus would be edited properly, devices always mounted nicely, and the extra keys on my multimedia keyboard just worked, even without configuration. This was true even on distros that used KDE as their default.
KDE was a little flakier than Gnome, but I was willing to put up with it for customization's sake. Then I got a new digital camera for Christmas. I could not access my pictures. KDE would detect the camera, but it would not let me see the pictures. It was like KDE promised a friend that it wouldn't let me see them, no matter how much I begged. I spent hours trying to get it to work, and almost decided that Linux just wasn't able to use this camera yet. Then, on a whim, I started Gnome, plugged in the cable to my camera, and there were my pictures. Just like that. No fiddling around, no searching forums, no changing permissions, no mucking about with configuration files. It just worked.
Now I had a choice. I could use KDE for everything else, and switch to Gnome when I wanted to use my camera, or I could give Gnome another shot. I switched to Gnome, and am happy that I did.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - tami
Hi,
I happened to be a Linux "convert" for nearly a year now. My first trial was to install Ubuntu - I'm sorry to say but I really disliked the look of it at this point (hmm - I have nothing against brown...lol...but - why it was so boring...?;)Anyway - my next trial was Kanotix - with KDE - I've learned a lot - also about what I really like...It was definitely not KDE...hehe - so I went through quiet a long phase of Xubuntu - (Ubuntu+XFCE)I have to say I was very satisfied - fast and relatively reliable...The same was with Zenwalk - also with XFCE - BTW:lovely distro!
Anyway - they all were good but not good enough for me - I've learned with the time that the reason I've changed to Linux was:
1. The ability to suite my computers to my requirements - it means - simplicity and order - no icons and other "garbage" on my desk...;) - despite some informative stuff as conky or gkrellm!
2.My computer is to interact with me and do exactly what I want - it means it should be easily configurable (through .dot files, of course) and also - easily navigated through keyboard.
...and guess what - of course, I've ended up with Fluxbox and FVWM-Crystal on the pure, server install of Debian Sid. I am satisfied. But I would never advise anybody or try to convince that this is the only one way to go. My husband f.i. has changed to Linux in the same time as me.His first - and as it seems the last choice is PCLinuxOS - with KDE...and he seems very loyal and happy for it :)
To sum up - Your desktop, your computer is like the rest of your personal belongings - and - it should answer your needs. The nice thing about Linux is that it gives you the opportunity to find out what you really like about computers - and gives you the tools to make it into reality.
Happy "fulfilling" of your dreams in LinuxLand,
tami :)
2 - stmok
I don't have any favourites...I use KDE on one box, Gnome on another, XFce on a third, and Equinox on the forth system. (Equinox is like the old Win98/2k GUI, but really fast).
I don't find any specifically irritating and enjoy how they approach the same things in different ways.
When it comes to showing beginners, I demo them all and let them decide.
3 - TBerben
The only problem I've ever had with USB sticks is that all of the files on it are suddenly owned by root... But I suspect that that has more to do with openSUSE than with KDE
I've never had any problems with KDE: it looks good, it performs good, customizing it is easy... I love it.
4 - robertpolson
KDE gets my vote. I like it more than Gnome. A lot of good applications out of the box for productivity.
Great looks, great configuration. Easy to use for a Windows convert.
Try and see what you like best.
KDE for me.
5 - Rahul Batra
KDE Forever!
Not only it is an eye candy, but its applications are gr8 too... and yes, configuring it during its early days was a pain, but not since kde 3.2 i guess.
Still, the choice between KDE and Gnome varies from person to person. Both are great.. but I find KDE better.
6 - ocdude
I used KDE on Mac OS X (through Fink and Darwin ports on top of Apple's X11) and then on FreeBSD. I liked it enough, but once I played with Gnome on Ubuntu I was hooked. Problem was, the only i686 hardware I had to play with was a really low end laptop, so I ended up with Fluxbox instead. I thought I would miss Gnome, but so far, everything has worked out for me.
7 - Test subject #122
Xfce. It's evolving very quickly while still being relatively light as a Window manager. It's very customizable, and the default apps are lightweight and very functional. Given another year I should think it will start to draw back a lot of my OSX-loving friends.
Mind you, I live in the terminal. And I'm a minimalist. But I find more people in the lab use Xfce rather than KDE or Gnome when given the choice, because once a competent admin sets it up (not to toot my own horn, sorry if sounded that way) it is as powerful as the others yet simple enough to not get in your way. No useless eye candy to distract you from your thesis writing, and light enough to work on the ancient machines we're often forced to use at schools.
8 - jerseydevil
I am a fence sitter on both - until I started installing on Laptops. Gnome can not use my sound buttons, or special laptop keys ( FN + a key for print screen for example). KDE 3.5.5 just works for me on PCLOS and openSUSE flavors. While KDE still has some issues, Gnome does as well. For actually being able to use mobile functions, and a spiffy wireless GUI to know when I am connected - KDE is the only choice.... Gnome just fails miserably at these tasks...
Both DE's do recognize my Nikon digital camera, and Gnome really has issues with my ipod nano. KDE 3.5.5 and Amarok - that's a winner ( with using openSUSE 10.2).
The funny part is I have big problems running Banshee on KDE ( can not get it to start), and I am also having issues with Amarok under Gnome....
9 - Benanto
Well I use various DE's: I started out with GNOME (Fedora core 5 and Ubuntu 5.10/6.06). At some point I broke my Ubuntu system and reinstalled with Kubuntu 6.06, which I liked, and then Kubuntu 6.10, which I loved. Then I found a tutorial for setting up Beryl+Emerald on Edgy, and used that for a while with KDE. Sometimes I just want to work and not be distracted by /any/ GUI, and in those cases I tend to use ratpoison, vim, w3m, and Krusader or MC.
Currently I am using and loving Elive (Enlightenment 0.17) which gives me eye-candy, functionality, and quick shortcuts almost on par with ratpoison's.
Fluxbox is also useful if I want fast, easy, and simple, particularly if I am currently using ratpoison and would like to switch to a program such as the GIMP, which uses many specifically shaped windows.
XFCE has always appealed to me on some level, but I have never found a distribution with good default XFCE configuration.
10 - adolf102
"Which is better, KDE or Gnome?" The answer commonly given is, "It depends. Try them both and see which one you like best." - this is only good part of this article.
The rest is typical praising one desktop or another based on own subjective experiences.
You're not telling which one is better, you're telling which one suits you better.
11 - G Fernandes
There can never be a winner. Whats more, there really doesn't need to be.
Welcome to the wonderful world of GNU/Linux. You can, and absolutely should, use what works for you.
Thats the beauty - everything is modular and replaceable. Including your Window Manager! And your Eye-Candy-Generator - you may use Compiz, XGL or Beryl. Or the next Big Thing that comes out.
If it works for you, by all means, use it.
This is not about monolithic world domination - this is about YOUR choices.
How much cooler is it to be able to CHOOSE what your OS comprises of?
12 - Cigan
I love the KDE applications. Amarok is fab. One Songbird gets a few more features I am rather sure I will enjoy it more, but it's not quite there yet. I like the GAIM interface more than Kopete, but at the end of the day Kopete supports webcam and other features that GAIM doesn't(If somewhat flakily). I personally think that the excellence of their applications is one of KDE's problems.
Their applications are great, their desktop is . . . well shall we say shaky. I have run into too many problems of hitting the administrator button on a config screen doesn't work, or it flakes out on me when organizing mountable media. I installed Ubuntu a couple weeks ago which put me in Gnome land for the first time since HelixGnome came out. Yes Ximian before it was Ximian. The quick buttons on my HP Pavillion for audio just worked. I was able to find a keyboard shortcut program to link all but one of the rest. The way it split the "Start" menu into several sub menu categories on the taskbar was really nice. It doesn't feel so much like a windows or a mac clone. It feels like they are really trying to create their own interface and it does work really well.
My hope is that with KDE 4.0 the desktop elements (like the control panel and konqueror) catch up to the applications in KDE. I love the power of konqueror, but even the guy in charge of the taskbar and plasma project for KDE admitted in an interview on Linux Action Show that it's power is not met by it's user friendliness. Thankfully they are aware of it and are working on it. Till KDE 4.0 comes out though, I think I'm a Gnome convert.
13 - martin jasny
KDE is easier to grasp than Gnome if you are coming from Windows.
Martin Jasny
14 - stolennomenclature
I concur with your comments re the reliability aspect. I have never been able to use KDE on a single occasion without something crashing. Gnome rarely goes down.
However Gnome (Linux?) still does not handle removeable devices or optical drives very well. Of course Windows only handles optical drives well because it can't actually do anything with them apart from read them. You need third party apps to write to them, and none of them work properly either.
As to customisation - most of it is about colours and icons. Style and not substance. What needs to be got right most of all is the substance. I like style too, but not at the expense of substance.
Actually despite all the style options, backgrounds, icon styles, bitmaps, etc, most Linux distros still look mostly ugly. Only Apple seems to have figured out how to make GUI's look really good and slick.
Ubuntu for example seems to be trying to make the worlds ugliest desktop - and in the past they laregly succeeeded - thankfully things are improving slightly, despite the brown. Debian is still right up their with the best of the most-ugly-distros-ever, but it does work - and thats the most important bit.
It seems to me that the free software world has lots of skilled coders, but not many people who understand user interface design and human ergonomics. KDE's code may well be great (bugs notwithstanding) but the desktop is such a bloated mess. All you want to do with a desktop is open files and folders in windows.
We need - proper handling of removeable devices; proper handling of optical drives (including formatting media, packet writing, mount rainier support); Microsoft to do everyone a favour and go bust. Thinks that everything.
15 - Bruce
I switched to Gnome from KDE for the same reason. Although Gnome has less features it has proved more stable. If a feature will not work perfectly it is better not to have it at all.
16 - Josh Zenker
I tend to prefer Gnome in most situations. Of course, to be fair, KDE and Fluxbox both have their strong points. KDE gears itself toward customization, which is a very GNU/Linux thing to do. Fluxbox has its virtue in being lean and mean.
The reason Gnome has become the default environment on my desktop? It tends to be more stable, albeit noticeably slower. Sometimes KDE is too bleeding edge for its own good. Plus, in sharp contrast to Fluxbox, Gnome adds newly installed programs to the menu without extra work on my part. I have to edit enough little config files to administer my system without fussing with the menu too.
Of course, someone else may prefer a different desktop environment for wholly different reasons. That's the beauty of GNU/Linux; you're empowered to make that choice.
17 - EMoShunz
I am a recent Linux convert. Tried Ubuntu (Gnome) as it came recommended. It's great. After some research I switched to Kubuntu (KDE). I haven't used either enough to give a definitive response, but what I can say is that each pushes the other to improve. The reason I chose Kubuntu; the geeky Windows guy in me loves the future. From everything I've read KDE 4 and KOffice 2 running on Qt 4.2 is going to be amazing. Even the Gnome die hards can only sling mud, there are no actual bad things to say. I use it now to get familiar. IMHO Kubuntu 7.10 is going to be the thing that can push Linux into the public hands. I have already made most of my friends promise to at least dual-boot it this November.
Linux doesn't need to catch/beat Windows, they need to eye OSX and then the world will switch (see Parallels, Security, Stability...but proprietary, which is where Linux can win).
18 - jebbiss
I switched to linux in may last year. I started with OpenSuSE 10.0 KDE as my desktop. After a few weeks I knew I was a linux addict.
In august I decided to try Ubuntu with, of course the gnome desktop. After a few weeks I installed Kubuntu (K for KDE) since I preferred KDE's look and feel.
In October when Ubuntu/Kubuntu 6.10 came out I installed Kubuntu on my new computer and Ubuntu on my old computer. This is what I have right now. I like them both, I really wish that we could combined them together since they both have very good qualities and minor disadvantages.
I would recommend people to try the desktops before making a final choice. The first time I tried Gnome wasn't long enough for me to see its advantages.
I think I'll install XFCE again and give it another go at it since I only tried it for a few days last September.
This also goes with the which linux distribution to use. My motto is keep an open mind and try them all, then decide.
19 - Chuck
I had a nearly identical experience (in the same order) as Steve Wild, the author above. And, I feen the same conclusion. I'm currently running Ubuntu w/ the KUbuntu desktop files installed through Synaptic. I'm testing several customizations on KDE. Edgy KUbuntu is pretty. I'm holding on for Fiesty with the 3D desktop enabled, since Mandriva let me down.
I love customization. I'm an ex-winblows user that used to run LiteStep since ealy on in 2.14 on through till I installed Ubuntu the first time with Breezy. But, I keep using GNOME most of the time.
You asked ^o^
20 - 101101
KDE all the way. A few people have mentioned that Gnome is more stable than KDE. I feel quite the opposite.
21 - Luis
Of course KDE, most GNOME fans never give me any kind of real reason (I like GNOME too btw), but KDE is more responsive, it's fast, it have the better applications (amarok is better than any other music player, konqueror is far faster than Nautilus when you open something, K3b is better than Brasero, and the list go on and on and on).
I love KDE, but I even love more e17! That's the perfect mix, e17 amazing eye candy (better than any other desktop) mixed whit speed (it's fastest desktop out there) and KDE applications (use dolphin as my filemanager), and why not some e17 own apps (there are some EFL applications that are pretty well, like exhibit picture viewer or the news module rss reader (wich is SOOOOO light, it's a lot better than Akregator or Liferea).
Well, See you
22 - Chris
XPDE is my current one and i mus say it works better than gnome and kde put together and if configured properly kde apps and gnome apps work just fine plus I love the xp interface i gotta say it was done right as much fud i have against M$ i like the xp interface plus my wife seem to know how to use it just fine
23 - ethana2
Menu categorization and theming make a difference for me.
That's what I love about Ubuntu with GNOME. When you look through your programs, there aren't 500 of them.
In graphics, for example, I might have only Blender, Inkscape, and The GIMP. Simple.
If KDE is going to add all that power, it needs to nest categorization.
for example:
-graphics-
--pixel/2d--
---GIMP---
---GNU paint---
--vector/2d--
---inkscape---
--3d animation--
---blender---
--video--
---LiVES---
All you would see is
-graphics-
--pixel/2d--
--vector/2d--
--2d animation--
--video--
Don't flood me with options all at once. I want them, but I don't need to look through 50 things when I open the games menu. ...or 70 when I go to system tools...
The whole KISS principle.
The site is telling me there's a banned word in there, but I don't know what it is, so...
24 - manmath sahu
I was used to PCLinuxOS and KDE (its default desktop), but for the sake of performance I changed my desktop to Gnome. There was a considerable performance boost, it also looked suave. But then, I had to install all the KDE stuffs again and setup KDE as the default desktop, because I was unable to setup autologin in Gnome.
Would anybody plz tell me how to setup autologin in Gnome?
Thanks in advance
25 - miguel
I'm documenting my experiences in both desktops as a set of advantages in my blog.