Search
Gnome vs. KDE - My Take
It's been a long time since I've actually seen a Gnome vs. KDE battle end with more than "Use what works best for you". It seems that not discussing the Gnome vs. KDE thing is the "political correctness".
But Linus, being his typical loud-mouthed, arrogant and attention grabbing (these things are true, and are not bad in and of themselves. If you dispute this Linus, e-mail me, everyone else can shut up. :) ) self has fired off patches to Gnome in hopes of improving things as he sees fit. The debate, it seems, has stirred up again and is visible on Linux.com and Linuxnews.com.
My rant today will be about why both KDE and Gnome suck. I'm not even going to say "E17 is better than both of them" or "Afterstep does this." I'm simply going to comment on why both KDE and Gnome are not perfect solutions, and why you should be critical of everyone's opinions, and form your own before deciding.
For the sake of this article, I will use DEFAULT settings for KDE 3.5 (Nothing major has changed in any of those versions) and Gnome 2.14. It should be safe to apply these opinions to anything in the same version family.
Let's begin this with the biggest part of the desktop environment, the File Manager. It's a part of the desktop that a LOT of people ignore, but it's something that will play a deciding factor.
Nautilus vs. Konqueror
By default, Gnome's Nautilus File Manager uses what some people call a "spatial view". Clicking a folder opens another window while keeping the old one open. This behaviour is perhaps the most complained about feature I've ever come across while discussing the matter. For the record, there are two ways around that. Double middle-click will open the selected folder in Gnome's "Browser" mode. By selecting Edit -> Preferences -> Behaviour and choosing "Always open in Browser Window".
Konqueror, on the other hand, uses this "browser" mode by default. In fact, the File Manager IS the browser, much in the same way that Windows Explorer is (and Internet Explorer before that). In this case, however, it doesn't make the browser and the file manager suck. :D
On the matter of network transparency, Nautilus might be a bit more intuitive, but it is quite a bit less powerful. For instance, from a default Nautilus install, the option to view Samba shares is immediate, nothing needing configuration. The fact that icons are visible from the beginning make it quite a bit more intuitive than Konqueror.
Once configured properly, however, Konqueror excels, making the transition from local file to network file almost seamless. Nautilus is unable to CHMOD files via FTP, for instance, while Konqueror does it with the same look and feel that one would be used to while editing local files.
The final differentiating feature of K vs. N is the file movement dialogues. Most KDE users are familiar with his option, which appears by dragging and dropping a file from one location to another. Once the mouse button is released, the user has the option to cp, mv or ln the files. Nautilus merely moves the file.
At first, this annoyed me quite a bit. However, as I began using the GUI for more and more things (Yes, that's right, I'm a Linux user who had to LEARN the GUI... CLI is quite intuitive and works the same on ALL DE's) I found that this was less of an annoyance and more of a time saver.
Having evaluated MY personal use, I tend not to move files at all. I download everything to the Desktop, use it and then remove it. If it's a wallpaper, I move it to /home/kevin/content/theme/wallpaper. If it's a source tarball I'll FTP it to my server and delete it, or compile it and remove the sources. Everything OFF of my desktop is rather immutable. When I alter something in one of those folders, it's usually for backup, not use. I like COPYING files I'm backing up.
With those things in mind, both Konqueror and Nautilus are etrememly stable. Both will copy files and show files without many issues. Because of the few things they do differently, and my personal use, I declare Konqueror the winner in the file manager battle.
One other thing that nautilus and Konqueror both do are draw the desktop itself. They control the wallpaper on the screen, the icon placement all that jazz. As of Gnome 2.8, Gnome was UNABLE to set different wallpapers for different desktops. This is something I rather like about KDE. I have a dual monitor setup. The idea that I must have a repeatable wallpaper to be consistant is bad. The idea that my wallpaper must be unbroken in bad. Until my desktop environment can eliminate the physical space between the edges of the two monitors, they should make the break as smooth as possible. With KDE, and the different wallpaper, this is handled by treating the monitors differently, which is much less jarring to me that having a wallpaper broken mid-way.
Kwin vs. Metacity
An often overlooked part of a desktop environment is the window manager. Of course, anyone familiar with Compiz or Beryl will instantly refute this, in the 2D world, nobody really cares. :D
There is only one real difference between Kwin and Metacity in terms of usability in my mind. Kwin has "Advanced Window Placement" options. One thing that is CRITICAL for me is that my windows open where I want them. Kwin allows me to place each window, resize each window, pick a desktop and have these options saved and applied automatically every time.
I always open Kopete on desktop 6. I like that when I open Kopete while VIEWING iceweasel I don't have to move it over to 6 from 1, which I'm currently on.
Metacity does not provide many placement options, and only one in terms of which virtual desktop applications should go to. For this, it's quite easy for me to declare a winner for WM between "Gnome" and "KDE". Kwin for the win.
Kicker vs Gnome Panel
Kicker and Gnome Panel are the little applications that run at the bottom of the screen (Gnome Panel is at the top AND bottom) and are a container for your application launchers, contains your taskbar and your system tray.
Let me begin by pointing out something that has ALWAYS irked me. Most window managers put their window controls in the top-right corner of the window. To close a window, top-right. Most DE panels put the useful controls at the bottom. To open an application and then co close it, you have to move your mouse across a full screen (or two, in some cases) to close it. Keyboard shortcuts can eliminate this, but putting the controls at the TOP of the screen can save our little mouse a lot of "walking".
For this reason, I have to give some points to Gnome Panel. On a default install, the program menu is up top, just like Metacity's window controls.
Here's where it gets clunky though... Gnome splits it up! Damn you!
Kicker defaults to the bottom. However, it's a single panel, which can be dragged to the top in about as much time as it takes to drag the mouse up top to close the window.
Kicker has some nice animations and informational bubbles associated with many different things. While this isn't exactly a plus for usability, it is nice. Eye candy is ALWAYS good. :D
As a sub-set of Kicker/Gnome-Panel, I'll address the pager applet for both. Gnome's desktop switcher is VERY bland, in my opinion. Bland being that it is just a set of boring boxes, where KDE's pager pulls the icon of the application and places it in the little desktop. This is useful when you accidentally drag a window off the desktop, or just want an overview of what you've got.
However, I must add in now that I think both KDE and Gnome kicker/panel are lacking in comparison to the general setup of E17's bars. Anyone who's used a dual monitor setup for over a week will appreciate it. However, KDE and Gnome both tend to treat the monitors as extensions of each other. For instance, set Gnome or KDE to have 6 desktops on a single monitor system. Then, add a second monitor. It shows (and treats) each desktop as a double-wide monitor. This is a behaviour that I absolutely hate.
E17 allows each monitor to have virtual desktops. I can keep my browser open on one page, move the mouse over to the other monitor switch to my system monitor, pop over to my mail client and then switch back to the terminals that's open, all without moving the broser off the other monitor. I can still drag applications across to the other monitors, of course.
The final difference between KDE and Gnome I've noticed is contant and nagging; the taskbar. Gnome-panel tends to handle KDE application events poorly, where Kicker handles Gnome events pretty well. It is quite annoying to have a never ending Kopete bar flashing away at me.
GTK vs QT
One thing that is important to touch on briefly is the toolkits used to build the applications. The use of certain widgets and toolkits give applications a consistant look and feel. This is why Gaim is seen as a "Gnome app" even though it's NOT released by the Gnome Project.
Both, when used exclusivly, are pretty good. I don't really know much about the underlying technical aspects, but between GTK and QT, I prefer the GPL of QT better than the LGPL of GTK.
It's when used in comparison to each other, or with each other, that they display their relative weaknesses, which I think epitomize KDE and Gnome.
Gnome seems to accept themes MUCH more easily than KDE. A KDE theme touches many, but not all applications, even applications distributed as part of KDE. Kopete for instance, accepts PARTS of the KDE theme, but other parts of it are ignored.
GTK themes are applied more smoothly, affecting all GTK applications evenly.
I'll end my review today with "KDE" vs. "Gnome" without getting into the specific applications that also define my opinions. However, I think it important to note that I use applications from BOTH KDE and Gnome every day. One problem I notice that affects both KDE and Gnome is their ability to work together.
Running Kopete in Gnome looks out of place. Just as running Iceweasel in KDE looks like the proverbial sore thumb.
This is something many people have dismissed as inevitable, or insignifigant, but it's something that has always reseted on my list of flaws with the Free Software pool. I like my applications to all look consistant. I don't care if that's KDE style QT consistant or GTK style Gnome consistant.
The Portland project attempts to address how underlying things work between desktop environments, but it won't touch how they LOOK. There have been attempts in the past to do something with it. the gtk2-qt engine, for example, will do it's best to render GTK apps like QT ones, making Gnome programs look more like KDE ones. For the most part, it does a good job, except in one very noticable case... Mozilla stuff. This is kind of big for me, but given the advantage of a uniform look, I'll cope.
There is, however, nothing like this to convert QT applications to GTK. If there is, it remains elusive. The best option I've seen on the Gnome side is MetaTheme, which died on version 0.0.6, and that was several years ago. What this did was caught QT, GTK and Java UI widgets and rewrote them in a common theme. It could use on of several pre-made themes or import MSSTYLE themes, making everything look the same. I really like the idea there, but the lack of momentum meant the application had little flexibility.
Since neither KDE or Gnome can theme applications from the "other side", I consider BOTH of them flawed. This late in the game, KDE should have developed a way to integrate non-KDE applications better. And if Gnome is focused on on "sane defaults", there should really be some method of enforcing these defaults. After all, a User Interface that isn't consistant is really bad.
Both KDE and Gnome suck. End of the debate (not really, but I hope readers realize that they BOTH need work. :)
But Linus, being his typical loud-mouthed, arrogant and attention grabbing (these things are true, and are not bad in and of themselves. If you dispute this Linus, e-mail me, everyone else can shut up. :) ) self has fired off patches to Gnome in hopes of improving things as he sees fit. The debate, it seems, has stirred up again and is visible on Linux.com and Linuxnews.com.
My rant today will be about why both KDE and Gnome suck. I'm not even going to say "E17 is better than both of them" or "Afterstep does this." I'm simply going to comment on why both KDE and Gnome are not perfect solutions, and why you should be critical of everyone's opinions, and form your own before deciding.
For the sake of this article, I will use DEFAULT settings for KDE 3.5 (Nothing major has changed in any of those versions) and Gnome 2.14. It should be safe to apply these opinions to anything in the same version family.
Let's begin this with the biggest part of the desktop environment, the File Manager. It's a part of the desktop that a LOT of people ignore, but it's something that will play a deciding factor.
Nautilus vs. Konqueror
By default, Gnome's Nautilus File Manager uses what some people call a "spatial view". Clicking a folder opens another window while keeping the old one open. This behaviour is perhaps the most complained about feature I've ever come across while discussing the matter. For the record, there are two ways around that. Double middle-click will open the selected folder in Gnome's "Browser" mode. By selecting Edit -> Preferences -> Behaviour and choosing "Always open in Browser Window".
Konqueror, on the other hand, uses this "browser" mode by default. In fact, the File Manager IS the browser, much in the same way that Windows Explorer is (and Internet Explorer before that). In this case, however, it doesn't make the browser and the file manager suck. :D
On the matter of network transparency, Nautilus might be a bit more intuitive, but it is quite a bit less powerful. For instance, from a default Nautilus install, the option to view Samba shares is immediate, nothing needing configuration. The fact that icons are visible from the beginning make it quite a bit more intuitive than Konqueror.
Once configured properly, however, Konqueror excels, making the transition from local file to network file almost seamless. Nautilus is unable to CHMOD files via FTP, for instance, while Konqueror does it with the same look and feel that one would be used to while editing local files.
The final differentiating feature of K vs. N is the file movement dialogues. Most KDE users are familiar with his option, which appears by dragging and dropping a file from one location to another. Once the mouse button is released, the user has the option to cp, mv or ln the files. Nautilus merely moves the file.
At first, this annoyed me quite a bit. However, as I began using the GUI for more and more things (Yes, that's right, I'm a Linux user who had to LEARN the GUI... CLI is quite intuitive and works the same on ALL DE's) I found that this was less of an annoyance and more of a time saver.
Having evaluated MY personal use, I tend not to move files at all. I download everything to the Desktop, use it and then remove it. If it's a wallpaper, I move it to /home/kevin/content/theme/wallpaper. If it's a source tarball I'll FTP it to my server and delete it, or compile it and remove the sources. Everything OFF of my desktop is rather immutable. When I alter something in one of those folders, it's usually for backup, not use. I like COPYING files I'm backing up.
With those things in mind, both Konqueror and Nautilus are etrememly stable. Both will copy files and show files without many issues. Because of the few things they do differently, and my personal use, I declare Konqueror the winner in the file manager battle.
One other thing that nautilus and Konqueror both do are draw the desktop itself. They control the wallpaper on the screen, the icon placement all that jazz. As of Gnome 2.8, Gnome was UNABLE to set different wallpapers for different desktops. This is something I rather like about KDE. I have a dual monitor setup. The idea that I must have a repeatable wallpaper to be consistant is bad. The idea that my wallpaper must be unbroken in bad. Until my desktop environment can eliminate the physical space between the edges of the two monitors, they should make the break as smooth as possible. With KDE, and the different wallpaper, this is handled by treating the monitors differently, which is much less jarring to me that having a wallpaper broken mid-way.
Kwin vs. Metacity
An often overlooked part of a desktop environment is the window manager. Of course, anyone familiar with Compiz or Beryl will instantly refute this, in the 2D world, nobody really cares. :D
There is only one real difference between Kwin and Metacity in terms of usability in my mind. Kwin has "Advanced Window Placement" options. One thing that is CRITICAL for me is that my windows open where I want them. Kwin allows me to place each window, resize each window, pick a desktop and have these options saved and applied automatically every time.
I always open Kopete on desktop 6. I like that when I open Kopete while VIEWING iceweasel I don't have to move it over to 6 from 1, which I'm currently on.
Metacity does not provide many placement options, and only one in terms of which virtual desktop applications should go to. For this, it's quite easy for me to declare a winner for WM between "Gnome" and "KDE". Kwin for the win.
Kicker vs Gnome Panel
Kicker and Gnome Panel are the little applications that run at the bottom of the screen (Gnome Panel is at the top AND bottom) and are a container for your application launchers, contains your taskbar and your system tray.
Let me begin by pointing out something that has ALWAYS irked me. Most window managers put their window controls in the top-right corner of the window. To close a window, top-right. Most DE panels put the useful controls at the bottom. To open an application and then co close it, you have to move your mouse across a full screen (or two, in some cases) to close it. Keyboard shortcuts can eliminate this, but putting the controls at the TOP of the screen can save our little mouse a lot of "walking".
For this reason, I have to give some points to Gnome Panel. On a default install, the program menu is up top, just like Metacity's window controls.
Here's where it gets clunky though... Gnome splits it up! Damn you!
Kicker defaults to the bottom. However, it's a single panel, which can be dragged to the top in about as much time as it takes to drag the mouse up top to close the window.
Kicker has some nice animations and informational bubbles associated with many different things. While this isn't exactly a plus for usability, it is nice. Eye candy is ALWAYS good. :D
As a sub-set of Kicker/Gnome-Panel, I'll address the pager applet for both. Gnome's desktop switcher is VERY bland, in my opinion. Bland being that it is just a set of boring boxes, where KDE's pager pulls the icon of the application and places it in the little desktop. This is useful when you accidentally drag a window off the desktop, or just want an overview of what you've got.
However, I must add in now that I think both KDE and Gnome kicker/panel are lacking in comparison to the general setup of E17's bars. Anyone who's used a dual monitor setup for over a week will appreciate it. However, KDE and Gnome both tend to treat the monitors as extensions of each other. For instance, set Gnome or KDE to have 6 desktops on a single monitor system. Then, add a second monitor. It shows (and treats) each desktop as a double-wide monitor. This is a behaviour that I absolutely hate.
E17 allows each monitor to have virtual desktops. I can keep my browser open on one page, move the mouse over to the other monitor switch to my system monitor, pop over to my mail client and then switch back to the terminals that's open, all without moving the broser off the other monitor. I can still drag applications across to the other monitors, of course.
The final difference between KDE and Gnome I've noticed is contant and nagging; the taskbar. Gnome-panel tends to handle KDE application events poorly, where Kicker handles Gnome events pretty well. It is quite annoying to have a never ending Kopete bar flashing away at me.
GTK vs QT
One thing that is important to touch on briefly is the toolkits used to build the applications. The use of certain widgets and toolkits give applications a consistant look and feel. This is why Gaim is seen as a "Gnome app" even though it's NOT released by the Gnome Project.
Both, when used exclusivly, are pretty good. I don't really know much about the underlying technical aspects, but between GTK and QT, I prefer the GPL of QT better than the LGPL of GTK.
It's when used in comparison to each other, or with each other, that they display their relative weaknesses, which I think epitomize KDE and Gnome.
Gnome seems to accept themes MUCH more easily than KDE. A KDE theme touches many, but not all applications, even applications distributed as part of KDE. Kopete for instance, accepts PARTS of the KDE theme, but other parts of it are ignored.
GTK themes are applied more smoothly, affecting all GTK applications evenly.
I'll end my review today with "KDE" vs. "Gnome" without getting into the specific applications that also define my opinions. However, I think it important to note that I use applications from BOTH KDE and Gnome every day. One problem I notice that affects both KDE and Gnome is their ability to work together.
Running Kopete in Gnome looks out of place. Just as running Iceweasel in KDE looks like the proverbial sore thumb.
This is something many people have dismissed as inevitable, or insignifigant, but it's something that has always reseted on my list of flaws with the Free Software pool. I like my applications to all look consistant. I don't care if that's KDE style QT consistant or GTK style Gnome consistant.
The Portland project attempts to address how underlying things work between desktop environments, but it won't touch how they LOOK. There have been attempts in the past to do something with it. the gtk2-qt engine, for example, will do it's best to render GTK apps like QT ones, making Gnome programs look more like KDE ones. For the most part, it does a good job, except in one very noticable case... Mozilla stuff. This is kind of big for me, but given the advantage of a uniform look, I'll cope.
There is, however, nothing like this to convert QT applications to GTK. If there is, it remains elusive. The best option I've seen on the Gnome side is MetaTheme, which died on version 0.0.6, and that was several years ago. What this did was caught QT, GTK and Java UI widgets and rewrote them in a common theme. It could use on of several pre-made themes or import MSSTYLE themes, making everything look the same. I really like the idea there, but the lack of momentum meant the application had little flexibility.
Since neither KDE or Gnome can theme applications from the "other side", I consider BOTH of them flawed. This late in the game, KDE should have developed a way to integrate non-KDE applications better. And if Gnome is focused on on "sane defaults", there should really be some method of enforcing these defaults. After all, a User Interface that isn't consistant is really bad.
Both KDE and Gnome suck. End of the debate (not really, but I hope readers realize that they BOTH need work. :)
Comment XML feeds: RSS | Atom
Leave a Comment