My desktop of choice is KDE too. But one of my hobbies is to explore other desktops. I've taken a good look at Fluxbox, XFCE and Enlightenment. Enlightenment is amazing. It just may be the desktop of the future. If I ever get a chance to convert a Windows user with an old computer I would use XFCE. But on to Gnome. When I first installed GNU/Linux (Fedora Core 3) Gnome was set as the default. I struggled with it for about 3 weeks before I figured out how to switch it to KDE ($ switchdesk kde). I was immediately able to do much more with the computer. But I'm the home system administrator. I think Gnome has been given a bad rap by the GNU/Linux community. I see Gnome setting its self up as the desktop of choice for large enterprizes. Users who just need to get the work done and not be fiddling around with near endless enhancements provided for by KDE. I understand too that Gnome has built-in administrative controls. So I wish to encourage the developers of Gnome. I think they're on the right track to help GNU/Linux find its way into the mainstream corporate desktop.

Gnome, for me, is more subtle and corporate. And for editing a quick file here or there, and can't do without gedit. In general I prefer gtk and gnome apps as well for the quality and the more mature appearance. However, Nautilus has become a beast that Thunar outdoes quite well and I now use nautilus only when I have no choice. I wish I could have a thinner, gnome like desktop, but xfce just doesn't cut it for me yet because to make it look the way I want it requires installing all these other components.

Ubuntu, debian, novell, and redhat have put much of their weight behind gnome or at least gtk, so I am picking that racehorse for now.

There isn't a WM/desktop environment that's perfect. KDE has too many options and Gnome not enough. If KDE could be switched into "I've finished tweaking, now I just want to work" mode where all the options were hidden it would be better. If KDE could easily have extra themes added it would be better. I've been using Gnome for the last 2 years after (wrongly) being told that KDE was unsuitable for new uesers. In the project I work for we install Linux for organisations, thus far, the ones who've had KDE have responded positively whereas the ones who've had Gnome are unhappy. That's the biggest pointer for me.

I've spent most of the past eight years supporting Linux in the corporate environment, both server and desktop. The typical user moving from Windows finds KDE awfully comofortable and familiar. I don't find it to be at all overburdened with features.

Richard, I don't think Gnome is on the right track at all. Dumbing down the desktop isn't the answer and there is no fiddling required that I can see in KDE. There are choices in how to configure but you can tighten it up and lock it down all you want as a systems administrator. Sal, I don't think there is such a thing as "too many options". You train the user to find the ones he or she needs.

I've been a consultant for Red Hat and I've seen companies that used Gnome/Metacity as their desktop under RHEL 3 and RHEL 4. Lots of issues, lots of complaints. I've been in a SLES environment as a consultant and found that KDE presented fewer issues, less odd behavior, and was generally a better choice. As always, YMMV.

The last "anonymous" comment was mine. That's what I get for posting at 1 AM. -C

Just use Kubuntu if you want KDE. I think you would find the version of Gnome in Fedora Core 5 is rubbish, as Gnome 2.14 was released a few days before Fedora Core was.

I am a returning Linux user. Supported RH 5.X and 7.X in the workplace a few years back but the organisation was not Linux heavy at all. MOF, they had no idea that the 5.X machine sitting in the corner was acting as their DHCP server.

I am now in a Novell environment so when I decided to get back into the Linux distros I went with SuSE 10.0, using the Gnome desktop. While I have not run into too many issues that could not be overcome by simply pulling up a terminal, I can see the point where Gnome does not offer enough for someone who may be, say a sysadmin.

However, I agree with Richard and I do feel it would be adequate for the common user that I support. They use simple databases, a lot of email, and a lot of word processing files. Now to just convince them to migrate away from MS.

Hi, could you please describe some of the things that frustrated you, beyond a single application on Fedora? It would be much more useful for both the greater community *and* GNOME developers to hear about your specific concerns. We can't actually do anything to help you if you don't tell us what's wrong.

For machines with limited resource and if you're a keyboard person, also check out ion, wmii, and ratpoison. Actually I have been using ion even on bigger machines.

I don't really see a connection between the title and the whole article. What exactly is wrong about GNOME, other than a disappointing menu editor I fail to see from what the author writes.

For what it's worth, I've been a happy GNOME user who can use his desktop to the full extent. I have used KDE, and while it was not bad at all, GNOME simply suits me better. What suits people best varies, for some it's GNOME, for some it's KDE. Some KDE apps are better, some GNOME apps are better. That's about all one can say, and all the rest is personal preference.

i use neither gnome nor kde as my desktop but i do prefer gnome over kde apps.
i am with salparadise here: all this kde configurability just gets in my way and keeps me from working. a click in the wrong place and time is lost.

i actually prefer commandline apps because they work without the mouse so i can never click in the wrong place. so in gui apps i also prefer a minimalist interface. only provide the options that i really need for my work every day.
others should not be visible.

gimageview is such an example:
it has all the configurability of kde apps, but they are hidden away through keyboard shortcuts, in menues and in the preferences.

remember the old netscape/mozilla interface where you could hide menu and toolbars with a click on the side? my grandmother clicked it accidently once and it took her weeks to figure out what happened and then describe to me by email what the problem was and how to fix it. kde apps have these things everywhere, and they are just annoying.

firefox fixes that, it has a customize window which makes your interface editable. you go make your changes easely with drag+drop and when you are done you close it and you are not bothered with it again.

so configurability is good. but please keep it out of the work interface.

Mr. Waugh, the complaints/feedback about Gnome are legion. I don't see where you really need any more. :) The lack of a menu editor is a huge one, which was dismissed by havoc Pennington as unimportant if I recall correctly. The Gnome file dialog is another- has that been fixed yet? ctrl+f is sooo intuitive. :P The main annoying thing about gnome is how it wobbles between too dumb and too smart- if the dumbed-down options don't do the job the user is forced to fire up gconf-editor, which is a maze of confusing Boolean options. (have you stopped beating your wife: on/off)

Pardon me if i missed it, but I would also like a graphical hardware browser, like KDE's Info center, that shows everything- CPU, RAM, chipsets, expansion cards and adapters, buses, the works. It's just a front-end to all the usual /proc, lscpi, and other standard Linux utilities.

I rather have too many options than not enough. I am relatively new to Linux, but I do remember reading some discussion a while back on whether Gnome should allow the user to change the way the file manager worked. The main developers wanted the file browser to open a new window every time a new directory was opened. Most everyone else, including me found that appalling. It would have been fine if they had made that behaviour the default, but provided the option to change it. However, there was no option. You had to do as the developers told you to do. That was when Gnome lost me.

There are some options in KDE I haven't explored, and that is mostly because I've been happy with the defaults. However, in KDE, I have the peace of mind of knowing that if I want to I can change things. With Gnome I fell tied down, even when things are working well. I guess it is a psychological thing.

I'm sorry, I still don't understand... desktop? I have searched the screen docs, vi docs, lynx docs, etc, but still can't find any mention of a 'desktop'.

> I think you would find the version of Gnome in Fedora Core 5 is rubbish, as
> Gnome 2.14 was released a few days before Fedora Core was.

The Fedora Project has updated the packages since then. My copies are fully updated and patched to the latest code. The issues with Gnome 2.14 haven't gone away. Indeed, the Gnome developers don't see them as bugs. The file and print dialogs are still dumbed down to the point of unusable. There still isn't a working menu editor. The menus that are there are poorly organized. Nedd I go on, Bruce?

> could you please describe some of the things that frustrated you, beyond
> a single application on Fedora? It would be much more useful for both the
> greater community *and* GNOME developers to hear about your specific
> concerns.

Jeff: I provided those complaints through a link to my previous post and in comments, above. As one other commenter pointed out my complaints are the common ones: Why won't the file or print dialog let my type in a name instead of just doing the icon thing? Both should be available as they are in KDE, If I know the name drilling down through directories and icons for files takes a whole lot longer. Why is there no menu editor, as in one that actually works? Why is evolution so pathetically slow and unconfigurable in terms of the folder layout? I could go on but if those things alone were changed Gnome would be much more usable.

Sumemr: I think if an ordinary user knows their filename they would like to be able to just type it in, too, rather than clicking through directories and icons. After all, if they created the file and know where they put it (and many users would know that much) it would save them time too.

Michel wrote: "I don't really see a connection between the title and the whole article. What exactly is wrong about GNOME, other than a disappointing menu editor I fail to see from what the author writes."

If you had followed the link at the top of the article to my original posting you would have known exactly what I was writing about. Typically, in blogs, we rely on links rather than writing very long posts.

You say it's personal preference. I agree, which is why this article was filed under "Opinion" for the primary category :) As an O'Reilly blog author I can post my opinions, no? It just happens that I hold a fairly widely shared opinion, one that Linus Torvalds (who happens to carry just a little weight in the Linux world) happens to share, which is why I quoted him. That, it would seem to me, is the point.

ALL: One of my main points which is largely missed in the attacking of and defending on Gnome is that there are OTHER alternatives besides Gnome and KDE that have made huge progress and are worthy of consideration for a Linux desktop, including a corporate desktop. XFCE 4 is ready for prime time. Enlightenment DR17 shows great promise as well.

What the majority of my article did was stress CHOICE. Choices are good things, both for ordinary users and for those of us who have been working with Linux professionally for a decade or more. Some will choose Gnome and like it the way it is. That's fine.

My complaint is that internally Gnome lacks choices. Yes, we can tinker with gconf-editor but for most users that really isn't a practical way to adjust the desktop. KDE and XFCE offer choices but can be used in a simple way with their defaults as one commenter pointed out. While I really do appreciate Jeff Waugh taking the time to comment I think Farnsworth has hit the nail on the head: the complaints have been repeated often enough by a large enough group of people and have been largely dismissed. I'm not saying Gnome's default behavior should be changes. I'm saying there should be an easy way for those of us who want to change it to do so. Enlightenment has stressed configurability from the beginning which is why I believe that it has such an outstanding opportunity to evolve into a first rate desktop.

It isn't a Gnome vs. KDE argument any longer. There are multiple choices and the cream will rise to the top. Gnome is currently the default for some of the most popular distributions: Red Hat, Fedora, Ubuntu, etc... Wordstar was once the popular choice for word processing. What happened to Wordstar? It failed to evolve to respond to what it's user community wanted and its competitors, first WordPerfect and then Word, passed it by. In some places OpenOffice is now a real threat to Word.

Clue to the Gnome developers: give the people what they want. If you fail to do that you will be the WordStar of the Linux desktop world. Everyone will remember you but will have moved on.

I've bounced between the two several times. GNOME's user interface seems to be prettier, but I can just get more done on KDE. I run CentOS 4.3 for my primary desktop, but tried Fedora & Ubuntu in Virtual Machines. I really like the GNOME interface, but KDE seems so much more powerful. And with the stuff their talking about for KDE 4.0.....Wow, can't wait.

Hey Caitlyn, I just want to point out that Alacarte is developed by a student in his spare time, not the official Gnome team, and he is not getting any help that I know of from them. I haven't had time to test it on FC5 yet; it works well on Ubuntu, including Dapper Drake. So I suspect any problems with it are something to do with Fedora.

GNOME vs. KDE?
Maybe be a big deal for some but for me? I learned Linux with RH5.0 & Gnome; have not the time to go learning other stuff if it doesn't contribute to my better off-ment, and this, after moving form MS98SE.
Come on people, the argument may be valid but for me and many others who simply want an alternative to M$: Who cares???

> Clue to the Gnome developers: give the people
> what they want....Everyone will remember you but
> will have moved on.

Caitlyn, I think that you're missing the point that GNOME *does* give a segment of the population what they want, otherwise they would have gone to KDE already. It's not as if most distros don't support KDE too.

Personally, I can't stand KDE. It's too cluttered and it takes too long to configure the way I want, and even then, it's still cluttered. If GNOME didn't exist, I'd be an XFCE user. I've used Linux since 1993, so I'd hardly be classified as a newbie. KDE developers have been hearing these complaints for ages and they've mostly been ignored too.

The thing is, GNOME and KDE have different mindsets and different user bases. It's the modern version of the vi versus emacs debate (or left-wing versus right-wing political debate). KDE developers disregard the GNOME-philic criticism precisely because KDE users *like* the way things are. GNOME developers disregard the KDE-philic criticism precisely because GNOME users *like* the way things are. Okay neither KDE developer nor GNOME developers completely disregard these comments, but they're placed at a lower priority. If there's a way of getting rid of the criticism without alienating their user base, they'd do it. But it's not trivial.

What's wrong with the live and let live policy? As long as Portal and other cross-desktops take shape, it won't matter which desktop you're using. Apps will play nice in both desktops.

I see this whole article as a KDE person bashing Gnome. Dont get me wrong, I think we should all use what we like, but to start an article as though it will be a balanced review and ending it abruptly becase a menu editor did not wor=k for you first time, is a little....shallow.

All desktop are in flux and Im sure we could all nitpick any of them. Stick to KDE, others will stick to what they like.

The major distros want their desktops to be viable alternatives to MS and they choose Gnome, if you dont like it, select KDE during install.

Can we please have some constructive articles instead of the Gnome V KDE drivel.

My 2c

I use gnome personally to restrict myself from stopping my work to play with linux and all the functional features that KDE and linux offers. GNOME's interface is restrictive and straight to the point, it doesn't permit for lost time.

I guess it's a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. Alpha and beta users went to toy with their system, they choose KDE. End users and enterprise users use GNOME because it prevents them from playing on the computer during work time.

I couldn't disagree more. For years I was a KDE user but changed to Gnome some months ago since I migrated to Ubuntu. Well, from my experience with Gnome I could just invert each argument you gave against it.

Those who like Gnome because they switched to Ubuntu should consider that Mark Shuttleworth uses Kubuntu as his personal desktop, as I understand!

Personally, Gome is missing a HUGE opportunity--to make an easy-to-use application that would be a sort of "global gconf preferences editor" for instituting the behaviors you prefer other than the default ones. I quite agree that not giving choices in a reasonable way is at least somewhat brain-dead--but once the choices are made, it is also too bad to have to "stumble through" them over and over again.

Surely something along the lines of the menu config for the kernel options would be easy enough to implement for the purpose? It could easily enough be extensible, and eliminate a huge amount of confusion now present in most environments wherein the newcomers must spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the right config scripts and routines.

Of course, this probably makes far too much sense for anyone to get behind who can do something about it! (Unfortunately, I am *not* a coder myself--a little long in the tooth to learn the field, I'm afraid.)

By the way, this kind of application could also be a place for storing the descriptions of the installed programs. Newcomers also have a great difficulty remembering all the stuff that is installed by the modern distros, and what they are used for. Putting it all together would be a Godsend...and, if it were around so I could modify things a bit here and there, I would even consider switching to Gnome myself.

David Neeley

Caitlyn, why start another round of desktop wars? Your article is so 5 years ago.

In Gnome's defense, I personally love its look and feel and find KDE somewhat tacky, *but* I would never want KDE to go away. In the future I'll probably try KDE again and if then it suits me better, switch.

So please stop panning Gnome - have a little faith in the users being smart enough to try it themselves and see if it suits them. I can accept that I probably work around some of Gnome's rough edges without realising, can you admit that you're possibly blind to some of KDE's shortcomings too?

Carla wrote:

> I just want to point out that Alacarte is developed by a student in
> his spare time, not the official Gnome team

I was aware of that. It's one of the reasons I still speak of the lack of a manu editor. Gnome proper should have one.

> I haven't had time to test it on FC5 yet; it works well on Ubuntu,
> including Dapper Drake. So I suspect any problems with it are
> something to do with Fedora.

Agreed, and I tried to qualify my comments as based on FC5. I know you wouldn't have recommended it if it didn't work well for you.

Thanks for the input. It is appreciated.

I switched to Gnome from KDE (after 2 years) because I think Gnome is easier to use. I prefer to set up new users with Gnome for this reason also. At home when I switched our 3 computers from KDE to Gnome the only complaint I got from my wife and kids was that I failed to bring over the background and bookmarks! Thus, I suspect that to the average computer user Gnome and KDE are both sufficient. That's enough to deflate any desktop aficionado like we who post and read here.

Trying to tackle a bunch of comments at once:

> GNOME vs. KDE?

Absolutely not. You missed the point. I made clear there are lots of other alternatives and that two in particular, XFCE and Enlightenment, are worthy of consideration.

> for me and many others who simply want an alternative to M$: Who cares???

To move people away from Windows we need a quality desktop environment. Pointing out the flaws in the direction taken now is important if we, the Linux community, want to be a real alternative.

> I think that you're missing the point that GNOME *does* give a segment
> of the population what they want,

Perhaps. However, O'Reillynet encourages reviews. It's a major category header. I really wanted to like Gnome 2.14 because I find KDE too resource intensive and bloated. I came away disappointed and wrote a review. Is something wrong with that?

> I see this whole article as a KDE person bashing Gnome.

You are kidding, right? Did you bother to read all I said or follow the links? I actually *complimented* Gnome's internationalization and localization. I complimented it for being less resource intensive than KDE. That's a slap at KDE, isn't it?

Fully half my article was to go on and say that *NEITHER* Gnome nor KDE may be the future and I went on to tout the rapid development and improvement in both XFCE and Enlightenment. I made clear that thinking of the battle for the desktop as Gnome vs. KDE is the past. The future may well belong elsewhere.

> to start an article as though it will be a balanced review

I never claimed it to be a balanced review. It is under opinion.

> and ending it abruptly becase a menu editor did not wor=k for you first
> time, is a little....shallow.

First, Gnome doesn't have a menu editor. As Carla pointed out it's a student add-on, and a buggy one at that. Second, first time out? How about a month of trying to like Gnome and living in it? Third, if you had bothered to follow the links to the earlier piece you'd know my main complaints with Gnome have to do with the dumbing down of the interface (i.e.: file and print dialogs) to the point of unusable and the lack of configurability. I'm clearly not alone in that opinion. Bottom line: I find Gnome 2.14 to be an exercise in frustration. You are free to write a different opinion.

> The major distros want their desktops to be viable alternatives to MS
> and they choose Gnome,

Actually, far more choose KDE than Gnome. I can think of exactly two (the Red Hat family and Ubuntu) that choose Gnome. SuSe, Mandriva, Debian, et al choose KDE as the default. Further, Ubuntu offers alternative versions, Kubuntu, which is KDE based, and Xubuntu, which is XFCE based.

You know, I do Linux consulting for a living. I have to deal with the corporate world and the corporate desktop. There are far more complaints and far more unexplained weirdnesses in Gnome than in KDE. My point, if you had bothered to read, is that NEITHER may come out on top in the desktop wars. Frankly, if you want a good middle ground between Gnomish simplicity and KDE configurability you really ought to try XFCE 4.4 or Enlightenment DR17.

> Personally, Gome is missing a HUGE opportunity--to make an easy-to-use
> application that would be a sort of "global gconf preferences editor" for
> instituting the behaviors you prefer other than the default ones. I quite
> agree that not giving choices in a reasonable way is at least somewhat
> brain-dead--but once the choices are made, it is also too bad to have to
> "stumble through" them over and over again.

David gets the nail hit on the head award. He gets my point exactly! Gnome developers do not have to rewrite from the ground up. They have a lot going for them now over KDE in terms of resource consumption. They have a pretty desktop. They lack functionality and configurability. To add that with one new app would probably make Gnome my desktop of choice. The real problem is that there are no reasonable choices in Gnome. It's the dumbed-down way or the highway. I chose the highway. For now that means KDE.

> Caitlyn, why start another round of desktop wars? Your article is so
> 5 years ago.

You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. I reviews a NEW version of Gnome, first off. One I really wanted to like. Second, I pointed out that their are NEW, or at least radically improved alternatives. Sorry you chose to ignore that.

> So please stop panning Gnome -

Gladly. When they put out a decent version I'll give it a positive review.

> have a little faith in the users being smart enough to try it
> themselves and see if it suits them.

Hey, let's ban reviews completely! Let's trust that users really don't want to read reviews, particularly ones they don't agree with. Let's not write articles any more at all. People can figure it all out for themselves. Is that what you are saying?

> I can accept that I probably work around some of Gnome's rough edges

Good for you. I find it costs me time and productivity to do so. I'd rather use something that better suits my needs. Right now that's Gnome of XFCE. Enlightenment could be there in the future, but right now the lack of support for languages I use rules it out.

> can you admit that you're possibly blind to some of KDE's
> shortcomings too?

Really? What am I blind to? Please tell me since I obviously can't see it.

Look, KDE's main shortcoming is that it's big, bloated, and resource hungry. To me that's a huge shortcoming which is why I gave the new version of Gnome yet another long look. I am NOT satisfied with KDE. It's the better of those two right now.

I'm waiting for the final release of XFCE 4.4 as it isn't fair to judge it on beta code. Having said that it looks like, if they get all the little bugs out and add a little more functionality that is already in development, that it has the potential to displace KDE for me. I really can't wait to see what the released Xubuntu 6.06 (Dapper Drake built around XFCE) looks like.

I think you, like a lot of others, had a knee-jerk reaction to some piece of what I wrote that you disagree with. Disagreeing with me is fine. We should all make our own choices based on what works for each of us. That's what choice and freedom is all about, isn't it?

Reread the second half of the article. It is *NOT* a strict pro-KDE piece. It is a piece that explains my unhappiness with Gnome and offers three alternatives, not one. It also says that the future may not be with either Gnome or KDE.

I used KDE for a long time and I really wanted to like it, but I just don't. GNOME is more professional and polished and just works better on a daily basis. Why does KDE try so hard to look like and act like Windows? Why can't we have both. What a dumb article!

i have used both kde and gnome.

Gnome is my Main Desktop. It is clean.
Evolution, firefox, gimp, gaim, inkscape, gmplayer, nmapfe (any one think that, why they use the gtk instead of QT)

Kde is also nice but now a days it take too much memory and there is so many apps for same work.
(but the k3b is the best cdrw then the gnome's one)

i hate the refresh style in KDE desktop

I still do not understand why people still want to use any of these desktop environments. OS X is far far far far better than anything they have to offer and will be so indefnitely into the future. It is faster, more stable and FAR more secure than linux. It is easy enough for your grandmother to use and powerful enough for any engineer or developer. OS X is for creative, fun and intelligent people who just want to get work done and not worry about recompiling kernels and fidgeting with menu editors.

I think this disscussion is a waste of time! Both KDE and Gnome are impressive and will benefit from each other, so stop this nonsense about that there should only be one choise. Linux is all about choise different people have different needs.

If you have been paying attention you have noticed lately that co-operation between KDE and Gnome has increased and through Freedesktop have created new desktop independent standards, this would NOT have happend if there were only one choise.

Ultimately competition is good.

Previously, a couple of years I used Gnome. When KDE3 was released, I switched to it, as Gnome was somehow crippled.
Just look at Gnome's Load/Save dialog window, and you'll know what I'm talking about.

Well I too really wanted to like GNOME. Despite what is written about getting Emacs keybindings to work, I could not get it to work. I just think GNOME is plain broken.

I used to really like KDE. having used Gnome on Ubuntu I now find KDE horrible - garish and cluttered. I have no probl,ems doing what I want to do on Gnome and, as a lower end system user it runs noticably faster on my hardware.

Linus should drink less coffee and learn more manners.

I must agree with Linus here. Here's my big complaint with GNOME and why I use KDE for my desktop:

MIME type handling.

I find it very easy to tweak the MIME-type handling in KDE. Why does this matter? I was just configuring a K12LTSP (Fedora Core 4-based) server two weeks ago for a demo, and the default GNOME application for playing videos appears to be Totem. Fine, Totem's not bad. However, I wanted to use MPlayer instead because I prefer the way MPlayer does certain things. Getting GNOME to play videos with MPlayer by default was HELL, and I still don't yet know how to do it. Googling for this told me to edit some XML file in /usr/share/applications. Didn't work.

This is exacerbated by Firefox's apparent dependency on GNOME's MIME settings to tell it what application to launch. And no, you can't tell it to use another one (no "Open with" functionality), so it's the GNOME default or nothing. If there is no GNOME default, then "Save to disk" and "Cancel" are the only options; no "Open with". This is unacceptable.

By contrast, I can *very easily* tell KDE what application to use to open any given file type, and KDE also makes it *very easy* to change the default app to open file types. I like that. It gives me control. Now, I'm sure that there's a way to actually change "default app" settings for file/MIME types in GNOME as well. The difference is that KDE makes it *VERY EASY* for the user to do this, and GNOME does not.

Anyway, I did my K12LTSP demo using KDE and Konqueror instead of GNOME and Firefox. It went over very well.

BTW, I like XFce's feature of importing the KDE menus. That is really cool and gives me a full-featured menu "just like Windows" that I can edit *EASILY* and have users be productive quickly. This definitely make XFce a viable corporate, and school computer lab, desktop; thanks, XFce team!

That said, I must thank the Ximian/GNOME folks for one application in particular: Evolution. Evolution allows me to access MS Exchange Server email with full groupware functionality and thus allows me to use Free Software in "Microsoft shop" environments. Therefore, while I find GNOME The Desktop (TM) to be unacceptable for me, I consider GNOME The Project (TM) very necessary and am glad that they're getting corporate sponsorship.

> > So please stop panning Gnome -

> Gladly. When they put out a decent version I'll give it a positive
> review.

With an attitude like that it's hard to take you seriously at all. Gnome works well enough for millions of users (including myself and many people I know), and so does KDE.

> > have a little faith in the users being smart enough to try it
> > themselves and see if it suits them.

> Hey, let's ban reviews completely! Let's trust that users really
> don't want to read reviews, particularly ones they don't agree
> with. Let's not write articles any more at all. People can figure
> it all out for themselves. Is that what you are saying?

To call what you wrote a review beggars belief; you even went so far as to write "On a modern system with significant resources I will repeat Linus' sage advice: Just use KDE".

In the last paragraph you write:
"With all of these options available I have adopted a Linus-like attitude", the implication being
'anything but Gnome' to anyone with a grasp of the English language.

Please try harder.

Mr Anonymous,

I was begining to feel a little guilty because it has been a while since I last tried Gnome and yet I posted that comment above pointing out a deficiency that probably does not exist any more. The reason I haven't tried it again is precisely because I agree with what Linus wrote: "This "users are idiots, and are confused by functionality" mentality of Gnome is a disease." After reading your post I see that similar issues stil exist. So, I won't have to waste my time giving gnome another try for a while. to me Gnome seems to be a preaty shell, with no depth. KDE4 is supposed to resolve the resourse Mr Anonymous,

I was beginning to feel a little guilty because it has been a while since I last tried Gnome and yet I posted that comment above pointing out a deficiency that probably does not exist any more. The reason I haven't tried it again is precisely because I agree with what Linus wrote: "This "users are idiots, and are confused by functionality" mentality of Gnome is a disease." After reading your post I see that similar issues still exist. So, I won't have to waste my time giving gnome another try for a while. To me Gnome seems to be a pretty shell, with no depth. KDE may not be as pretty to some but it allows one to do what one has to do. KDE4 is supposed to be quite a bit less resource intensive than the current version. So, I will stick with KDE for now. However, I did read a review of Enlightenment the other day and it looks awesome. At first, when I saw the screen shots, I thought it was a custom version of Gnome and thought, "Wow, I may have to give Gnome another try". So I see what Caitlyn saying and agree wholehartedly.

GUI's are meant for the dumb. Use the command line and get over it... My GUI apps consist of firefox, openoffice, thunderbird, and netbeans. My productivity apps consist of gnome-terminal (oops), bash and vi!!

VI being the real eye candy.

While I have to admit GNOME has it's problems. It is still on of the best corporate desktops. First of All, "Users are Idiots". We are all linux people and have been here awhile, so KDE may be fine for us, but not for the everyday corporate user. Users will install crap and spyware everytime you give them a desktop. In the corporate environment you have people from 18 - 80. Some of these people need things dumbed down. If you only make things for the people with experience them you develop poor products with holes that deliver bad data. GNOME is on the right track, they have a consistent, easy to use interface and they are starting to deliver desktop management tools that a corporate environment needs. That's why RHAT, NOVL and UBUNTU are choosing them, because while KDE users will download their products for free, corporate customers will PAY for 500 seats of their product, and we want something we don't have to hold the users hands on, and that will run anywhere Windows ran, and will work for Windows users.

Richard,

Have you ever heard of KDE's kiosk mode?

From the website:

"The Kiosk framework provides a set of features that makes it possible to restrict the capabilities of the KDE environment. Although primarily designed for unattended operation of kiosk terminals, these features can also be very valuable in enterprise settings where a more controlled environment is desired."

Also see:
http://developer.kde.org/documentation/tutorials/kiosk/index.html
and
http://enterprise.kde.org/articles/kiosk-lp.php

So you see, no need to suffer with Gnome's deficiencies. KDE can do what everyone needs, and better. Now, as for why RedHat uses Gnome I think it has more to do with the fact that when they started building their desktop, KDE's license had problems. Once that was resolved, they found it easier to just continue whith what they had. They were focused on the server any way. Novel bought Simian which was a spider nest of Gnome developers, so no surprise that they are more inclined to support it. I don't know why Ubuntu chose Gnome, but it doesn't matter. Most desktop focus distributions use KDE.

Roger, Thanks.. I will check this out, as I have not heard of it.

KDE users, hug a Gnome user today!

And you Gnome folks do the same back.

Let's all agree that the utility of a desktop is largely subjective (with very few exceptions).

I'm a KDE user, but I like Firefox for web browsing. The only bad thing about using Firefox, however is the god-awful file dialog. It is painfully slow and (to my way of thinking) unintuitive. The file dialogs alone are enough reason for me to stick with KDE.

My main linux machine is an ancient (8 year old) PII with 64MB RAM. I still use twm under Red Hat 8. Who needs icons and toolbars?

Seriously, I also use xfce and, on rare occasions, AfterStep. Part of me wants to say "it's the applications, stupid!", and I guess it just did. Another part wants to ask whether linux desktops should mimick MacOS X or Windows in terms of user experience configuration, ESPECIALLY menu configuration?

But that begs the question whether it should be possible for users to make wholesale configuration changes. On my home machine I sure as Hell think so, but in a business environment probably not.

I would have thought this could be handled simply by including two user configuration packages in the Gnome distribution, one with utilities for partial/minor configuration (e.g., desktop background color, icon spacing, etc.), and the other with utilities for FULL configuration (e.g., menu editing). Then leave it up to the person installing Gnome to select the appropriate packages. Silly me.

Gnome can be a PITA, but there's lots of good gtk software (one response to 'Just use KDE' would be 'but use the Gnome Office apps instead of KOffice'). Gnome may be surviving in part because of gtk application developers.

i have had nothing but excellent results from the Gnome 2.14 and I like the new apps including beagle and fspot, I think that they are excellent. I use KDE apps as well eg K3B and amarok. I have a dozen users on my system all using gnome and they are happy with it so I dont know what the problem is

DVR

When was the last time you really needed to edit the menus, honestly? I can't say I've *ever* needed or wanted to, ever since the freedesktop menu standards have been implemented. Programs I install (mostly from packages) just show up in the right place on the menu. It just works. One of the reasons menu editing is so difficult is that the freedesktop standards dictate categories so that distros can group like-programs rather than the hodge-podge of user menus that Windows and KDE give you. OS X seems to be even more extreme than gnome with practically no application organization and users are just fine with that. Actually port Quicksilver to gnome and I'll *never* even use a menu. Ever.

I have to agree. It seems that the Gnome zealots seem very blinded to the fact that Gnome _is_ poorly engineered (check it's IPC compared to KDE's), constricting, and childish in design style. It reminds me of the Amiga MUI nazi's back in the day.

If you like Gnome, you also probably use leetspeak, and think MySpace is great.
If you prefer KDE, you probably actually have to use your computer to do things, and are (at least mentally) a grown up.

To prove my point, I point to the inevitable childish and idiotic responses that will come from Gnome zealots regarding my comments here.

Go back to chatting with your other Gnome buddies on IRC and leave us grownups alone ok?

The Gnome desktop works fine for me. I'm a software developer and it's got everything I need.

Oh my god, another stupid "I'm better than you" war... my BMW is better than your Toyota, my house is better than your bungelow (why you haven't even got stairs, ha ha ha), my ipod is better than your mp3 player, my girlfriend is better that your girlfriend, Elvis is rubbish and the Beatles are waay better, Mac's are better than PCs, XBox 360 is better than the PS3, Commodore 64's are better than the Sinclair Spectrum's, my flavour linux is better than your flavour linux, Everquest is better than World of Warcraft... blah, blah, blah... YAWN.

At the end of the day WHY did we all choose Linux? Because of freedom of choice. PERIOD. If KDE users like KDE, use it. If Gnome users like Gnome, use it. Accept that people will have personal prefrences to things that others may dislike.

I use Gnome 2.14 and KDE 3.5.2 and personally I like the 2. OK Gnome has its faults and so too does KDE and so do the other desktop managers (and over the past 5 years of being a distro whore, I have used many). Life ain't perfect and neither is Windows, otherwise you people wouldn't be here.

Can we stop the nit picking and actually get on with the task in hand, promoting Linux (with its plethora of desktop managers (some good, some bad), distro's and zealots) as a viable alternative to Windows and not show the world that we are a stupid bunch of whining bastards. Face it, if you don't like Gnome or KDE, its simple, don't use it.

My penny's worth :)

Let's see: I'm using Gnome 2.12 on Ubuntu 5.10 and what do I find?
Under "Applications->System tools" it's a *working* menu editor!!!

Falsus en unum falsus en omnibus - in other words, Caitlyn, your "review" is full of crap.

Your comment "... I really wanted to try the new GNOME ..." is disengenuous at best.

The trouble with the pro-KDE toadies such as you and several of the comments supporting you, is that the bulk of the complaints toward GNOME are non-specific ("It just doesn't *feel* right") or just plain incorrect - like this "menu editor" non-issue.

Using comments by Linus doesn't really wash - he's not *always* correct, nor is he the UI god. Referring to a group of people as "Nazis" simply because he disagrees with their approach is reprehensible, and if he did indeed make such a comment, he owes the entire community an apology.

Caitlyn, When did you graduate the "Rob Enderle Course For Software Analysis?"

Darren,
Calm down. I know it is hard to remain level headed when they are criticizing something you love. But, listen. As was discussed in the comments of the article, the menu Alacarte menu editor is not an official program of the Gnome team. It is being developed by a student in his spare time, and it is reportedly not quite ready for prime time. So the question raised is, why is there no official Gnome menu editor? The answer is because the current mentality of the Gnome project leaders considers it unnecessary. That is why many view this as a good example of the 'mentality' pervading Gnome. Other examples that were mentioned by those that you call "KDE toadies", were the way Gnome handles MIME types, lack of Printer reconfigurability, directories that always open in a new window, etc. The problem in all this instances is not that they didn't work the way they were designed, but that if you needed or wanted to change the way they worked, you were stuck. Why? Well, because of the Gnome "mentality that users are idiots". Of course, if you are happy with the defaults or are not aware that other options exists, you can blissfully use Gnome the way it is until kingdom come. But for many others, using Gnome is like using a SLR camera that only has the auto setting, no aperture priority, no shutter priority, and much less, a manual setting. (Sorry, I couldn't think of a better analogy).
You don't need to offend someone simply because you don't agree with them. Show a little more maturity and respect and your opinions will be valued more. I know that some KDE proponents have unforunately shown a simmilarly chlidish attitude. But it doesn't help to stoop down to their level. The author of the article certainly didn't do that.

Even as a non-GNOME user, it's worth criticizing GNOME decisions when they bleed over into Gtk -- such as the abysmal file dialog used in newer Firefox versions.

Happy Gnome/ubuntu user.

I have been using ubuntu/gnome for the past year and I love it. In think the silent marjority of gnome users love the direction too. I hope they do not give in to the vocal minority and introduce loads of broken options like KDE.

Although you should use KDE if you like (I have never like it) please let new users make up their own mind. They should try both and stick with what suits. These articles are a waste of time really.

Pablo

?? KDE not ready for the enterprise HA I say.

Ive acutally got KDE running across multiple desktops in the company I work in and the users love it.

Its fast easy and stable and the file manager isnt some dyslexic heap of rubbish like Nautilus nor does it have the crippled file selection dialog that looks so simple it tells you "nothing".

As for all those features, well the users dont actually see them on my setup "you can bury them".

I use a very windows like setup to reduce the training (kbf menu applet that works like XP's start menu) and I have added lots of minor hacks to konqueror so everything is automated.

People keep going on about Gnome being better in the enterprise, sorry but thats all smoke an mirrors, the only reason big companies like Novel like gnome is because GTK is LGPL so they can link there closed source stuff with gnomes code without having to sweat over releasing any code, nothing to do with usablity.

"so they can link there closed source stuff with gnomes code without having to sweat over releasing any code, nothing to do with usablity."

If this is true it's a very important point in favour of Gnome.
Look, everybody's incl. organisations needs and situation, daily practice are different and you can't really go and say this and this works best in our company therefore every other company should use this.
I did start learning Linux with KDE when they were both in their v1.x and it is true, was able to get to do more with it and had I only had Gnome would have given up on Linux. However these days I much prefer Gnome 2 and the only KDE implementation I like is in Vector for some reason. I think it dpends on the distro quite frankly, the stock KDE just doesn't do it for me.
However the major point to me is that KDE looks TOO much like Windows and too sugar coated as well, it just makes me sick. If running something different I also want it to look different. Most options are fine on G, and if I really need to configure something don't mind going down to the txt files. That's the proper way anyway.
To the poster who complained there is no control center like in KDE: I've got a device manager under Administration that does just that!
By no means a zealot, using fluxbox and Xfce too.

I still remember when i compiled kde3 on a 400Mhz PC. I waited so long and had to do a lot of patching just to get it compile. And boy was i dissapointed! For me its not in the options, but the interface. I find it ugly. I just don't like the themes. I don't like the icons, just too many colors for me. You talk aabout file dialogs. Lets take the kde open dialog. What do you see? A lot of big icons and a striking resemblence to Windows. I find it difficult to use. Take the gtk+ file dialog. Nice, clean(and tou can type CTRL+L to open a location). I just like the list view better.
As to the minimal interface in gnome. But my personal experience is that one can always find a way to change something they don't like with more or less work.
One of you said that mime type handling is difficult. I guess its hard to right click, preferences and open with... Or Edit->preferences->Always open in browser window to get rid of all those windows.
Ever since gnome2 when the developers changed the focus of the desktop and (too)many features have been removed many people hate gnome. I can understand that. But also notice that slowly some features find their way back into the gnome desktop.
There is no perfect dektop. Gnome offers few chices, KDE offers too many. E17 is one monolithic beast(why can't the file manager be a stand-alone app?) XFCE still lacks some functionality.
I'm using gnome 2.14 on gentoo and i'm very happy with my choice. I ocalionally check out KDE to see what they have to offer and i have a cron job to update e17 every couple of days from cvs, but i guess that it will be a lot of time before i'll give up my gnome for something else.

To Jeff Waugh, the gnome developer. The fact that you have to ask the question reveals the problem I think in the first place. Some of these comments might be slightly off, since they are based on using gtk apps in kde, but I think overall, from reading the rest of the comments, that it's fairly accurate.

Here's some specifics, others have mentioned some of them:

1. the gtk file dialogue. What on earth were you guys thinking? It's like the designer never actually saves files in different places at different times or something. Not to mention that save as doesn't present you with the old file name, forcing you to type in the new one completely, even if you are just adding a revision number or something.

There is nothing better or more useable about the gnome file dialogue than competing models like those offered by kde. Or windows, for that matter, who actually have a very good file manager as things go. Sorry, I'm not full on linux centric yet and can still appreciate well thought out work from redmond.

2. Nautilus and it's ever popping up new windows defaulting to single pane. Again, has anyone on the gnome team actually used nautilus for file management? what are you smoking? You know, open file nav, drag file from one pane to the other? From what I've gathered, there is some command switch somewhere to switch nautilus to 'browser' mode, which returns it to somewhat useable format, but the single pane thing? That's really surreal, totally useless, who thought of that? Whoever it was, is probably the actual source of the major gnome useability issues.

3. The headache of simply assigning default media apps for example, pointed out by someone else here, in firefox, is a very clear example of a total failure to create a useable product. I use firefox in kde, but it's a pain, and it's really annoying, I've gotten to the point where I actually miss firefox and abiword in windows because the gtk stuff is so damned restricting to my user experience, it totally sucks. Who does your useability thinking? They need to change it, for example, just to save a download in firefox requires far too many clicks and selections, it's always a pain, the stuff is just so poorly thought out and executed it's hard to believe that this is the result of actual useability thinking.

That's the major gnome gripes I have, I'd actually like to use it, but I have this problem, I like to configure my desktops, I like having different backgrounds on different desktops, makes it more useable, I know where I am, etc.

To me, this thread really shows the gnome issues clearly, to me, and I think to many other posters, even the pro gnome ones who really seem to confirm what I see, which is this:

gnome is either way way too dumbed down, and linus said, for normal users, or depends on obscure power user commands, keystrokes, etc. In other words, it's abandoned the center, and from what I can see is built by command line guys who barely need any desktop manager at all. Then these guys form an opinion of what average users need that is far too restrictive.

I completely agree with Linus on this one. The issue is not the options or the layout gnome chooses, it's the inability, or extreme difficulty, in changing these defaults to something else.

I also admit happily that kde is guilty of everything it's accused of being, bloated, too many options [which for me translates to: I can make it do pretty much what I want fairly easily].

KDE could learn a bit from gnome, and gnome needs a different take on useability, give options, don't make extreme decisions that really detract from useability.

>I also have to wonder how long distributions like Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), Fedora, >and Ubuntu will continue to have Gnome as their default desktop if it remains a source of >frustration rather than a pleasant desktop experience.

Suprise !!!
SUSE switched its first choice of desktops (post installation ) from KDE to Gnome (from SUSE 10 and upwords)

I also have to wonder how long distributions like Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), Fedora, and Ubuntu will continue to have Gnome as their default desktop if it remains a source of frustration rather than a pleasant desktop experience.

Most unfortunately, it seems that they will continue to stay with Gnome. In fact other KDE distros, such as SUSE are switching to Gnome. These distribution vendors want to bundle their proprietary tools and application but, do not want to pay Trolltech for QT licenses that they would need to sell KDE based applications. That means that they opt for the gtk/Gnome interface and force Gnome upon a user community that does not want Gnome and resents having Gnome forced upon them.

I truly wish that the distribution vendors would wake up and accept that people want KDE. They've had it with an inferior desktop, nazi developers and lame excuses!

I wanted to like this opinion piece, I really did. I came away feeling frustrated as with previous pieces ;)

I followed the link to the blog as suggested by the author. I found little detail about the author's actual experience. What I found was mostly a dumbed-down regurgitation of some other user's experience. The main citation was of a student's experience which is not a part of the author's core distribution. The student's offering seemed a little buggy actually as its opinion is from an atypical linux user.

The author posits that, as near as I can tell, it's important to be able to smooth the transition for Windows users. I did not find this performance improvement myself; sadly on my system there is a need to satisfy MacOSX users (middle school son) as well as business and adminstrative types (myself).

I've spent most of the last 4 years supporting Linux in the corporate and home environments, both server and desktop and data capture. I don't think the opinion piece is on the right track at all. I find Gnome to be completely accessible in that configurations options are available in three tiers:
1) well used options are in GUI dialogs
2) less used options are available in CLI
3) the nitty-gritty can be configured using the gconf editor supplied with all distributions that I know of

I've been a consultant for windows shops and I've seen them use Windows as their desktop under windows. Lots of issues, lots of complaints. That environment often requires the use of regedit as a solution to odd behavior. I found Gnome was a better choice. As always, YMMV.

I'm using Fedora Core 5 and my packages are fully updated from their repositories. Sometimes I'll patch to the latest code from CVS/SVN but I find that to be rarely necessary (though why Mono/Mondevelop was not released together I'll never understand). The issues with this newest opinion piece have not gone away. Typing the forward slash in any file dialog brings up a textual file-location pop-up that can only be described as "very accomodating" to my MacX friends, as well as us ex-windows users. It's similar to the behavior in the Rox-Filer and might, dare I imagine, explain its genesis.

Another issue is why is the opinion piece so pathetically devoid of actual detail as to complaints. A revered user (Jeff Waugh) was prescient enough to ask for clarification. The author responded to that by citing his question as a useful contribution, but did nothing to actually explain h/er postition, instead relying on external resources. If the author were serious it would seem that Gnome bugs might have been referenced which would have provided a better connection between the title and the whole article.

Clue to the opinion piece author: give the readers what they need, eg. a coherent citation of any problems you -yourself- identify. If these are not entered in Gnome bugs, then enter them. If your complaints already are entered then reference them. Your readers can provide input into the normal channels, don't you think? If you fail to do that you run the risk of becoming the 'Microsoft Test' of opinion/review bloggers. Or did you intend to dumb-down your opinion piece such that you hear only yourself speak?

O'Reillynet encourages comment; it's a major functional piece. I find this opinion piece to be an exercise in frustration. The author asserts that "far more choose KDE than Gnome". This is not supported by any metric nor citation. If I were O'Reilly, I would take such journalistic latitude with a jaundiced eye. Of course, You are free to write a different opinion.

You know, I do living under Linux for a living. I have to deal with all kids of users. There are far more complaints than accolades no matter what OS or desktop they are using. My point is that there is no point. There is no desktop war. There is no 'size fits all' (even if that student says so). While the author can FUD "what I really meant was there is choice" it is obvious to even the casual reader that s/he is dissing Gnome and, I might add, unfairly. Since s/he seems to not even know you can invoke a file location dialog with a simple keypress, one wonders that s/he actually *did* use Gnome for the month that s/he says s/he did.

The real problem is that there are no reasonable choices in this opinion piece. It's the dumbed-down way or the highway. I chose the highway. For now that means Gnome. I might add that nearly 100% of my home users who use Mac at their job (middle school) have switched from KDE to Gnome. No spin; it just is. FWIW.

Disagreeing with me is fine. We should all make our own choices based on what works for each of us. I like to try alternatives and I look for opinion pieces that signal significant change. That's what choice and freedom is all about, isn't it?

This opinion piece is rated D- for lack of depth.

What language where you thinking of? Because Thai is not right-to-left, nor is it in the list on that page:
http://i18n.xfce.org/stats/index.php

Tackling a number of questions and comments at once:

Thai is indeed right-to-left. You are correct in pointing out that no translation work on XFCE to Thai has been done. However, so long as you have fribidi supported and the appropriate fonts Thai will work so long as it is recognized as a language needing bidirectional support. Ditto Yiddish.

SuSe is owned by Novell which has purchased Ximian. In other words Novell now effectively has Gnome development in house. I am not aware of even one other distribution that has switched from KDE to Gnome. If someone knows of another please enlighten me.

I can count the distros I am aware of that use Gnome as a default on the fingers of my hands and not run out of fingers. I can't do that with KDE. Granted, since nobody on the planet has used every possible Linux distro I don't have a metric. However, based on my experience there are far more that use KDE and I will stand by that unless someone can give me a source to the contrary.

As Ariel, my editor at Blogs of Zion likes to remind me when I get long winded, the best blog posts are relatively short and use links to reference further information. The best magazine articles are in depth. There is a significant philosophical difference between effective blogging and effective journalism. My magazine columns are long and in depth. My blog posts are not and never will be. If you feel your style is better than mine and you know better by all means offer yourself to O'Reilly as an author. New talent with appropriate skills is always welcomed provided you really have something to contribute.

My complaints about Gnome from my own experience? If between my blog, this article, and my comments above you don't know them you really need a course in reading comprehension. Here is a short summary:
Poor file/print dialogs
No workable menu editor (except in Ubuntu--not good enough)
Very poor configurability -- gconf editor is clumsy at best
Nautilus behavior -- as in opening windows for each new directory

I can go on but those are the big ones. If there was a straightforward, intuitive configuration editor Gnome would be well on the way for being my desktop of choice again. It once was.

For those who say XFCE lacks functionality please do try 4.4. The move from xffm to Thunar alone is a huge improvement. Xubuntu is a great way to experience this.

I have worked as a Linux sysadmin, security analyst, and network engineer since 1998. I have used Linux since 1995. All my posts, not just this one, are based on personal experience, not just quotes. However, when you quote Linus Torvalds you are quoting THE authority on Linux bar none. You are welcome to disagree with that. Linus is outspoken in a colorful way. Some may not like that. I happen to appreciate it.

I agree. I know it's cool to view KDE as a big evil presence, but GNOME just frustrates me. The users seem to like it because it has less buttons (or "clutter" as they call it), but for me, this just removes needed functionality. If I wanted a trimmed down desktop, I'd use something lightweight, not an awkward compromise like GNOME.

Ms Martin: Great post. I am in general agreement with your opinion.

I would like to add something: Please, please, when trying to decide whether to use KDE, GNOME, or any other desktop environment, step away from Fedora Core. Fedora is a good distribution; but it is marked by bloat, slowness, and major "customization" of the software. I would echo this advice for SUSE as well.

I would suggest you try either GNOME or KDE or any other DE on a lightweight distribution that offers uncustomized versions of the software. I personally use Slackware, but you can use a myriad other distributions.

By the way, KDE (3.5.2) runs very well under Slackware 10.2 even under a 5-year old Celeron 466. The most limiting factor here is not necessarily processor speed, but RAM; I would suggest to have at least 192 MB available.

@C Martin
I can count the distros I am aware of that use Gnome as a default on the fingers of my hands and not run out of fingers. I can't do that with KDE. Granted, since nobody on the planet has used every possible Linux distro I don't have a metric. However, based on my experience there are far more that use KDE and I will stand by that unless someone can give me a source to the contrary.

While you are correct in terms of numbers of distros, you are incorrect when we think in terms of user counts for distros. Fedora/Red Hat SuSE/Novell Ubuntu are all Gnome by default and have the greatest Linux "market share". Mandriva a distant fourth, at best, is KDE by default.

Of all of the other countless distributions none, or even all, of them have statistically significant enough user counts to be compared with the top four distributions. (Sorry Gentoo fans but, get use to it.) The fact is that while most users prefer KDE, the most heavily used distributions all default to Gnome. Gnome is being forced upon the users because the proprietary vendors prefer the gtk/Gnome licensing. Because of this, the numbers of Gnome users will eventually overtake the KDE users because most people generally choose the defaults. That's just sad.

Back in the day, (3 or so years ago), I started using Linux not knowing that there were more than 1 window managers. I first used KDE on Knoppix, and thought to myself, "Ok, this is what the GUI version of Linux looks like. No problem." And worked on whatever it was I had to do. It did the job alright, although I did use the command line most of the time.

When I used a different distrobution, it came with Gnome. I thought it might be a different theme or something, and managed to get used to it with no problems.

Now that I know the difference, I can make an easy choice: Gnome. 100% all the way. It's simple when I need it to be, complex if I then desire it so. It's elegant, and "corporate" as another poster said, and I do agree. I currently use Ubuntu, and am waiting for the new Deskbar and Xgl enhancements to become mainstream. Once those become integrated, I see Gnome as my view of the perfect workstation desktop. That is, until innovation comes along.

That being said, I still use XP. Why? 1 reason and 1 reason only: I am still a hardcore gamer. Sure things like WINE and Cedega exist, and they do work relatively well. But right now, it's just not enough for me to do a 100% crossover.

I currently build many gaming machines for people, and it's XP for them. If I ever get contracted to build workstation desktops, you can be sure that I'll recommend Gnome over anything else.

>>However, based on my experience there are far more that use KDE
>>and I will stand by that unless

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=284874
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?t=409028&page=6
http://pcburn.com/mod.php?mod=poll&op=results&pid=17&cid=0
http://www.tuxmagazine.com/node/1000007/results
http://www.freebsdforums.org/forums/poll.php?s=7dc3078ccb53c8d9f232d32a42331361&do=showresults&pollid=39
http://www.fedoraforum.org/forum/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=151

In absolute numbers of total votes cast, it's about a 60/40 split (KDE:9971::Gnome:5937). That's hardly definitive.

Regarding the "top three" or four distros, the marketshare claimed By Anonymoose is true perhaps for North America and Europe, but not for the world as a whole. The number one distribution in Asia (other than mainland China) is Turbolinux. The number one in China is Red Flag. Connectiva owned the Brazilian market prior to the merger with Mandrakesoft. I honestly don't know how Mandriva is doing there now but I would not be surprised if they were number one in that market. When you get to the worldwide market things are very different.

In regards to Richard's comments about numbers of users I suspect his numbers, while not definitive, are fairly accurate. Again, I was talking about number of distributions and I think that it is still valid to include distros like the aforementioned Turbolinux, as well as Debian, Gentoo, Slackware, Vector, Linspire, et al. What's number one today may not be number one tomorrow. Two years ago almost nobody had heard of Ubuntu. Anyone remember when Caldera was a major player? I sure do.

Even though I worked for Red Hat I do NOT think the 91% corporate Linux server market share they currently enjoy in the U.S. is healthy and I am not sure it's sustainable. Competition is a good thing. WHen a new distro is truly innovative it gets noticed. Ubuntu is the most recent example. Some distros sneak up slowly. Vector Linux SOHO has a real chance to be taken seriously if they finish developing sane package management for Slackware based systems, something those distros have always lacked. Vector is well thought out and much more user friendly than Slack.

Also, let's not make this strictly a Gnome vs. KDE discussion. My article cleary talked about other choices.

Distros with XFCE4 as the default desktop (that I know of):
Turbolinux
Vector Linux Standard (not SOHO, which has KDE as defaut)
Xubuntu

I downloaded a Xubuntu daily build late last week. It looks very promising indeed. My main complaint: I'm still stuck with those crappy GTK2 file and print dialogs with XFCE 4.x. Yes, I know CTRL+L works. It also tries to display each directory you add to a path along the line which is downright distracting. Please, don't tell me that issue has been addressed. It hasn't. Nobody is going to convince me that those dialogs don't suck rocks the way they stand now.

I found the mention of the various other environments like Enlightenment and addons like fbpanel very valuable. I'd looked at the former a couple of years ago and the reminder plus the potential to add things which I find missing is very helpful. Kudos, Caitlyn, on that score!

I have a script which I can use from a tty session that checks for the next available slot (where there is no Xlock) and starts an X session to that display and mwm as the manager. For some purposes I want a *really* light desktop ;) I'm comforted by all the glitter of a full-blown desktop environment, but this might just spur me to try something different again.

btw- I find that konqerer suffers the same malady that gnome file dialog does in that some large directory (ie. /usr/bin) causes it a headache. I couldn't figure out a way to open it like you can with Gnome where hitting the / key or ctrl-L combo offers a file open location dialog. I remain unconvinced that there's something inherently superior about KDE in that regard.

I'd advise your readers to read the responses in the original thread (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2005-December/msg00021.html) as it seems to be clear the Gnome developers are aware of the issues, several bugs were cited, and their reasoning was explained. It's clearly not so simple as wishing to remove features on their part. FYI.

caitlyn said:
>

I completely agree. They totally suck. The mimetype selector that firefox is forced to use also totally sucks. When I first started using konqueror everything was there, useable, easy, good file manager, the mimetype program player selector doesn't force me to find and navigate to the application, say xmms, it keeps a record, and has a list of applications that have been used in the past, and lets you assign priority to which one you want to use.

In firefox, I have to go in each and every time, reassign the media player, by navigating to its location, can't just type in say xmms, with the stupid autocompletion stuff that makes me always have to use the backspace key to redo the path.

I sighed with relief when I saw konqueror's handling of that, although I still default to firefox, but only because of its extensions, if it weren't for that I'd have switched full time to konqueror, which by the way has been acid2 css compliant now for a few months, unlike firefox. But I like firefox, I just intensely dislike the gtk file dialogue, like others here.

Reading some of the gnome fan responses here makes it pretty obvious why these issues haven't been fixed, it's the old: that's not a problem, it's a 'feature' excuse.

I guess I could go in and read the whole debate thread pointed out, but the problem is, I can see for myself that the file dialogue doesn't work, and I can see that the way konqueror handles mimetype handlers just is easier, more intuitive, and more pleasant long term.

There's a reason Linus decided to open his mouth on this issue, and it's equally obvious reading these comments what that reason is, there's a problem of some type in the gnome community, until I'd read some of the comments here about licensing issues, they had not made any rational sense, but now they sort of are starting to make sense to me. And it has little or nothing to do with useability I think, must be ego, various other issues that make bad choices be maintained, and excused as good.

you write extremely well. Let me know your availability for an assignment in San Jose CA. I have at least 6 months of technical writing for a weekly tv show. Show taping begins in 6 weeks and we are not fully cast as of today.

Jeff, I mentioned reading the thread just for background. Linus in his colorful manner mischaracterized, I think, the Gnome Dev's position. At least it's hard for me to believe, especially having seen their responses, that they just wish to brush issues under the rug and force people to do things their way.

Is there arrogance or elitism on their part? I dunno. I'm just a satisfied Gnome user. I reach for ROX-Filer more often than not since it's quite fast at large directories, allows easy shell and navigation and is compact in UI design. It works for me.

When I need to change mime associations for Gnome I just open the properties of the file and select from amongst the applications history, set one of them, or chose a new one and set it. I haven't had to do that in a while so my memory maybe a little rusty. I don't remember any real problem.

I'm not sure what part of Firefox's use of Gnome vs. KDE mime handling is relevent. Does Firefox act differently under KDE in that regard?

Rob Salvadore: are you addressing that comment to Caitlyn, Richard, or me? No matter what, how is the person supposed to contact you with no contact information? I assume it's not me, unless you're fond of run-on sentences, LOL..

Richard: I'd have to take a closer look at gnome 2.14 to answer the questions, which would require installing it, or running the ubuntu livecd I guess, but gnome just annoys me so I have very little motivation to spend much more time on it.

Another example, gtk based, abiword. I was creating a series of documents, templates sort of, just using 'save as' each time. Each time, I had to retype the entire file name, the gtk stuff didn't consider it worthwhile to give me the old file name as first option, like pretty much every other system out there would have done.

The firefox stuff is just annoying, constantly, I always feel like I'm being crippled by someone's decisions when I do anything file or mime related.

I think the people who like gnome, from what I can see from this thread, just sort have come to accept these limitations, probably because they just don't do certain actions very often, and so don't get driven crazy by the lack of options.

KDE definitely needs to better organize it's options, reduce the top level choices to a smaller number, consolodate, but not reduce the actual configurations available, that's what I like about it, even though finding some of the stuff is a total pain, no argument there.

One point I'd like to bring up, and I think it's fairly fundamental: throughout the gnome design, to me it looks like there's a tendency to do things differently than microsoft, just so it can be different. The totally unuser friendly list of buttons for example on file dialogues comes to mind, as does the lack of the fairly standard drop down navigation menu you'll see on almost all other file managers.

The error, and I think it's a very widespread error in the linux/free software community, is in assuming that the billions Microsoft have spent in research and useability studies have all been totally wasted. They haven't, they aren't stupid.

One excellent example of this is the Windows Explorer, which was always a very good product, intelligently designed, laid out, etc.

And it's been solid since 1995 or so, when it first shipped. Maybe not programmed that great, bugs ect, but the idea was very good.

And it's completely familiar to users. The notion that somehow useability is improved by abandonning models that have been tested in the market for many years, and been found totally useable, is a severely wrong idea in my opinion. Constant interface change makes things less useable, not more.

Users need to get comfortable with certain things, and they were comfortable with them. Changing them, especially in a highly questionable direction, which enjoys no clear consensus support, just puts back the clock, it doesn't improve things at all.

Please note as well, like Caitlyn, I do not come from a perspective of disliking Gnome, I come from wanting to like it, really wanting to, but being turned off at each new release for exactly the issues raised here.

I like the relative lightweight of it, I like the relatively clean lines, not for my main desktop, I like advanced desktop features far too much to use gnome. Plus, Konqueror has grown into such a totally awesome product I'm fast finding it to become utterly indispensible, like kate, k3b, and a host of other killer kde apps.

From what I can see, especially when it comes to default file management, gnome users are accepting an utterly spartan set of options, and then saying spartan is desirable. But konqueror is every week improving my desktop efficiency, as I learn how to take advantage of its many features. That's konqueror as file manager, not browser.

Obviously advanced options and features are not for everybody, but the issues raised here are not really about packing gnome with configuration options, they are about basic file management mostly, simple things to resolve, that just indicate poor choices made for poor reasons.

Richard, I had a long response, but the da**ed page programming crashed and it's gone, can't type it again, basic point is this:

there are good models now of well thought out file management. Due to heavy anti MS bias, their solution, which is simple, clean, and very efficient, is considered suspect. This is a mistake. MS came up with their windows explorer interface by doing a huge amount of useability studies.

Trying to reinvent the wheel for no real reason just dumps all the work done in this area, and replaces it with relativly poorly thought out options that are not intuitive at all. Gnome users seem able to adapt to the restricted environment, which is fine, but it doesn't mean it's not a restricted environment.

I have tried many times to like gnome, but each time the configuration headaches turned me off. I recall trying to do something as simple as resize the console window default opening size in redhat 8, took much research, finally realized that to do so required appending the desired opening size, in pixels, to the program run command. Talk about non-user friendly!

So when I fond say kconsole, play around with it, change settting to what I want, then just click the top level menu option 'make default', it's like night and day.

Same issues with file dialogues, mimetype selectors in firefox etc. To me, reading the gnome fan comments, it really looks like gnome users just don't use desktops the way say windows or kde users do, as a powerful addition to your toolset.

Konqueror file browser, for example, is so powerful and time saving once configured I literally cannot use any other one anymore without getting annoyed, sure there are lots of options, but you don't have to use them if you don't want. The point is that they are there. And I find more all the time, each makes me that much more productive, and that much less likely to ever return to windows.

Gnome is nice for people who just need a simple desktop manager I guess, but it's the little things that add far too m any clicks to do simple jobs that are what drive me crazy, the default options are not how I think, they are not how Linus thinks either, that's why I really took note when he said that.

The idea here is not to bash gnome, it's to figure out where these highly questionable useability opinions come from, and replace them with something more easily recognizable as actual useability. I think it's a cultural problem within the gnome development team, as Linus noted in his comments in that thread you linked to, he has not seen ANY other open source app make these types of compromises, and neither have I. For example, Firefox on windows, abiword on windows, are more or less fine, because they do not use gtk. Gtk is the problem, not people being unhappy with its restrictions.

Rob Salvadore, who are you talking to, Richard, Caitlyn, or me? Probably not me since I'm fond of run on sentences, but you should be more specific if you want a response from those people.

sorry about the repeated post, I thought the first one was lost, I got db errors on submission, and it wasn't there on reload, blame the page programmer, LOL...

Hey Jeff, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Lot's there to mull over so I'll tackle what I can and leave anything else for further consideration.

I guess it's fair to say that with Windows and Gnome I've resigned myself to accepting things as they are, insofar as I can get it installed and use it, I'm happy. I think my model is more like a corporate user than a gear-head though these days. I first installed linux at its 0.9 version from floppies. Many times I dug in to try to find out what was under the covers. These days I just want it to work. You could say I prefer to configure for Usability not Configurability.

You know, I know folks who would still prefer that Microsoft never replaced the two-paned file manager and consider File Explorer a bother. I don't know if there's a point to that observation, except maybe that you can't please everyone no matter what you do. But, Nautilus works very much like Explorer. On the left is (enhanced) treeview, on the right the contents of what is chosen from the left. If you use its Preferences dialog you can easily cause it to open every time in this configuration (non-spatial) and to keep a textual Location bar at the top that you can use to navigate and which shows the path. The treeview has a tab that shows the history so navigating between locations is very easy, though that is not presented like a dropdown in the location widget.

Other applications implement file location in more restrictive manner, that's true. It's also true of Windows, if the programmer does not make use of the full API then what you see is limited in terms of what could be. I think that's the issue with GTK file dialogs. Using gedit, since I don't have abiword installed, the save as remembers the place I last saved (while it's open) and the file name of the current document. A drop down provides a list of bookmarked locations, session history locations, and 'Places'. A toggle allows you to open detailed dialog providing new-folder and navigation features. CTRL-L allows you to type a location (it's broken in that it should seed it with the current location and seeds it instead with the current filename). All that's pretty compatible with what Microsoft is doing. Yes, you have to spend some time using it to adapt. I find Konqerer to be much more divergent from File Explorer than is Nautilus though.

It's probably also fair to say that I don't experience print nor file dialog issues since I rarely print from anything other than Firefox and I use ROX-Filer for most of my file operations (or a CLI). I made Rox open Xterm by default and I did configure its default size; talk about user-unfriendly! ;) Gnome let me easily set MIME associations. There is some weirdness with Firefox in that regard, but mplayer plugin handles most all my media in that environment.

As nearly as I can distill the differences; on one hand some folks would like a ton of options exposed in the application GUI space. The other crew likes a limited set. I'm tiered; I want dialogs that take care of the most used options and I want mouse-overs that explain in some detail what they do. I don't want to have to open a help resource to do these simple configurations and I want to feel comfortable that a change I made will do what I expect. Yes, give me a way to dig into the internals (ie. regedit, gconf editor) when I absolutely must. I hope, though, that the GUI and man pages/CLI will take care of 80% of most user's issues.

And as far as the Desktop goes I take a spartan attitude. I don't use effects (waste of CPU) or background and picked a theme because I guess I had to ;) and only to maximize font clarity. I have a panel where I can launch most of what I use since I dislike drilling into any Start Menu structure I've ever used. Panel Drawers contain lesser used launchers. There's a dictionary, a command-line entry for quick one-offs, weather applet and system monitor. Notification (like Windows system tray) area and a clock and window selector and a button to lock it. There's really nothing that I can't do (well, start doing) with a click. I'm sure KDE offers much the same. It's much more powerful of a desktop than Windows. So I just don't get what you mean:
>>I like advanced desktop features far too much to use gnome.

Tell you what, I'll try to get a couple man-days using KDE and see where that goes.

Best,
-rsh

I'd have to try the newest full gnome desktop to make any more comments on what you mentioned, installs don't take long, but you really have to do significant production work on these desktops before you can really start noticing the goods and bads on them, I didn't notice the gtk stuff for a while on kde, then it became more and more irksome.

Some of the issues may come from significant glitches with using gtk apps in kde, which is very unfortunate, for example, why should an application use anything other than the native desktop file manager? That's just weird, a definite problem for both gnome and kde, and something that is going to have to be resolved by both desktop groups in the very near future.

In an ideal world, a gtk app or a qt app would use the native environment, to present a unified experience. I'm told there are many glitches running kde apps on gnome as well.

Maybe I'll take a look at the new ubuntu, although ubuntu isn't going to make gnome look as good as kanotix makes kde look to be honest.

Your response, however, does more or less confirm what I suspected: gnome does not attract users who are into their desktop environments. Which is what it is, doesn't mean anything, good or bad, just seems to be the way it is.

The problem in these discussions, though, happens when the kde users, the people who do configure their desktops a lot, and depend on those configurations for their work flow, comment on the lack of configuration options in gnome. Or the difficulty in finding them.

Abandoning the position of seeing this from your or my eyes, just consider this one: oh, to bring up the file entry, just hit ctrl+l. I mean, that's useability? Please. That's geeks who are happy learning many keyboard shortcuts. Things that are accessible through keyboard shortcuts in terms of display configuration should also be readily available in gui option format, for all the rest of the world's users who will never learn that command.

Same goes for firefox application for mimetypes, it's not that you can't do it, it's just very user unfriendly to do it. Which makes me sort of scratch my head wondering just what this seemingly non-existent end user's useability is actually coming from, it's not real end users I think, it's someone's IDEA of real end users.

It's precisely because you 'can't please everyone' that you offer easily accessible options for creating the configuration that will more or less please you.

I'd guess, accepting the inherent limitations of a relatively lightweight window manager like gnome, the necessary gui items would not be that many. Definitely anything that a gnome user says: oh, just ctrl+l, or just navigate to program location, then use that program [for firefox mimetypes for example], in other words, any time it involves actions or choices that could never be considered intuitive but which nevertheless are available in obscurely complex shortcuts, that's the exact time the gnome developers should stop, and say, red flag: geek alert, geek alert.

That's if the actual end goal is average non computer geek useability.

to me, the mindset behind gnome is not that different than the mindset behind apps like vi, great tools if you know the ins and outs, not so great if you have to figure it out without any background.

KDE I like because, although annoyingly convoluted, it's all there, everything has been given to me in fairly easy to figure out option panels. To me, while kde has many options, it's the arrangement and organization alone of those options that is the main problem. That's why guys like linus came out and recommended kde, it has what desktop power users need.

As usual, gnome could learn a bit from kde in terms of making easy to comprehend gui configuration screens, watching user clicks to achieve a certain task once configured, etc.

And kde could learn from gnome about simplifying menu options, but hopefully never at the cost of sacrificing configuration choices.

Here's, to me, the real killer though: when I look at my kde dual monitor display desktop, with 3 task bars, 2 hidden, one showing, transparent backgrounds on them, different backgrounds on each desktop, I don't see something that is a 'windows copy', I see something that is way better than windows.

Which is quite an achievement. I remember reading an interview with a gnome developer, I think one or two years ago, and he made the absurd claim that gnome was as feature complete as windows, which was and is totally ludicrous, it had at that point almost zero system configuration options at all. I'm not sure what blinds the gnome developers to this degree, but I think it might be worth looking into, there seems to be a sort of disconnect between what they believe they have made and what non gnome users perceive.

You'll notice that if you slag kde for the normal reasons, my response is just, yeah, that's true, it should be improved. This isn't a reaction I see much from gnome users though, there seems to be something else going on there, I'm not sure what it is, but it's not healthy.

I should also note, the last time I used gnome for my main workspace was I believe gnome 2.10, or maybe 2.8, I can't remember which version it was.

Although I was able to work in the space, it was always annoying to me, the only reason I did it was because gnome is and was more lightweight than kde, and kde wouldn't run decently on that machine because it was old.

But it was sort of interesting, I remember I wanted to tweak the colors of my theme, and I had to go in and actually edit the configuration files, which are more or less like HTML's CSS, to do that. Since I do web development, that wasn't a big deal, but it was symptomatic of where gnome tends to draw their lines. I have to edit kde configs by hand now and then, but not nearly as often as I had to do with gnome.

>>I remember reading an interview with a gnome developer, I think one or two years ago,
>>and he made the absurd claim that gnome was as feature complete as windows, which was
>>and is totally ludicrous, it had at that point almost zero system configuration options at all.

I can't possibly disagree more with this. I have been using Gnome/Fedora/Redhat as my main home environment for several years. Programming, research, documentation, testing and general web-browsing and fun. I rarely averaged fewer than 20 hours a week at my home machine. Often much more ;)

Not only did this environment completely satisfy me but it exceeded what I'd come to expect from Windows. I use maybe 30-50% of the feature set of Word, probably much less of Excel, probably most of Netbeans/Eclipse and probably 80% of Evolution. I put most of my 'configuration' time into Firefox cause I love what the extensions can add to it.

I'm not even much aware of the recent additions to Gnome. Why? Because I never have a reason to go looking for them! It has done what I needed for a long long time.

I liken it to my physical desk's top. Yes it gets cluttered and I need to clean it. But I keep pens in a cup, stapler off out of the way but within reach, b