Torvalds vs Waugh, KDE vs. GNOME [ was Re: "Revolution OS" (The Movie).]

[Harold]

I have always gone with Gnome because it uses less overhead.  Even when 
I switched from Redhat to Mandrake, I stuck with Gnome.  I still use it 
with Ubuntu.  I guess it is because I am more oriented towards using and 
less towards tweaking.

Harold Sawyer
www.SawyerSphere.net
www.centralconnecticutwcg.org


Scott wrote:
> Jeff Waugh spake thusly on 12/31/2006 08:12 PM:
>   
>> <quote who="Scott">
>>
>>     
>>> I like both of you, but I had to go with Linus on that KDE thing. :-)
>>>       
>> Oh, that KDE developers are not idiots or Nazis? Thanks man, they'll really
>> appreciate your sentiment. I'll make sure to pass it on. I'm sure they were
>> concerned.
>>     
>
> I wasn't concerned about how GNOME or KDE developers think about how I 
> feel about them (OK perhaps with one exception [1]).
>
> I was referring specifically to when Linus wrote [2]:
>
> 	"I personally just encourage people to switch to KDE.
> 	
> 	This "users are idiots, and are confused by functionality" mentality of
> 	Gnome is a disease. If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will
> 	use it. I don't use Gnome, because in striving to be simple, it has long
> 	since reached the point where it simply doesn't do what I need it to do.
> 	
> 	Please, just tell people to use KDE."
>
> It's downright sad and discouraging that an otherwise very impressive 
> Desktop Environment (GNOME) has seemingly come to have such contempt for 
> a group of people that comprise the majority of it's users.
>
> The fast is, most Linux users ARE *somewhat* experienced with a GUI. 
> And those new to Linux (and to a lesser degree *BSD/Solaris/*ix,etc) are 
> mostly (former) Mac and Windows users.
>
> GNOME is missing features Mac and Windows (and KDE...) users are 
> accustomed to. I'm talking such "high tech" or "difficult" things like:
>
> 	A) Configuring one's sreensaver as one wishes (based on options the 
> screensaver author had built in).  Strangely this worked quite well in 
> GNOME until someone *cough*billy*cough*jon*cough*mccann* decided that 
> this wasn't a feature and in fact was a "bug"[1]
> 	
> 	B) REALLY simple stuff dating back to Windows 3.1.  The ability for a 
> user to easily change the colors of Widgets and Window Borders (i.e. 
> Metacity and GTK themes).
> 	
> 	I recently read that someone is *just now* working on such a utility 
> for GNOME.  Better late than never I suppose...
>
> [1] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=316654#c1
> [2] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2005-December/msg00021.html
>
> There is this perception by many that KDE is more difficult for "new 
> users" than GNOME is.  Granted KDE does give one more configuration 
> options than GNOME. And yes I will argue they are the direct opposite, 
> they give you too many (but I'd prefer that to too few).
>
> But the fact is, that for several years, a KDE based distribution was 
> immensely popular with "newbies" because it was similar to Windows.  It 
> was then called LinuxMandrake.  I know, it was my first distro (1998). 
> And yes the Windows-like KDE interface was helpful.
>
> But in 2007 I also like the fact that I can still tweak KDE to my hearts 
> content (*without* manually editing any configuration files or hacking 
> my way through the Windows Registry um..er I mean gconf).
>
> I can even make it more "Mac Like" than GNOME is (many claim GNOME is 
> more Mac-like than KDE). Can you say "(built in) Application Menu Bar"? 
>   It's not enabled by default but can be added in the control center 
> with a few mouse clicks. No Gdesklets/SuperKaramba necessary.
>
> But despite all this I actually like and use GNOME. I also use KDE (whch 
> generally I like better than GNOME).  But what I really llike is choice. 
> That's why I also use Windows XP, Windows Vista, and sometimes BSD, 
> OpenSolaris....
>
> It's too bad GNOME doesn't think as much of "choice" as KDE does (well 
> least when it comes to basics anyway).
>
> But I digress...
>
>