Arne Posted August 20, 2005 Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 Hello All, As a newbie I allow for 80? of the trouble are due to my lack of knowledge. The last 20% can be KDE faults. I run standard setup for 10.1 exclude Open office, include Opera and add abiword and gnumeric after installation. I have run kde for 4 months and many small issues, many which i dont even remember. I have learned that terminal always do it right but kde do not. A small example: copy a txt tile from home to /mnt/removable in kde often fails. In terminal it newer fail. How about gnome? I have newer used it but wonder if I should try it? Anybody have views or experience on this? Moved from Software by theYinYeti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devries Posted August 20, 2005 Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 Every piece of software has it's quirks. Now you are familiar with the problems of KDE but when you switch to gnome you will find the grass isn't greener on the other side. Disclaimer: I find KDE grass the greenest :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arne Posted August 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 OK I just wonder. thank's Any other opinions?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arctic Posted August 20, 2005 Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 I found Gnome to handle USB-devices better than than KDE. I once was a "die-hard" KDE fan but switched to Gnome as it was more stable imho. There is only one minor bug in Mandrivas Gnome (not in Fedora and other, though): when you download things to the desktop, they might not appear. Quick fix: Press CTRL+R for refreshing your desktop and voilà, there are your files. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coverup Posted August 20, 2005 Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 Since you are comfortable with terminal, why worry about Gnome or KDE? It's just a distraction :D Go unix way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarecrow Posted August 20, 2005 Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 Neither one is more stable. KDE is more bloated for sure, but some of its extras are extremely handy. It's eyecandy is also more pleasant to the eye, which is rather a QT3 vs GTK2 issue. Anyway, you can use XFCE4 until you decide which one is more stable... :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arne Posted August 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 Thank's for reply all of you. arctic, Gnome handle USB better that's positive. kde don't do it nice. But gosh it don't refresh automatically. coverup, I am forced to use terminal more than I like. Several things are easier in a graphical environment and thats a fact. On the other hand I don't learn linux by using kde or gnome so in a way I am happy to be forced but not all the time. scarecrow, Sorry, what is XFCE4 and how do it differ from the 2. other and where can i get it????? To sum up: Kde has more features but maybe slightly less stable. Gnome has less features but slightly more stable. Terminal is the rock stable approach but you have to memorise a lot. More opinions are very welcome Thanks again guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarecrow Posted August 20, 2005 Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 (edited) scarecrow, Sorry, what is XFCE4 and how do it differ from the 2. other and where can i get it????? http://www.xfce.org/ It is NOT a window manager, but rather a desktop suite, like KDE and Gnome. Linux purists love it, because it's simple, very fast and articulate. You can get it on Mandriva once you have properly setup your urpmi sources by a simple "urpmi xfce4", possibly leaving a post-installation of a few desktop addons. Edited August 20, 2005 by scarecrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arne Posted August 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2005 scarecrow, Thank's I have looked at the site, looks nice. I have put on my priority list. Can you please give me a short list of features missing compared to kde. Do I have to reinstall linux? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted August 21, 2005 Report Share Posted August 21, 2005 Gnome has been more stable than kde for a long time. It used to be the other way around in the gnome1.4 days. That's when I went to wha?...kde2.2? Since gnome2.0, gnome has grown more and more stable over the years, mostly out of necessity. After all it is the corporate linux desktop...ie ..Red Hat ;) Inevitably, the more code...the more bugs, just look at Windows ...and you heard it from others...kde=bloat ...translation...more bugs. I can copy/paste, drag/drop huge directories in gnome's file manager nautius and it is extremely rare that it fails. It did fail occassionally a while back but only with huge directories. It's slow...so terminal/commandline is the route to take for big stuff anyway, and even safer to archive it first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aomighty Posted August 21, 2005 Report Share Posted August 21, 2005 KDE's plenty stable with me, though I haven't yet tried Gnome. And I agree, command-line never fails, EVER, and a lot of times it's the quickest way to do things. The other day I had to use Windows for something, and I just got this sad sensation when I realized I couldn't fall back on my beloved command-line when I was in need... :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenwolf1984 Posted August 22, 2005 Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 Never got far with Gnome...KDE all the way. Stable? Very, in my experience...tho i cant call gnome unstable since i cant get into the way things are laid out in the gnome environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmpatrick Posted August 22, 2005 Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 KDE in mdk10.1 had issues IIRC. It was actually mandrake's implementation of kde rather than anything in kde. Be sure to run all your updates as that fixed many of the problems with kde in mdk10.1. Which brings up another issue. With either kde or gnome you have to look at the distro's implementation of the DE. They all tweak the DEs somewhat. For example, RH(Fedora) is known to implement gnome excellently while its implementation of kde is generally regarded as terrible. Slackware's developer has stopped supporting gnome because he feels it takes too much tweaking on his part to be stable whereas kde gives him less trouble with their standard packages and little tweaking is needed. So there's two divergent opinions as an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowe Posted August 22, 2005 Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 I used to use KDE when I used mandrake 10.0 and to be perfectly blunt, it was unstable as hell compared to gnome. Now I use archlinux and just recently started using KDE(3.4.2) again (was a long time gnome user)and it's a lot more stable than it used to be, only problem i've had so far is when adding stuff to the menu, but except that i've had no crashes or any funny buisness so far so i'm quite impressed. Still, I wouldn't say kde was more or less stable than gnome, they're both pretty solid these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixthusdan Posted August 22, 2005 Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 The only time I have ever found kde unstable is with the customized version from Mandrake. Mandriva also has some issues. When Mandriva had kde issues, PCLinuxOS did not. So the fault as Mandriva, in my opinion. I have also never found gnome unstable. But kde is better gui!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.