Re: [sheflug] KDE vs Gnome... (batten down the hatches, etc etc)

[Lesley Binks <lesley.binks [at] xxxxxxxxx>]

John M Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-06-11 at 11:14 +0100, Chris J wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Sorry about the question, as I know it's often very subjective. However I 
>> can't find any real agnostic comparisons of these two desktops out there. 
>>
> 
> I think it's very difficult to be subjective, as most poeple get used to
> a desktop environment and work round it quirks. If you just "try" Gnome
> or KDE then things feel diffirent from what you are used to and so you
> end up with a bias. They both have thier good and bad points but as far
> as I know are both recommended over windows ;-)
> 
> You may want to check out a couple of other options such as IceWM[1] and
> Xfce4[2] these are both simple replacements and will run a bit faster if
> you PC is a bit older. IceWM in particular is very like Win9x in style
> only it works! There are many more but these are two that I have used
> and found to work.

I use KDE on SuSE 10 for my 'workstation' (Athlon 2k XP plus 2G RAM) and 
fluxbox on a debian unstable (Dell Latitude 700 with 256MB RAM).  <pedantic>
Fluxbox is not a desktop system;  IceWM isn't either; they are window 
managers.  Faster startup and I don't need a desktop environment.
</pedantic>
WMII is another window manager I have heard someone rave about but then 
they switched to KDE and configured it to behave like WMII as much as 
they could.

If your partner is used to a desktop environment then best to stick with 
Gnome or KDE imo.

I've used Gnome before but really started out with SuSE and KDE so 
that's what I've stuck with.

If I were in your situation I would suggest the desktop I felt happiest 
supporting :)

Regards

L.



___________________________________________________________________

Sheffield Linux User's Group -
http://www.sheflug.co.uk/mailfaq.html

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.