Alessandro17 Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=570 This article was written almost one year ago but the situation hasn't changed very much, IMO. Also, I am so much in agreement that I could have written it myself. For those who don't remember: prior to KDE4 almost every opinion poll "KDE versus GNOME" saw KDE at least slightly favoured by users. Look now: GNOME always wins by a large margin. As to me, I had always used KDE, and I still do, where possible (PCLinuxOS is still KDE3 based). But if the only options were KDE4 or GNOME, I'd rather go GNOME. Even Linus changed his mind. Why kill what was arguably the most loved and functional desktop ever? That beats me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose Tracks Posted May 2, 2010 Share Posted May 2, 2010 KDE4 just felt like too big of a change and people don't like change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted May 2, 2010 Author Share Posted May 2, 2010 KDE4 just felt like too big of a change and people don't like change. That is one reason. And the other one is tha KDE 4 is still lacking features when compared to KDE 3.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKant Posted May 4, 2010 Share Posted May 4, 2010 Did the author of the article even use KDE3 in the first place? Once you start to dig a little bit, most of the customization options from KDE3 are still there. The article mentions a very specific feature thet isn't used a lot as a scrapegoat for "kde4 is less efficient" ¬¬ About memory usage, some hard numbers: I run my KDE4 over an Arch Linux using the kdemod repos, and it takes ~200 MB on memory without opening fancy stuff. If I open kopete (IM), konversation (IRC), and ktorrent it still remains under 400MB, maybe under 300MB. GNOME and KDE have different designs, different "visions", so they're bound to be different and not be liked by the users of the other desktop. It's not about which one is "better", because that can't be measured. you can compare efficiency, or memory usage, o feature completeness, but "better" is ultimately something the each one decides form themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Espionage724 Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 KDE3 was nice, but I didn't like the non-traditional desktop in later versions (KDE3.5 and 4, or maybe just 4, idk) Plus KDE4 seems way too cluttered for me, and the widgets, I tend to stay away from those on any OS lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted May 25, 2010 Author Share Posted May 25, 2010 KDE3 was nice, but I didn't like the non-traditional desktop in later versions (KDE3.5 and 4, or maybe just 4, idk) Plus KDE4 seems way too cluttered for me, and the widgets, I tend to stay away from those on any OS lol. You have summarized, with simple words, many of my feelings (and BTW, KDE3.5 was OK, IMO, it was just an evolutionary step). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Pinheiro Posted June 14, 2010 Share Posted June 14, 2010 I think gnome is much better, it's easier to use and it's "preetier" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsdmaniac Posted September 13, 2010 Share Posted September 13, 2010 For those who like KDE 3.5.x there is the Trinity Project, that has ambitions to keep the environments features up-to-date. Currently there are stable Repos for Ubuntu + experimental ones for Debian. http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/ I am not sure how long this ambitious project will be able to keep the implementation of new features into KDE3.5 alive, but I hope they will keep going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts