Metanet Forums

Which is better?

I can't decide which to get. ;-;

GNOME, baby.

Enlightenment!

OpenGEU offers said awesome environment out of the box with Ubuntu. However, you'll probably want to wait until 9.04, as 8.10 was quite delayed and 9.04 will come out only a month later.

KDE. The beauty is that you can get both ;)

If you get kubuntu for KDE though, wait for the next one. Upgrading from 4.1 (not for users) to 4.1 (for general use) is rough, and half the time it fuck(s) the (entire) system.

KDE 3.5.9.
I tried moving up to KDE 4 and hated it passionately.

Tsukatu wrote:KDE 3.5.9.
I tried moving up to KDE 4 and hated it passionately.

I am curious; what do you hate about KDE 4?

In terms of KDE:
Fedora
or
Kubuntu?

Ubuntu for GNOME fo' sho'.

scythe33 wrote:Enlightenment!

OpenGEU offers said awesome environment out of the box with Ubuntu. However, you'll probably want to wait until 9.04, as 8.10 was quite delayed and 9.04 will come out only a month later.

Elive!

Also, KDE over GNOME.

Tsukatu wrote:KDE 3.5.9.
I tried moving up to KDE 4 and hated it passionately.

Most KDE users thought KDE 4.0 and 4.1 were terrible. 4.2, I've heard, is significantly better. However, I still say you should try Enlightenment 17.

*Ahem*
Just thought I'd note that Gnome is absolutely better in every imaginable way. don't listen to the KDEites with their crap Windows ripoff.

jean-luc wrote:*Ahem*
Just thought I'd note that Gnome is absolutely better in every imaginable way. don't listen to the KDEites with their crap Windows ripoff.

First, emacs and now we agree on GNOME? We are two genetically superior peas in a genetically superior pod.

SlappyMcGee wrote:

jean-luc wrote:*Ahem*
Just thought I'd note that Gnome is absolutely better in every imaginable way. don't listen to the KDEites with their crap Windows ripoff.

First, emacs and now we agree on GNOME? We are two genetically superior peas in a genetically superior pod.

I'm starting to wonder is Jean-Luc is perhaps more Canadian than I am. D:

jean-luc wrote:*Ahem*
Just thought I'd note that Gnome is absolutely better in every imaginable way. don't listen to the KDEites with their crap Windows ripoff.

Hey, KDE's default settings might remind you of Windows, but you can easily change it to suit your own style (like I did, and now it looks nothing at all like Windows). You can't say the same for GNOME, though, which reeks of Apple's "fuck the user" approach to customizability. This is why jokes about future versions of KDE are centered around too many details in the user preferences while jokes about future versions of GNOME are about it being reduced to a single screen that says "you are using GNOME" and doesn't let you do anything else.
Also, cocks.

I've used Ubuntu (8.10) for 2 months or so, and it's kinda boring. I admit, some effects are nice, but it's just so, "bleh". Now I feel like I should give Kubuntu a try.

jean-luc wrote:*Ahem*
Just thought I'd note that Gnome is absolutely better in every imaginable way. don't listen to the KDEites with their crap Windows ripoff.

jean-luc uses rational thinking and consistent arguments to outsmart the competition.

Also, KDE easily beats GNOME's performance, Qt is one of the most well-documented toolkits period and gtk+ is about as well-documented as Windows, and Nokia's taking it LGPL. GNOME isn't actually any lighter than KDE, weighing in at 180 MB to KDE's 200 (Xfce is 3, and LXDE is less than a megabyte), and it's miles from being as configurable.
The advantages of GNOME were what again?

scythe33 wrote:

jean-luc wrote:*Ahem*
Just thought I'd note that Gnome is absolutely better in every imaginable way. don't listen to the KDEites with their crap Windows ripoff.

jean-luc uses rational thinking and consistent arguments to outsmart the competition.

Also, KDE easily beats GNOME's performance, Qt is one of the most well-documented toolkits period and gtk+ is about as well-documented as Windows, and Nokia's taking it LGPL. GNOME isn't actually any lighter than KDE, weighing in at 180 MB to KDE's 200 (Xfce is 3, and LXDE is less than a megabyte), and it's miles from being as configurable.
The advantages of GNOME were what again?

Sexiness.

SlappyMcGee wrote:

scythe33 wrote:

jean-luc wrote:*Ahem*
Just thought I'd note that Gnome is absolutely better in every imaginable way. don't listen to the KDEites with their crap Windows ripoff.

jean-luc uses rational thinking and consistent arguments to outsmart the competition.

Also, KDE easily beats GNOME's performance, Qt is one of the most well-documented toolkits period and gtk+ is about as well-documented as Windows, and Nokia's taking it LGPL. GNOME isn't actually any lighter than KDE, weighing in at 180 MB to KDE's 200 (Xfce is 3, and LXDE is less than a megabyte), and it's miles from being as configurable.
The advantages of GNOME were what again?

Sexiness.

The advantages of gnome are:

• Not being KDE

No, but seriously, my argument isn't based in versus listings. Every time I've used KDE, I've found it less aesthetically pleasing, slower, and more difficult to use than Gnome. This is personal experience, not spec sheets.