Gnome has pulled ahead of open-source desktop rival K Desktop Environment (KDE) in terms of design, stability and usability, says Jack Wallen.
It seems only yesterday I was reading thread after thread of Emacs vs Vi flame wars. Those were the good old days. Now hostilities between followers of the two open-source editors are all but over, ending the infighting between Linux devotees. Well — almost.
A new conflict is brewing, promising more of the sharp-tongued exchanges that characterised Emacs vs Vi. This new dispute? Gnome vs KDE.
Many of you may be shaking your heads. You may be thinking that that particular battle either never started or was won long ago. True, at one point KDE completely trounced Gnome. But now Gnome is slowly but surely pulling ahead of KDE.
Here is why today's Gnome, versions 2.22 and above, is better than today's KDE, versions 4.1 and above.
1. KDE 4
KDE 4 is a significant factor in the change of fortunes of the two desktops. The backlash against KDE 4 has been severe. When it was first released in January 2008, it was simply not ready.
KDE 4 was a complete redesign, from the ground up, of KDE — and it showed. KDE took a solid desktop and pulled the rug from under it. What replaced the ever-popular KDE 3.5 was something unstable, hardly usable, and as configurable as Windows Vista. Gone were the days of tailoring KDE to your exact specifications.
KDE was and is the first-ever 'Microsofting' of the Linux desktop. The developers released something that was worthless and refused to listen to users' feedback. In the rival camp, Gnome was moving steadily forward — just as it has been for years.
2. Start menu
With Gnome, there are three simple menus from the main panel: Applications, Places and Administration. It should be obvious what you can find under each one. It should also be obvious that navigating these menus is efficient and as simple as it is elegant.
KDE 4, on the other hand, has a clumsy menu. If you click on the K menu, you will initially see five tabs: Favorites, Applications, Computer, Recently Used and Leave. By default, the Favorites menu contains System Settings and File Manager. To open an application, you must then click on the Applications tab, navigate to the category the target application will belong to, find the application entry, and click on it.
Read this
Comment: Ten obscure Linux applications you need to try
The seemingly endless list of Linux tools contains some gems that could be easily overlooked
You can avoid doing this by adding an application launcher widget to the panel. But if you are like me and use numerous applications, you will quickly have a panel full of launchers. This KDE menu system needs streamlining before it can be considered an efficient use of a desktop.
What is worse, at least for the new user, is that finding the menu editor tool is not intuitive. There is no entry in any configuration control panel.
To edit the main menu, you have to right-click the K button and select Menu Editor. But even then, you can edit only entries within the Applications tab. You will also notice another entry in the K button: right-click and Switch To Classic Menu Style. This style is more in line with what most users are accustomed to. But again, how many new users are going to know to right-mouse-click the K button to find this?
3. Nautilus vs Dolphin
With KDE 4 came the new file manager, Dolphin. Before this change, KDE had the best graphical file manager available of any operating system — Konqueror. But now, KDE uses Dolphin, which is similar to Nautilus minus the stability.
Gnome's Nautilus is a no-frills file manager. It does one thing and it does it well: it manages files. It has add-ons for Dropbox, and integrates with that system seamlessly, and is very stable.
Dolphin, on the other hand, was an attempt to get away from what was considered the bloatware of Konqueror and to adopt a simpler, streamlined file manager. What has been created is a file manager that has features most people will find worthless.
Take for instance a file/directory rating and comment system. If you are the only user on a machine, what use is a file/rating system...
Talkback
I started off using KDE some years ago as, at that time, it was often the default installation and it seemed to have more tools and was more familiar to a Windows user. Nevertheless, the menus were always cluttered and somewhat off-putting.
Gradually, as default installations changed, I moved over to Gnome for everyday use but installed KDE to help me perform some of the tasks not so easily performed in Gnome.
Gnome has moved on and now I would no longer consider installing KDE at all. I have not even tried KDE4. Gnome is a nice clean environment which is easy to use and, in truth, with a minimal learning curve for new recruits to Linux. It could be argued that KDE have scored an own goal.
So far as the Linux versus Windows argument goes, KDE was possibly an easier transition to make but, arguably, no longer so. If Linux is to gain traction, the learning curve requires to be easy and intuitive, even if the experience is different. Gnome fits the bill.
However, having read this article, I think that I may now have a better understanding of some the negative posts regarding adopting Linux. This is a shame considering the huge effort that has been put into KDE.
"I have not even tried KDE4"
That's enough said right there.
I agree with what you say, I also used to use KDE, but started using Gnome when I first installed Ubuntu several years ago.
I installed KDE4 to see what it was like, but immediately abandoned it as being far too cluttered.
I do think that the "battle" between KDE and Gnome exemplifies the problems Linux has had for years getting users to use it - while the Linux comunity bicker amongst themselves why should end users bother with it ?
I myself have gone back to Windows now for my main PC ( although I do have a secondary Ubuntu on also ) purely because there were too many things I could do much better using windows apps than using Linux ones - the operating system itself really no longer comes into the equation for me as Ubundu and Windows are so similar - it is just down to the apps.
sleightholme says: <i> "I do think that the "battle" between KDE and Gnome exemplifies the problems Linux has had for years getting users to use it - while the Linux community bicker amongst themselves why should end users bother with it?"</i>
I think you'll find that the Linux/FOSS world has a different perspective here. Think of it in evolutionary adaption terms:-
The FOSS world operates in a manner where it tries to 'explore' as much of the landscape for 'forms of software' as is practicable, because it understands that no piece of software is 'right' for every user, and that there are long-term advantages for end-users if software projects compete on ideas, community and quality.
And unlike the competition in the proprietary world, competition among FOSS projects can lead to wins across the board, as the software 'genetic material', can be shared among competing projects, and great new innovations won't be patented, thus benefiting all users in the longer term. It's part of what makes FOSS stronger and better (in general) in the long-term.
Sleighthome: Not really, I have tried live CD's. I have only expressed my personal opinion. Indeed, I had hoped to trigger a considered response to the original article about KDE. However, it has struck me that KDE has had a bit of a Vista moment with potentially similar consequences.
Conz: Whilst, as a 'consumer', I am all in favour of choice, the proliferation choices of distros and desktops must, notwithstanding their individual merits, act as somewhat of a deterrent to the average Windows user considering migration to Linux.
It would be interesting to see if this 'test' of KDE4 was done using different Linux distros. In my experience, the difference between KDE4.1/2 in, say, Mandriva is very different to Kubuntu.
It really is different horses for different courses.
The ideas behind KDE4 are radical and breath-taking. We should be grateful that Aaron Seigo and the guys at KDE have really tried to change the way desktop environments are done. I think it rocks! And ... wait for it ... it's free! Both in beer and in speech.
To compare KDE4 to Microsoft Vista is totally unfair and very disrespectful. It's a little Ya Mama, don't you think?
Please remember two things:
1) KDE4 is only in .2 release. What do you expect! The improvements since 4.0 are staggering (using the right distro).
2) If you don't like it, it's an Open Source project. Get involved in the project and change it for the better. You don't just have to be a coding guru. Only then do I think you have the right to criticise.
Btw, I'm not a member of the KDE team and, right now, use Gnome as my desktop environment of choice.
Quote: "the operating system itself really no longer comes into the equation for me as Ubundu and Windows are so similar"
You may be able to mimic the "Windows look" with Linux (or even the other way around), but Windows and Linux could not be more different. They are not even as similar as apples and oranges!
If you have never looked under the hood to see why, then you should. If you don't think it's important, then you're wrong.
I seem to have opened a can or worms here.
I fully realise the underlying differences between Windows and Linux.
My comments referred to the usability side of things, and only on the desktop PC, not the server.
Having recently once again installed Ubunto and Windows ( XP ) on to different PCs, the basic features a user gets ( Internet, Office ( although with Windows you need to install this seperately ), Email ) are for me so very similar that I personally feel that for a standard desktop it matters very little which OS you use.
However, when you look at the additional applications you need when you start working on photos, Web Site design, music, I just find that the applications available under Windows are far better than those available under Linux, fully realising that you have to pay for them ( which I am perfectly happy to do ) ( personal opinion ).
I have spent so many hours trying to use free Linux based applications on a PC and in the end just got too frustrated with their lack of polish and lack of features, that I reverted back to Windows and the apps available there ( and yes, I did try Wine and Virtual PCs ).
Having spent many years following the evolution of desktop Linux, I hear what you're saying. I guess it depends on what you use your computer for. You're right that WINE is certainly not a perfect solution. However, I think most of the apps that most of the users need are there. Google provides Picasa and Google Desktop for Linux. Adobe Reader is available, as is Skype. Sure, there is a bit of a trade off in terms of not getting all of your favorite apps to run natively in Linux. On the other hand, if you have the CPU power and RAM, you can run XP in VirtualBox for the odd app that is missing (say Quicken for example). You also get the added security of running an OS that is virtually immune to all the Windows malware.
Cheers.
:)
In the first paragraph, I should have referred Eruaran (Not Sleightholme). Sorry for any confusion.
My goodness, I spend one day away (trying to find a job), and look what an interesting discussion I miss out on!
First, I generally agree with Moley - I use Gnome almost exclusively, because I find it to be easy, intuitive, it does the things that I need, and it doesn't try to force a lot of things onto me. I was moderately satisfied with KDE 3.5, but unlike Moley I have actually tried KDE 4.x several times, for x=0,1,2, and I pretty much couldn't make heads or tails of it. I was well aware at the time that it might be due to a shortcoming in myself, rather than KDE, but I just never seemed to even make enough progress with it to encourage me to go on.
But I think the Gnome/KDE issue is symptomatic of a fundamental difference between Windows and Linux. There are always going to be Windows supporters who are going to seize on the variety of Linux solutions and say it is "too complex", whether it be different desktop managers, different Linux distributions, or whatever. But in the Linux world, these are considered to be advantages - if you don't like one, look around and try another.
I think sleightholme's comment about the operating system not coming into the equation is actually very close to something that a lot of us have been working toward for a long time. If you are willing to accept the fact that the vast majority of ordinary users don't really care what operating system they are using, then what we want to do is eliminate the differences at the user level between Windows and Linux, and thereby eliminate the "I don't want Linux because I can't understand it" argument. Of course we will know that Linux is under the hood, and that's a good thing, but we are looking at it from a different perspective. If we're trying to get consumers to choose Linux because they understand and appreciate the merits of the operating system, then we have already lost.
I'm not saying they have to be exactly the same, and I would take OpenOffice vs. MS Office as an example. They aren't exactly the same at the user level, but the concepts are the same, and the implementation is close enough, and logical enough, that someone who uses MS Office requires very, very little time to switch to OpenOffice. I would offer GIMP as a counter-example. I was reasonably good with Adobe Photo Shop on Windows, but when I tried to use GIMP on Linux, not only was the interface very different, but the underlying concepts were also different in some very significant ways, and it was really a struggle. An ordinary user put in that position would almost certainly give up and go back to Windows and Photo Shop before too long. I know that GIMP is good, and I am sure that an experienced user can do pretty much anything with GIMP that can be done with Photo Shop, and probably more in some important ways. But the earliest decisions on switching and/or staying are made on the basis of familiarity and usability, not power and functionality.
Over the longer term, the diversity, flexibility and power are likely to pay off, once you get someone to try Linux and stay with it. But first you have to get them to even try, and to stay long enough to see the real advantages.
One last thing - bad experiences and bad reputations last a long time. How many times have we seen and heard negative comments about Linux, its utilities, or its applications, and we think to ourselves "yeah, but that's not true any more...". Getting someone to give it a try once is hard work. But if they try it and run into problems, getting them to try again in the future is even more difficult. It takes time, effort, and a convincing, well-documented case to get a second chance.
jw
Hiya Moley!
You mentioned <i>"Whilst, as a 'consumer', I am all in favour of choice, the proliferation choices of distros and desktops must, notwithstanding their individual merits, act as somewhat of a deterrent to the average Windows user considering migration to Linux.</i>
I agree, in general. Which is why, in most circumstances, I suggest to Linux evangelists that they recommend Ubuntu to new users. Once a user has acclimatised to Linux through the Ubuntu 'segue', they then might acquire the wherewithal to consider any of the many other alternatives (Fedora, Suse, Mandriva etc.)
I offer the same advice to system builders and OEM manufacturers, Don't bother asking the question 'which Linux for consumers', just go with Ubuntu.
This review is now so out of date with KDE4.2 out and KDE4.3 in late development.
However, the review was also flawed. KDE 4.0 & 4.1 were not meant for day-to-day use, they were technology previews that were mislabelled by the development teams and project leaders. KDE 4.2 was the first release intended for day to day use by normal people... and guess what I have used it as a system since the day of launch (well actually while it was in 4.2 beta on kubuntu)
KDEs mistake is that they created a poor communication plan and launch plan not that they re-wrote an ok desktop.
I guess it depends on who the desktops are appealing to. The people who still like Windows 2000 wouldn't move to WinXP (and it isn't worth showing them Vista)... in the same way, the Linux desktop was very Windows 2000-esk until KDE 4.2.
KDE 4.2 provides a solid base for building a great desktop environment, sure it still needs work, kopete the IM client that competes with Pidgin still crashes on me for instance, but it:
- has a great multimedia framework,
- a lovely look and feel that manages to look modern but not overly stylised, it matches vista and macosx for glam on kubuntu out of the box (and you can really add bling, if you wish)
- tight integration between application
- KOffice, although still in heavy development, has a lovely interface - but needs import/export filters badly.
but yes, there are some valid points, nautilus needs work, but konqueror is still there if you want to use it as a file manager and you can always install another file manager if you really dislike both. There are some glitches, but come on, give KDE 4.2 a whirl... its the start of a new Linux desktop... so much so I hear rumours that GNOME is considering a ground up re-write.
Rich
Excellent points. For those still following this thread, Mandriva released their Spring 2009 release today which has a really promising implementation of KDE4.2. Run it in a virtual and see for yourself - http://www.mandriva.com/en/download
I am not sure about KDE4 but the 3.5 was a nightmare for me (on SimplyMEPIS8). that made me dump the whole distro to install Linux Mint that comes with a well tweaked Gnome :)
I personally do not recommend KDE. The 3.5 looked like a 0.1 alpha to me.