[CS-FSLUG] KDE vs. GNOME (was Re: Senator Obam)

[Timothy Butler]

>
> Why the switch? I've been considering giving gnome another look  
> lately,
> because I hear so much about how clean cut it is. What I mean by  
> that is
> sometimes KDE just seems cluttered and everything just strewn about  
> in the
> Kmenu. I've been using KDE for well over 14 years and still can never
> remember where to look in kmenu for some things. What I don't  
> understand is
> why have the "utilities", "system" and "settings" menu items when  
> all 3 of
> them are almost exactly the same generally. If you really think  
> about it, all
> the apps in each menu would easily fit in the other.

	David, you've pretty much hit on what frustrated me about KDE. I  
started using KDE at release 1.0; at that time, it was rough, but it  
was a huge improvement over what else was out there. It seemed like  
every release promised to be the release I could finally say, "this is  
as easy to use as Windows or Mac OS X." It never happened. The problem  
with KDE, as much as I respect some of their accomplishments, is that  
they lack discipline to focus on what will make the system usable for  
average folks.

	When I was hired by the KDE League to produce a tutorial/tour in the  
early part of this decade, I believe the control panel had something  
like 150 different screens worth of settings under multiple tree  
levels and then tabs and sub dialogues beyond that. Likewise, KDE has  
always favored including redundant applications with slightly  
different ways of doing things over picking one really good way to do  
something and building it up so that there would be no need for two.

	I got tired of the clutter -- it feels unpolished and it makes the  
system feel less like a cohesive, well, system. GNOME 2 marked a big  
change for that project, and one that impressed me greatly. Part of it  
was attitude, while the GNOME folks were originally the arrogant ones,  
by the time GNOME 2 floated around, I got the idea it was the other  
way around. The KDE people were so convinced they had come up with the  
best way to do stuff, you could get shouted down by multiple  
developers if you tried to gently suggest this or that idea that might  
actually make the system more "human friendly."

	GNOME 2 cut a bunch of features, to the chagrin of many, much as Mac  
OS X did after Mac OS 8, but in both cases, that went towards an  
extremely good fit-and-finish on what was left. Programs complement,  
but do not overlap. The interface is clean and simple, putting forward  
important options but deemphasizing that which is not all that big of  
deal. Most of it can still be configured (like Mac OS X) from the  
command line -- that makes sense to me. Pros can use the command line  
(or a customizer utility) no sweat, so put pro-level options there.  
This results in the remaining GUI tools focusing on the average user,  
the sort who is scared to death when he or she sees KControl.

	I know KDE is trying to clean things up, but I still think they lack  
discipline. FOSS is great for a lot of things, but the bazaar  
technique is much better at building servers and underpinnings than  
GUIs. GNOME (and, Firefox, I might add) have at least a top layer of  
"cathedral builders" to present a public face to the project and  
provide a vision that drives the project.

	-Tim

---
Timothy R. Butler | "Turning and turning in the widening gyre
tbutler at ofb.biz   |  The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
timothybutler.us  |  Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
uninet.info       |  Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world..."
                                                 -- W. B. Yeats