GNOME is poor, is it?

[Lute Mullenix]

While I do use apps that are written for both Gnome and KDE I do not use
either one of them because I don't like the way they do things, but I
guess a lot of that might be from being from the command line age. One of
the first things I do when ever installing an app is to learn all of the
keyboard shortcuts I am going to be using, I don't like mice that much.

Guess where I am going with this is, OK you can install both Gnome and KDE
and give them an extended try to decide which one you like better. Which
is not a bad idea, but far from the only option when you move into the
Open Source *nix world. I used KDE for a few weeks when I first started
with Linux. SuSE installed it by default and it took a while for me to
figure out how to use something else. I have never looked back. Used Icewm
for a while then Blackbox, both light weight, fast, easy to setup and
use. Am currently using xfce-4, which is a desk top environment I guess but
doesn't have the look or feel of (the two biggies) KDE or Gnome, and is
also fairly light weight and fast.

The point I'm trying to make here is chances are your first install of
FBSD is most likely just for playing with, so play. You may end up running
Gnome or KDE, but more likely you will end up using one of the other WMs
and really setting things up the way you like them. Heck you may even end
up using twm, but I doubt that. Anyway, go to the ports collection, check
out your options in the x11-wm dir, there are enough in there to keep you
busy for quit some time.

This ain't Windows, so why try to make it act like Windows?

 Lute

************************
*   Power Provided     *
*         by           *
* FreeBSD 5.1 RELEASE  *
************************

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Johnson David wrote:
>
> KDE and GNOME have different philosophies of the desktop. Neither is
> correct. GNOME prefers to be a simpler desktop with fewer bundled
> applications (like Windows). KDE prefers to be a full featured desktop
> with more bundled applications (like OSX). Everything you can do in KDE
> you can do in GNOME, but you might have to install additional GNOME
> applications that aren't part of the gnome2 meta port.
>
> GNOME prefers a minimalist desktop with fewer user configurable options.
> You aren't able to "tweak" every little detail. KDE is the opposite,
> and prefers a wider feature set with configuration options for
> everything. There has been a minor "holy war" over these differences,
> as GNOME people say KDE is too difficult and that the large number of
> options in the control center scares away newbies, while KDE people say
> GNOME is too simplistic and presumes to know better than the user what
> the user should be doing.
>
> I'm in between. Try them both for an extended period of time (at least a
> week for both), and decide for yourself.
>
> Sidenote: GNOME does have a control center. I can't remember it's name
> off the top of my head, but it's one of the options available under the
> "Start Here" icon.
>
> David
> _______________________________________________