On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 17:46 -0500, Tom Horsley wrote: > Can I just say that I don't even understand this thread? > There seems to be an implication that you must use one > or the other. Yes, there is (an implication). Though, as you say, it's not really essential. However, if you want to run some Gnome-centric, or KDE-centric application, you also have to have most of that desktop system's files installed, as well. I've found that most of the graphical applications I used had some Gnome part to them. If I ran something like XFCE it was quick, but as soon as I wanted to use a Gnome application, I had lots of Gnome stuff loading, the system became slower. And, I had the long wait for Gnome to start up on the first instance, that I might have well ran Gnome anyway. I'd found the same if I'd tried to run a KDE application. > I run programs to do specific jobs, not desktops to dazzle me with > different flavor eye candy. I'm not in love with either of them, but I found Gnome less disagreeable than KDE. KDE had far too many bits of fluff. At the time I tried it, it was more taxing on the system than Gnome was, and I wasn't too thrilled about how ARTS worked. I'd like a basic *system*. A menu to start what I want is nice, and something for easy switching between tasks (Gnome does that rather well, KDE does it with a whacking huge and complex bar). A decent file manager would be good (neither KDE nor Gnome offer a *good* "file manager", just a rather limited browser, and the TUI Midnight Commander is awful, before someone mentions that again). And I'd like applications that didn't need the baggage of any particular Window Manager. It wouldn't be so bad if the different desktops were just that - the features available to the desktop (menus, backgrounds, etc.). Applications being an independent thing, *on top*. Yes, I have tried FluxBox, Window Maker (going by memory, I think that's the title for it), XFCE, and most of the lightweight ones that you can find listed through YUM. None were particularly thrilling. One trouble with wanting a lightweight, or mediumweight, system, is that it's hard to find the balance between the right amount of features, versus demands on the system. At this stage Gnome seems to suit me best. Though it's, pretty much, the lesser of two evils. I've often heard it said that KDE would suit ex-Windows users (which is not me) best, though when I've tried Linux with them, they've headed for Gnome. One thing I think that either camp could do better is the naming of things in the menus. Gnome's idea of putting vague "text editor" entries, doesn't make it easy to run a particular application, if you wanted to. More so, if you have more than one installed. KDE's idea of putting in an entry with just the application's name, which doesn't always give any hint to its function, is just as bad. It'd be far more user-friendly to list things like "Gedit text editor," or "Gaim instant messenger," and so on. -- (Currently testing FC5, but still running FC4, if that's important.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
