KDE or Gnome? Some useful advice for new users
The first question
The first question people ask when nudged in the direction of Linux (besides "what is it?") is "what distribution should I use?". This question cannot be answered by anyone other than themselves because that decision is based primarily on your individual needs and there is plenty of distro advice available on the internet.
KDE or Gnome?This is the killer question that can be quite difficult to answer and there appears to be very little information available on the first couple of pages of search engine results for the new Linux user. Which is best for someone moving from Windows? What about someone moving from a Mac? I aim to help answer these questions.
What "people" say
It's a common belief that Gnome is the most natural environment for the newly converted, with a lot of time and developed focused on a more intuitive user experience. The success of distros such as Ubuntu are evidence of this but there's still an awful lot that relies on the user - what you prefer, what you use your machine for, what your requirements are, what your specifications are... The list goes on.
A quoted comparison
Alan Cox (a Red Hat exec) commented in The Register that "Everything else in the free software world gives you a package and the best (distro) is used. The fact KDE and Gnome exists suggest they serve different groups of users, KDE provides more configuration and control, and Gnome more ease of use while giving up that control." An ambiguous quote true enough but this almost summarises what you'll find when comparing the two environments - which is surprisingly un-useful for the end user - what you actually want is a summary of what you could expect from each given your requirements.
KDE
As a matter of personal preference, I find KDE the most intuitive for a native Windows user because the layout seems the most obvious. However, personal preference aside, here are the characteristics associated with KDE:
- Graphical tools to make life easier (such as the 'browse as root' option seen in Knoppix)
- Most Linux programs written for the X-display are designed for KDE (this was true in the past, maybe less so now)
- Plenty of eye candy available (distros such as PCLinuxOS come with full Vista-esq window transparencies)
- Typically very customisable
Overall KDE is noted as being more 'flashy' and customisable, some may call it bloated, others may call it 'fully formed'. It has been slated as being slow when compared to Gnome but it's probably more like what you would expect from an operating system having come from Windows.
KDE of Choice
I have two very clear KDE recommendations:
Gnome
Gnome has been made mainstream through distros such as Ubuntu, broadcasted as the most intuitive interface possible - in an attempt to make Linux more approachable for Windows convertees. Here are some of the characteristics associated with Gnome:
- Quoted to be faster on older hardware (450mhz for example) than KDE due to focusing more on function over form.
- Easy visual customisability (installing themes is 'easier' than in KDE)
- Gnome is less 'cluttered' and more simple than KDE
- Nautilus is quoted as being more stable than Konqueror
Gnome of choice
One word, Ubuntu.
A basic rule of thumb
If you're running an old machine and just require stability and an uncluttered approach then you're best looking into Gnome. However, if you love eye-candy and pretty window managers then KDE is your best bet.
Conclusion
To be fair, the barriers between the two are decreasing as time goes by, saying KDE is for eye-candy is almost a redundant statement seeing as the Beryl/Compiz stuff can be added to Gnome environments... Conversely saying Gnome is faster than KDE is also a slightly odd statement, as certain precompiled KDE releases are notably faster than their Gnome equivalents... Not that I'm saying the content in this article isn't of any use, but I feel that it should be down to personal preference.
KDE - the GUI child of OSX and XP?
I read somewhere that they felt KDE environments look a lot like the OSX GUI and I suppose there's an element of truth in that - but my experience of KDE (especially PCLinuxOS) is that it's far more "Windows-y" than Gnome - despite Gnome being popularised as "the environment to convert windows users".
As always, time well tell, I just hope this information was useful to someone trying to work out which is right for them, KDE or Gnome.
Please, I WILL have missed things out because I'm not an expert so if you see a glaring omission - place it in the comments.
Enjoy this article? Why not subscribe to the full RSS feed?
Showing most recent 17 of 17 comments
Instead of telling someone "try Open Office; try KOffice; decide". Tell them instead "Open Office has this feature that KOffice lacks; KOffice has that one." This will save the prospective user a long time playing around sorting through different features to see how they line up, in the hopes that they come across the ones that will be crucial to them.
Suggestions like "Look at what programs you’ll use, and see which desktop they’re available for", while a necessary consideration, isn’t helpful to someone new to Linux because they’ll almost certainly start using a lot of entirely new programs.
Remarks like "Gnome resembles OS/X"; "KDE resembles WinXP", while perhaps true, need more fleshing out. Obviously on first glance Gnome resembles the Mac interface in having toolbars at both top and bottom of the screen, and having functions distributed between several menus; while KDE resembles Windows in having a unified start menu and a peculiar obsession with blue and silver. Neither of these first impressions is very important, since they can be changed very easily (in ways that Windows and OSX can’t).
If this page is to be the basis of a systematic comparison between the two, it would be most helpful to the prospective Linux convert--here or elsewhere--to compile a list of comparisons that do better than these kind of abstractions. (Which is what i looked for and couldn’t find.) A list of:
(1) Applications (organized by function) that will run on KDE but won’t run on GNOME unless you install a lot of the basic KDE software--i.e. will only run on Gnome insofar as you’ve added KDE functionality to it. And vice versa of course.
(1a) Applications known to work *a lot* better or worse on one than on the other
(2) Things--basic interface tasks, configuration--that can be done on one but not at all on the other. (Unchangeable parts of the interface, e.g.)
(2b) Things that are easy to do on one desktop and a great hassle to do on the other
(3) Specific, rather than general, comparisons with XP and OSX (like the ones I offered above, but hopefully more significant).
Is there a unified, updated list of these somewhere? And if so why aren’t there a lot more pointers to it floating around?
My conclusion: KDE and Gnome are both so good that the choice is simply a matter of preference. Their quality is higher than the point were the average user cares about the difference.
I usually tell people to start with Gnome since I think it is easier to use and to check out KDE if they are curious or unhappy with Gnome.
To the guy/gal who complained about the KDE app names, why dont you start distributing your own version of KDE and cal the apps wtf you want, you fucking tool!
Gnome seemed the more "natural" transition from OS-9 for me. It was more familiar, more subtle, and I felt more comfortable with it. KDE, on the other hand, reminded me more of XP, with an icon theme which looked more comfortable on an x86 machine than on a PPC.
A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then, and I’ve learned that KDE has some powerful features. I just don’t happen to need them for nearly all of what I do, so I’ve remained with Gnome. Version 1.16.1 is what I’m using right now. Are there things I’d like to change? Sure! I miss the hell out of command-key functions like "Find", which I had under OS-9 (Shortcuts’ equivalents aren’t quite the same.)
Is Gnome right for everyone? Definitely not. Is KDE? Also, definitely not. Is either perfect? Again, definitely not. But there’s also definitely things I just abhor about the Windows desktop and a few I personally find annoying about the Mac desktop as well. So nobody’s perfect.
My suggestion is to install a distribution with BOTH KDE and GNOME Desktop Environments (and maybe one or two others as well) and try them out. You might find you like one over the other(s). If so, use it. But don’t b---h if someone else finds a different one to their liking. It is simply a matter of taste for MOST end-users, just like their choice of background images or colors, or choice of icons. That’s the beauty of Open Software - Choice.
My rant aside, I think both KDE and Gnome are great desktops. I started off as a KDE fan, but now I lean toward Gnome. In my personal experience, Gnome has been more stable on my machine and I’ve really come to enjoy the clean look of it. Regardless, KDE is still a fantastic desktop.
I used to be a KDE user when using Mandrake. It\’s more flexible and configurable. It can display Chinese (or others, I guess), but its font and layout control are not as good as Gnome. When I used Ubuntu 5.10 the first time I was surprised that it was a very distribution for displaying foreign fonts. Now I am still using Ubuntu6.10 and there is no reason to switch back to KUbuntu or other KDE based distro.
The number of people working for translation is also a main factor. From my understanding, the Chinese translation is still active in Gnome. If I have choose which one is good for new user \’around the world\’, I guess Gnome is better, at least for those whole need a translated version.
If you freely admit to not knowing enough about these things why take it on yourself to post erroneous material?
You may prefer Konqueror over Nautilus, but Evolution over KMail.
Sure you can install say Evolution on a KDE distro, but it’s getting harder and harder to make it work.
Just check out bugzilla for Fedora on keyring problem when opening Evolution under KDE, Fedora has so far been unable to roll out what amounts to an very simple fix through Yum since mid November. Trouble is, that new users to Linux will not know how to fix these problems by writing scripts. They need a software installer that works and install the applications they need.
Which car do you drive? Why did you buy it? Did you like the look? Did it have a particular feature you found compelling?
Avg person: Views web pages, views pictures, plays movies, stores files, talks with their friends.
Guess what? Both KDE and Gnome allow you to do that these days!! Amazing!! ;)
Most people just aren’t used to having to choose something in their computing experience. They are so used to MS choosing for them they have forgotten what it is like to choose A over B or even take a peek at C once in a while.
The only correct choice is your choice.
It took me a while to figure out Rysiek’s point about being able to run KDE apps in Gnome and vice versa, but there are definitely some KDE apps that I use on a daily basis which are great (Amarok for one). So keep in mind that you’re not limited by the desktop environment you choose.
It’s basically just a matter of taste, one can’t really be called better than the other.
And I’ve always thought that Mac OS X looks like KDE. : |
Regarding speed, I think with faster computers the speed issue is basically nulified, and so my vote goes for KDE.
However, however... there are excellent GNOME applications I could just not do without... ie. like BEAGLE (and I don’t know why, I like gedit better than kwrite). And so, I hope GNOME too continues to grow.
For an initial screenshot comparison between GNOME and KDE in openSUSE 10.2 see: http://alternativenayk.wordpress.com/2007/01/06/opensuse-102-kdegnome-screenshot/
As coming from Windows I have no doubt; KDE is best for people coming from Windows. You dont need to ask for everything, cus there is a GUI for so much -and we Windows people are good with that. And when we want to do more – we have the powerful konsol. And dont forget; KDE is made to be as easy as possible, and “Windows” like.
Well, the noobs thoughts :-)
if you want to go lightweight for an old machine - go for xfce. I have xfce running well enough to use without foul language on an ancient celeron 333Mhz with 192MB of RAM (which also does some background processing, as it’s serving a few services), and I have xfce running *brisk* fast on a similarly old pentium II 400Mhz with 256MB of RAM on-board, that does not do any background work.
you can really easily check out all three (kde, gnome, xfce) by installing on your (k|x)ubuntu setup the kubuntu-desktop (for kde), ubuntu-desktop (for gnome) and xubuntu-desktop (for xfce) packages; you’ll be given a chance to select which one you wish to log-into in the log-in manager you use (kdm/gdm/xdm, it actually does not matter). I have both kde and xfce installed on one of my machines this way.
oh, and one more *important* thing: you’ve forgot to mention, that regardless of which desktop environment a user choses, (s)he still can use applications "written for" the other DE’s. if someone is completely new to the linux world, they might not know that.
cheers, and welcome to the linux world ;)
rysiek