Hi, Dan
>
> Make sure to try Gnome 1.2, (use sawfish not E) if you have not
> already. However when comparing Gnome and KDE, they are very
> diffrent. My opinion about both products that they are bloated, and
> designed to hold a newbie's hand. Gnome does less of this, than KDE.
Please understand where I am coming from.
Right now I am building a firewall solution for a client who has never used
anything but Windows, conceded that this might not be great for security
(has doubts, at least), and graciously gave NetFerrets his business. The
company is an ASP, and a pretty rapidly growing one. Security was nil.
They are shockingly non-technical, despite running an Internet business.
It's really pretty scary, and they know it, which is why I was brought in.
I needed to give them a GUI that was easy for their pseudo-tech guy to
understand and stable. KDE fits the bill better than Gnome precisely
because it is easier for a newbie to pick up. I went with the most
Checkpoint-like interface I could find because it's the only other firewall
the client has ever seen.
In order to sell to this client, I had to make Linux non-threatening, which
I sucessfully did. So... the solution? Caldera OpenLinux eDesktop 2.4 and
KDE/kwm. I realize that combo makes some purists nauseous, but for weaning
people from Windows, there is nothing better. Once they decide that Linux
is OK, then it's time to move them further. They have to crawl before they
walk.
> I really feel that if anyone is serious about learning how to use
> Linux should avoid both desktop enviroment, and learn how to use the
> CLI more effectively.
I can't quite agree. While I find the CLI more efficient for some things,
there are pretty much good graphical tools for everything. The thing is, to
use them well, you still need an understanding of how it all works. Let's
say I'm running Caldera, and using COAS, for example, and I am unloading
unnecessary daemons from the kernel. I still have to understand what those
daemons are and what they do, don't I?
GUIs aren't evil, and they let the folks who are only interested in
application level stuff do their work. Let's face it, most of the work that
makes most non-high tech businesses go is done by folks in operations,
sales, customer service, the warehouse, and so on. To them the computer is
just a tool, and they really don't want to know how it works, only how to
make it do their job for them.
> I haven't used KDE very much, infact the only
> QT application I have installed is Licq, whisch isn't even a KDE
> application.
There are some apps which are worth ignoring, and some which are simply
brilliant. My favorite so far is the mail client in KDE2. KMail is finally
making me stop longing for a post of PMMail. Konqueror looks nice if they
can get it to work properly, which so far it doesn't. The frames support is
pretty broken, for example. KIllustrator is quite nice, and the whole
KOffice suite looks really promising.
> Gnome's stability has much improved,
> most core applications are stable, though a large number of Gnome
> applications aren't.
This is one area where KDE is simply more mature. Please realize that any
judgements I make are for today, not for tomorrow. Gnome 2.0 may make a
convert of me yet. :)
> Their file browser, gmc, is very bloated and is
> barely usable.
Agreed. Again, KFM is pretty nice.
> My preference is to have several xterms (actually
> Eterm) and work from there.
Eterm is eye candy, especially if you load the backgrounds, but I have to
admit that it works well. I do like it.
>
> The problem is Debian's intreptation of the GPL. KDE2
> (KDE1 is a different story) is released under the GPL. However KDE2
> requires liking against QT2 released under the QPL. The GPL prohibits
> ditributing softawre that is linke to non-GPL libraries, unless they
> are system libraries. Debian does not consider the QT libraries to be
> system libraries. It is Debian's opinion that they and everyone else
> cannot legally distribute KDE. But in the end it's up to you to
> decide.
Thank you for the clarification. The fact is, the KDE people and TrollTech
both say it's fine to distribute it. Maybe they need to fine-tune their
license, but really, it's their call what to do with their product, isn't it?
I guess what set me off was someone with a gnu.org address throwing out a
gratuitous "Gnome is better/more free than KDE" post without a single
explanation. That's like an obnoxious geek version of "My Pop is better
than your Pop". We're adults here, aren't we?
All the best,
Caity
--
Caitlyn Máire Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.caitys-world.com
_______________________________________________
techtalk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
