Daniel Moore wrote: > The KDE people say the same thing about Gnome that the Gnome people > say about KDE (performance, bloat, etc) . I think in the end it seems > that there is very little reason to separate the two systems based on > performance. Though I mostly agree with the rest of your message, I have to object to the above --- from everything I read, what KDE people say about GNOME has nothing to do with performance! What they criticize is mostly the lack of configurability; KDE has the reputation that you can configure the way every single little pixel on your screen would look like; GNOME has the reputation of being simple, clean, and with a sensible default.
I do not think that any KDE fan would dare have the audacity to pick on GNOME using performance (or lack thereof) as their argument --- that would border criminal behaviour!!! :-) > They both do what they are meant to do pretty well. Sorry, I have to disagree with this --- last time I logged on to KDE on my notebook (where GNOME works flawlessly smooth), I could see the windows and dialog boxes appear; the fade-in effects would take close to two seconds in completing... Sloppy and bloated like you wouldn't believe it! Yes, you could go on and say: well, you must have done something wrong... My question is: what could I possibly do wrong when the only thing I did was *install* Ubuntu??? I wonder if KDE defenders simply are and have always been running on mega-powerful machines where even Windows Vista would run smoothly... > The Gnome project really started because KDE used to include non free > software, and Gnome since then has always been seen as the more open > source alternative. So given Ubuntu's ethos based in free software > it's not really surprising that they (he) chose Gnome. Agreed that this is the most likely reason --- but do notice that also, a big part of Linux's good reputation is the fact that, unlike Windows, it is "lean and mean" --- meaning you can run it on your old hardware that you were planning on throwing away because it was not enough to run Windows... Putting KDE as default would somewhat betray that prnciple... Yes, some people would say that GNOME also breaks that principle, and that there's a reason why XUbuntu exists... It's all a matter of thresholds; but still, seems like KDE would be going to the opposite extreme, whereas GNOME seems like a good compromise; lean enough, though not the leanest, but functional enough (IMHO, much better than KDE in terms of usability and user-friendlyness, although I know that I'm going contrary to popular opinion with this one) Carlos -- -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
