[ubuntu-art] Curiousity:)

[Daniel Moore]

On 22/11/2007, at 8:35 AM, Carlos Moreno wrote:

> 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!

I've heard Gnome criticized plenty of times for being bloated and  
slow (as compared to KDE). I've also heard the inverse. I've used  
both on the same machine, and they both seem about the same to me.  
Just my anecdotal evidence.

> 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.

True. And they seem to be going their separate ways. Gnome used to be  
much more configureable if my memory serves me well...

> 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!!!  :-)

You know, those KDE types ;-)

> 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 think for the most part their performance isn't much of an issue.  
It's ironic though because when I first started using KDE & Gnome,  
about 1998, it was Gnome that was quite a bit slower than KDE. Even  
then I preferred the look and feel of Gnome over KDE, even when it  
was slower. Although the truth is that I probably mostly used  
Enlightenment without Gnome or KDE.

I think another big turn off for us Linux / FreeBSD users is the fact  
that KDE is a direct rip off of Windows, and that's not fun,  
especially when  we install Linux to get away from the whole Windows  
quagmire.

> 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...

I think both 'lean and mean' and 'ultra configureable' are both  
important open source traits.
We chose Gnome...