Ubuntu KDE

[Romeyn Prescott]

At 3:06 PM -0500 12/5/04, Viro scribbled:

<whole lotta snippage>

>That's all very nice, but you haven't given a reason why KDE is
>necessary. GNOME has everything   it needs to be a commercial success.
>There is a tight integration between the applications, the interface is
>a lot cleaner than KDE, there is less clutter in the menus, and Ubuntu
>does a very good job of making everything work together.
>


OK...even though I'm in favor of sticking with one or the other...and 
I like gnome...I don't DISlike KDE.  The few times I've tried it it 
seemed OK.

I'm no expert on the vagaries of *ix desktop environments and window 
managers.  Indeed, every time I try to learn about it I get a 
headache and I've given up on searching for Themes because I never 
really know what I'm using and therefore have no idea what'll work. 
(What the hell is "metacity," anyhow? (No, I don't really want an 
answer.))

But it seems to me that your arguments here are spurious at best. 
Both KDE and Gnome can be made to look identical as was demonstrated 
by...what was it...RedHat 8.0?  It didn't matter if you used KDE or 
Gnome, it looked the same.  A DE looks like/is as cluttered as the 
person who designs the distro wants it to be.  It's menus aren't 
inherently chock full o' stuff!

Are they?

...ROMeyn
-- 
signat-url: http://www2.potsdam.edu/prescor/signat-url.htm