Gnome or KDE?

[mbuel76]

Andy Wrote: 
> On 4/18/05, Drewcore <drewsph at gmail.com> wrote:

> > granted, gnome and kde both look nice...

> > 

> > but i'm an xfce user... it's way faster on my machine, i haven't had

> > problems getting both gnome and kde apps going... it just works for

> > me...

> > 

> > but everyone has their own taste.

> > 

> > drew

> > 

> > On 4/18/05, Laurie Savage <sav at pvgsc.vic.edu.au> wrote:

> > > On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 12:37 -0700, Karl wrote:

> > > > I've used them both, find them both excellent products, but
> personally

> > > > prefer Gnome over KDE.

> > > >

> > > > Can we all at least agree that vi is better than emacs?

> > > >

> > > Well, it all depends ... !

> > >

> > > Laurie

> > >

> 

> 

> I've certainly used both KDE and GNOME.  Here are what I see as the

> differences.  KDE has a beautiful structure.  Programs are very well

> integrated with each other thanks to DCOP.  Konqueror is the swiss

> army knife of the computing world.  It can not only browse your web

> and hard-drive, it can do SQL searches, read man pages, and I think it

> mixes drinks too.  It takes a while to leanr how to really use Konqui,

> and it is definitely one of the shiny feathers in KDE's hat.  However,

> I still believe QT is KDE's achilles heel.  You can use QT as open

> source ONLY if you are righting a GPL'd program, because QT is

> publised under the GPL.  In contrast GTK, which is the toolset GNOME

> is built off of is licenses under the LGPL/some BSD (I think). 

> Anywho, you can write a non-opensource program on top of GTK, and NOT

> have to pay royalties on it.

> 

> Thus, GTK and thereby Gnome/XFCE seem to be where the corporate

> interest is greatest.  For example, the Real Player 10, the new Adobe

> Acrobat, etc are all proprietary but free, and use GTK2 as their

> widget set, not QT.    This is part of the reason why "corporate"

> dekstops usually ship with GNOME as the default desktop....it's

> friendly to the IT department at the possible new site....this is an

> opinion, not a fact.  Even if it's not the #1 reason, I know it weighs

> in.

> 

> In years past Gnome wasn't well integrated but with 2.8/2.10 they seem

> to have spent a lot of time getting more of that integration, because

> right now it feels great on Ubuntu.

> 

> I've never had much problem with either Nautilus or Konqui being

> unstable...although I do think you should tend to avoid .0 KDE

> releases, since I have had a hard time before with them.

> 

> KDE's eyecandy is fun for about 15 minutes, and then you start to

> appreciate GNOME's simplicity.

> 

> There are more themse colors, icons etc. for KDE...in part because it

> is handled more intelligently in KDE....chaning the icon theme in

> GNOME is such a joke because soooooo many things don't change.

> 

> These are a few of my thoughts....

> 

> -- 

> -------------------------------------------------------------

> Andy Choens

> Teen Leadership Program Director

> Ramapo For Children

> Office: 845 - 876 - 8403

> -------------------------------------------------------------

> 

> -- 

> ubuntu-users mailing list

> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com

> http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users





where does this stuff get spread from?



http://kdemyths.urbanlizard.com/viewMyth.php?mythID=10



> Qt is indeed Free software and is compatible with all of the major Free
> software licenses. Qt is licensed under the GNU GPL as well as the
> QPLv2.

> 

> Qt is licensed under multiple licenses, just as Mozilla and Open Office
> are. All versions of Qt include a closed source development license
> option available from Trolltech.



bottom line QT libraries are available under WAY more license options
than GTK.  From proprietary to GPL.


-- 
mbuel76