__/ [ Kier ] on Wednesday 26 April 2006 08:59 \__
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 03:55:56 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> __/ [ Geico Caveman ] on Wednesday 26 April 2006 03:43 \__
>>> Ok, I take it back. I thought KDE looked much better than Gnome, at par
>>> with OS X. I tried out the latest Gnome packages with Debian testing last
>>> night. Well, there is no nice way of putting it - it looks positively
>>> hideous. Even windows has never looked this bad. What has happened to
>>> people developing Gnome ?? 2-3 years ago, it was a serviceable product,
>>> feature equal of KDE. However, Gnome has actually gone backwards over the
>>> last 2 years.
>> Different strokes for different folks. Don't rely on default themes and
>> first impressions too much.
> Where can those handsome icons be obtained? Is it from www.gnome-look.org
> itself, or elsewhere? I tend to run a Mac-like theme, but not with
> Mac-like icons, myself.
>>> I understand it if Gnome cannot keep up with KDE or OS X, but to be
>>> worse off than it was 2 years ago is pathetic. Almost makes me think
>>> that Gnome development and its widescale acceptance by most big
>>> vendors/distros (Redhat, Novell, Ubuntu, etc.) is a Microsoft
>>> conspiracy :) Of all the desktops currently available for Linux,
>>> barring twm, icewm, and the like (no even fvwm looks and feels better),
>>> Gnome is absolutely the worst desktop available. I mean, are these
>>> people on meth or something. Forget looks, how about usability ?
>>> Settings are hidden away in the most unintuitive corners possible (or
>>> maybe my imagination is limited and things could be worse still).
>> GNOME is not as flexible. Linus Torvalds has criticised such choices,
>> which had been arrogantly made in interests of simplicity. For that
>> reason, I presonally favour KDE, but I use GNOME sometimes and I
>> respect it for its merits, simplicity and intuitiveness being at the
> I think Linus, while perfectly entitled to express his opinion, might have
> phrased it a little better :-) After all, the many users of Gnome, which
> includes myself, are likely to feel just a bit miffed at being categorised
> in such a fashion.
Yes, "Interface Nazis" (was that the phrase? My memory tells me so) is no
>> Novell chose GNOME as the default desktop environment for some products.
>> This must have had a reason. As for abolishment of old WM's, bear in
>> mind that developers migrated from the old projects to GNOME or KDE. You
>> can still get reliability and lightweight consumption from the
>> old-yet-highly-stable WM's. Whether you wish to boost system performance
>> or make use of legacy hardware, modularity saves the day.
> The great thing about Gnome, and indeed any wm, really, is that poor
> design decisions will usually be corrected, if they're unpopular enough.
> The Gnome developers presumably want their product to be used, and if
> enough people switch to something else because of their design mistakes,
> they'll probably get the message eventually (not that I'm suggesting they
> *are* necessarily mistakes; personally, I've no particular problem with
There are some features in GNOME that I wish we had in KDE. For example, some
time ago I posted a proposal for maximised window snapping. Other than
approval, I could only be advised to post a wishlist item in Bugzilla.
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
9:10am up 3 days 18:21, 8 users, load average: 0.42, 0.77, 0.75
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms