__/ [General Schvantzkoph] on Monday 06 February 2006 15:29 \__
> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 17:51:55 +0000, Rick wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 16:43:05 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> __/ [Rick] on Sunday 05 February 2006 04:18 \__
>>>> I know this may be somewhat heretical, but is there any way to make KDE
>>>> look like the Gnome? I am speaking of general icons, and taskbar icons.
>>>> Any help greatly appreciated.
>>> It is possible, but this would require a fair amount of work, which makes
>>> one wonder why you don't use GNOME in the first place.
>> Gnome is not as easy to customize for me as KDE is, and it seems to me KDE
>> has more (number) and more matures apps (at least in areas I am using).
>>> KDE/GNOME can be
>>> made similar to merely anything in existence. See, for example:
>>> A good starting point for you would be to browse http://gnome-look.org
>>> and obtain some graphical sets to 'dress up' your KDE
>>> installation/settings with.
>> I have looked at KDE-look. I have DLed Gnome-mix icon set and am trying to
>> copy things from different sets. I'm a lot closer than I was.
>>> Hope it helps,
>> Yes, it did. Thanks.
Glad you found that useful!
> You do realize that you can run any app with any desktop?. Just because a
> program is a KDE app it doesn't mean that you can't run it under Gnome or
> run a Gnome application under KDE. For that matter you can use Windowmaker
> and still run the same applications. The only thing that makes a program a
> KDE or Gnome app is the toolkit that it was written with. To the end user
> the only impact that mixing applications has is that you need a little
> more disk space to hold both sets of libraries, but in the age of 500G
> drives who cares.
> I'm at a complete loss to understand why anyone makes a big deal over KDE
> vs Gnome since the desktops do so little for you and what they do do is
> pretty much the same. They both have launch panels that operate
> identically and that's the only feature that matters. The only difference
> that I can notice is aesthetics. I use Gnome because it looks better
> but if I had to switch to KDE for some reason it would have zero effect on
> my productivity and I'm sure that within a few days I'd stop thinking that
> it was ugly.
I cannot say that I fully agree. I have been using GNOME at work for a long
time and it has been acceptable only because I permanently SSH to a SuSE
machine running KDE.
The handling of data objects in Konqueror (previews, icon sizes, and endless
levels of user customisation), as well data access transparency over FTP,
for example, makes it a tool that I refuse to give up.
Moreover, you soon come to discover that desktop pagers and monitors (among
other components) in KDE are richer. This often offers practical benefits
that surpass the eye-candy factor. I agree with you, however, that much of
what KDE boasts is eye candy while, in pragmatic terms, GNOME does merely
the same stuff even without extending it or bridging and gaps with KDE
modules and applications. The recent GNOME demo (
http://gnomedesktop.org/node/2580 ) suggests that eye candy is less of a
factor nowadays as margins are made narrower.
Also see: GNOME mockups (
Roy S. Schestowitz | Othello for Win32/Linux: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:45pm up 20 days 11:01, 11 users, load average: 1.12, 1.23, 1.03
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine