KDE vs GNOME

[bcooksley]

Re: KDE vs GNOME

Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:47 pm

Due to the nature of the difference between Qt3/4 it is not possible to incrementally change things, since huge sections of the API have usually been renamed, abstracted, refactored or deprecated.

Doing it incrementally just simply isn't possible, since you can't use both Qt3 and Qt4 classes or libraries at the same time, since they use the same namespace.

Due to the nature of the difference between Qt3/4 it is not possible to incrementally change things, since huge sections of the API have usually been renamed, abstracted, refactored or deprecated.

Doing it incrementally just simply isn't possible, since you can't use both Qt3 and Qt4 classes or libraries at the same time, since they use the same namespace.

Re: KDE vs GNOME

Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:04 pm

Would it of not been possible to get QT3 to behave like QT4, at least cosmetically?

Would it of not been possible to get QT3 to behave like QT4, at least cosmetically?

[Hans]

Re: KDE vs GNOME

Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:40 pm

Something that has struck me, though, was not KDE 4 itself, rather the transition to it. The devs could of made incremental adjustments until the whole thing was QT4 based. This would of allowed for a greater range of feedback from the community, instead of that 'culture-shock' that people are only getting around now due to KDE being so diffrent. When KDE 5.0 is on the drawing board, you bet I'll be pushing for an incremental change.

The change from Qt3 to Qt4 was huge, so many developers have chosen to completely rewrite their applications. For example, Kicker from KDE3 was in such a bad state (code-wise) that it would be easier to start from scratch than porting everything to Qt4 and add new features without introducing a lot of hard-to-track bugs.

So what we've got instead of a slightly improved Qt4-based Kicker (and KDesktop etc.) is Plasma. Personally I like the "a step back and a leap forward" approach; seems like Gnome is going for a similar way with Gnome 3.0.
The thing that was done wrong with KDE 4.0, in my opinion, was that some distros shipped it as a stable desktop environment.

Oh, and I don't think you need to worry about KDE 5.0, the change will probably not be as huge as kde3 -> kde4 (but more like 2 -> 3).

[quote="Dante Ashton"]
Something that has struck me, though, was not KDE 4 itself, rather the transition to it. The devs could of made incremental adjustments until the whole thing was QT4 based. This would of allowed for a greater range of feedback from the community, instead of that 'culture-shock' that people are only getting around now due to KDE being so diffrent. When KDE 5.0 is on the drawing board, you bet I'll be pushing for an incremental change.[/quote]

The change from Qt3 to Qt4 was huge, so many developers have chosen to completely rewrite their applications. For example, Kicker from KDE3 was in such a bad state (code-wise) that it would be easier to start from scratch than porting everything to Qt4 and add new features without introducing a lot of hard-to-track bugs.

So what we've got instead of a slightly improved Qt4-based Kicker (and KDesktop etc.) is Plasma. Personally I like the "a step back and a leap forward" approach; seems like Gnome is going for a similar way with Gnome 3.0.
The thing that was done wrong with KDE 4.0, in my opinion, was that some distros shipped it as a stable desktop environment.

Oh, and I don't think you need to worry about KDE 5.0, the change will probably not be as huge as kde3 -> kde4 (but more like 2 -> 3).

[bcooksley]

Re: KDE vs GNOME

Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:43 pm

By writing a Qt3 style that mirrored the behaviour of the Qt4 style, being used by KDE 4, it would be possible to cosmetically emulate the look.

By writing a Qt3 style that mirrored the behaviour of the Qt4 style, being used by KDE 4, it would be possible to cosmetically emulate the look.

Re: KDE vs GNOME

Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:56 pm

Maybe impossible, yes. Some acclimatization would of made everything easier. Perhaps this could of been done by patching major problems in KDE 3.5 until 4.2 was out (which seems, for the most part, stable)

I'd love to see what people are thinking of for KDE 5.0, envisioning the future is one of my favourite passtimes :P


As a side note, looking back on the release notes of previous versions, does KDE do a 'bugfix' release, then 'new features' release, then bugfix....etc? Or is it just me?

Maybe impossible, yes. Some acclimatization would of made everything easier. Perhaps this could of been done by patching major problems in KDE 3.5 until 4.2 was out (which seems, for the most part, stable)

I'd love to see what people are thinking of for KDE 5.0, envisioning the future is one of my favourite passtimes :P


As a side note, looking back on the release notes of previous versions, does KDE do a 'bugfix' release, then 'new features' release, then bugfix....etc? Or is it just me?

[bcooksley]

Re: KDE vs GNOME

Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:47 pm

Once a minor ( 4.x ) release has been done, development starts immediately on the next version in that series ( KDE 4.4 is already under development ). Developers backport any bugfixes they make to the previous versions branch ( KDE 4.3 in this case ) which is released as a patch release.

Once a minor ( 4.x ) release has been done, development starts immediately on the next version in that series ( KDE 4.4 is already under development ). Developers backport any bugfixes they make to the previous versions branch ( KDE 4.3 in this case ) which is released as a patch release.

Re: KDE vs GNOME

Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:21 am

Already? Sheesh, you people move fast!

Already? Sheesh, you people move fast!

Re: KDE vs GNOME

Fri Aug 21, 2009 12:04 am

This is exactly the type of information I was looking for. I'm glad I found it, I'm going to give KDE a go.

This is exactly the type of information I was looking for. I'm glad I found it, I'm going to give KDE a go.

Re: KDE vs GNOME

Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:01 am

I'm a desktop linux newcomer (although a bit experienced in servers with command line tools), as I installed Ubuntu, it come with GNOME. I installed the OS on my Lenovo T400.
GNOME was quite good, spent a few days to try every configuration, then I tried KDE (4.3). It is very beautiful, but as I don't see "behind" what else a window manager does, that is all I can see from it. It sucks every resource from my laptop, on battery power the performance is slow. KNetworkManager makes me crazy, crashing about every 30 minutes. Kontact is crashing about every 45 minutes. I sent about 20 crash report within 3 days. So I returned to GNOME. Then my User Switcher panel crashed, I had to reconfigure the login manager to gdm to correct this.
Wouldn't it be better to have less functionality, but a robust, working, heavily tested one? The current version feels like an airplane being repaired while flying...

I'm a desktop linux newcomer (although a bit experienced in servers with command line tools), as I installed Ubuntu, it come with GNOME. I installed the OS on my Lenovo T400.
GNOME was quite good, spent a few days to try every configuration, then I tried KDE (4.3). It is very beautiful, but as I don't see "behind" what else a window manager does, that is all I can see from it. It sucks every resource from my laptop, on battery power the performance is slow. KNetworkManager makes me crazy, crashing about every 30 minutes. Kontact is crashing about every 45 minutes. I sent about 20 crash report within 3 days. So I returned to GNOME. Then my User Switcher panel crashed, I had to reconfigure the login manager to gdm to correct this.
Wouldn't it be better to have less functionality, but a robust, working, heavily tested one? The current version feels like an airplane being repaired while flying... xD

Re: KDE vs GNOME

Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:24 am

I've been looking at GNOME 3. I can honestly say they've done a really good job with the interface; it's a sort of fluid/physics dynamics mix now...but with one apparent hitch; it requires the proper graphics card drivers, this is all well and good for a good deal of people, but for me; I need the Nvidea drivers, you know, the ones that aren't open source?

Without them, X won't start...oh dear...


Karatedog: I know, KDE is still slightly temperamental; but the devs are doing a good job. With a few modifications, I've got 4.2 running in a stable way (though I dare not to put too many gtk+ programs in, as that often scrapped the whole system)

I've been looking at GNOME 3. I can honestly say they've done a really good job with the interface; it's a sort of fluid/physics dynamics mix now...but with one apparent hitch; it requires the proper graphics card drivers, this is all well and good for a good deal of people, but for me; I need the Nvidea drivers, you know, the ones that aren't open source?

Without them, X won't start...oh dear...


Karatedog: I know, KDE is still slightly temperamental; but the devs are doing a good job. With a few modifications, I've got 4.2 running in a stable way (though I dare not to put too many gtk+ programs in, as that often scrapped the whole system)