i have only used GNOME and im wondering how hard it is to change to KDE and get used to it?

This would probably depend on the person, as some would adjust to it easier than others.

I've been a big KDE fan for about 8 years, but I've not been able to get comfortable with KDE4 just yet. I'm not giving up, though, and try each new release as soon as it hits the streets. In the interim, others seem to have adapted to it quite well.

You should probably try it and decide for yourself what you think. Best of luck with it.

well, I like gnome because is simple, easy to configure, more applications, and integrates with Compiz Fusion. also, Gnome Is faster than KDE even, but it's uglier. (this is my opinion certainly)

PoL666 wrote:well, I like gnome because is simple, easy to configure, more applications, and integrates with Compiz Fusion. also, Gnome Is faster than KDE even, but it's uglier. (this is my opinion certainly)

Most of points presented in your post are somehow inaccurate, but I guess that when you're coming from Gnome environment they may hold some merit.
I think that KDE is very configurable and has all the applications you might need or not.
Also I personally think that KDE doesn't need to integrate with compiz as Kwin has all of needed effects (it lacks some purely eye-candy effects such as paint with fire, or broken glass or something like that I've seen a lot lately but I don't use compiz since KDE4...). The perception of fast can differ and last time I used Gnome was with Gutsy Gibbon, so I can't say about that. I just feel that KDE is very fast and lightweight.
And I do use LXDE when I feel like using it. And I feel that biggest difference between KDE and LXDE is just in app startup nothing more.
I would agree with you that definetly Gnome is uglier, but again that's just my view. Even though that most "tricked out" Gnome desktops didn't made me go wow. The only Gnome desktop that made me go wow was the Linux XP desktop and now I'm not even sure that's Gnome (it could be LXDE; but it's strangely not KDE).

ahá, it's the reason for I use KDE haha, but I like the both desktop.

I think that KDE is very configurable and has all the applications you might need or not.

yes is very configurable, I only said that Gnome is easier.

Also I personally think that KDE doesn't need to integrate with compiz as Kwin has all of needed effects

yes, I only said that Gnome integrates with compiz ^^

If I would want criticizes KDE, I would never registred here, It's no my intention. take it easy

Excuse me for interrupting the discussion but I believe we've totally ignored the users initial request

Well, when first coming to Linux (Gentoo), I installed Fluxbox because that was the WM that required the least amount of dependencies to be installed (to my knowledge at the time). Then moved to XFCE, then to GNOME, then to KDE 3.5, then to KDE 4. Since KDE 3.5-4 I've flitted to Fluxbox and Gnome every so often again but I've always stuck back to KDE. KDE had given me a good first experience. It was easy to adapt to - common sense told me where the main menu was, and things just moved on from there. The keyboard shortcuts were guessable, and though there were some things (mostly aesthetics) I wasn't too pleased with, the configure options were easy to find (exploring the K Menu should give you a good idea of what KDE offers).

It was an easy change.

However, what might be difficult to change is your applications. If you are used to a series of GNOME applications, and you are extremely comfortable with them, you might find you will want to change to KDE equivalents as some people do not like having extra non-KDE packages on their system, and non-qt applications take a bit of tweaking in order to blend into the visual style that KDE gives (check out gtk-engines-qt and so on). Therefore exploring what applications can substitute for your current ones might be something to do if you want an easy switchover.

I think it's easier for GNOME users to get used to KDE, than for KDE users to get used to GNOME. Why? Because GNOME is not quite as integrated as KDE is (KDE 3.5 is best integration, 4.2 is not far behind though). What I mean by "integrated" is that all of the apps works seamlessly together and with the desktop. There is not single big reason for this, just lots of little tiny ones so minor it's embarassing to mention just one of them. But put together it feels like KDE has a bit more integration.

I think this is because GNOME is split up more into more independent sub-projects. This is not a bad thing, and has it advantages, but it does lead to a bit less overall integration.

Just my opinion!

Why you want to switch to KDE? If you don't have problems with GNOME I suggest you to continue using it.

GNOME is stable and well-tested desktop while KDE 4 still crashes frequently. There are some things that just don't work (and I don't think this is going to change soon).

I am using KDE since I started using Linux (2005) and KDE 3 was the best desktop at this time. I tried GNOME for few months but I returned to KDE 3. Since KDE 3 is stalled and GNOME is under development I suggest you to stay with GNOME. KDE 4 is usable after version 4.2 but still worse than KDE 3. KDE 4 is much slower than GNOME (and any other desktop environment). It has more graphical effects but there are also a lot of graphical bugs so it is uglier in some ways.

I think some of the people here won't agree with what I am saying but this is my opinion. Of couse KDE 4 has its advantages and you can try it and decide for yourself but I don't think it is better than GNOME.

KDE4 has been quite stable for me since 4.1. It's pretty much solid in 4.2.

i second that.. one month everyday use and NO crash at all.. (i have to admit that my desktop setup is almost perfect for my needs and i am not messing around much neither with the plasmoids nor with the effectplugins these days...)

i have a gnome installation for testing purposes and it feels sometimes faster and sometimes much slower.. if you resist playing around hours with your 3d effects and plasmoids (and abandon some of them at all ^^ like "blur plugin") kde4 is ready for you to work with ...

(use the newest nvidia driver.. it will help gain stability and speed)

I began to use KDE in August 2008 on Ubuntu Hardy. My first impression of KDE 4.0 at that time is already better than GNOME. (It has more apps and tighter integration that GNOME) However, it is buggier, heavier and slower than GNOME. Occasionally, esp. between major version upgrades, KDE is completely broken and forced me to use GNOME temporarily. However, I found some difficulties because not every KDE app has GNOME equivalent (e.g. Kdbg, Kdevelop)

I used to use Gnome as my first distro was Ubuntu 2 years ago,but the file manager forced me to turn to KDE,and I became a KDE fan since then.And I'm using kde 4.2.66 right now,and it's not quiet crashing,pretty good.So I think KDE 4.3 will really rock!(of course,4.2 rock part of peaple)

blucidy wrote:I used to use Gnome as my first distro was Ubuntu 2 years ago,but the file manager forced me to turn to KDE,and I became a KDE fan since then.And I'm using kde 4.2.66 right now,and it's not quiet crashing,pretty good.So I think KDE 4.3 will really rock!(of course,4.2 rock part of peaple)

As a Linux newcomer, allow me to voice out in my opinions.

Frankly, it was Gnome that attracted me to the world of Linux: KDE 3 had a lot of problems with my hardware for some reason, and the applets are almost always broken. KDE 4 has lesser broken applets, so it's quite usable now.

Gnome never had that problem, not even once. (My printer works in OpenSuse 11.1 Gnome version but fails to install in KDE 4.1)

Gnome also has a more intuitive environment, but i'll list that as due its interface being influenced (quite heavily, i might add) by OS X's Aqua interface.

The only thing which i got quite turned off with Gnome was that it looked really....plain and bland. Uglier? Definitely. Easy-to-use? Definitely as well. And many a times, i find myself agreeing with Gnome's design policy of 'less is more'. After all, KISS always applies, even in computing.

I jumped to KDE 4 only because of looks and familiarity to Windows' interface, which makes me feel a little more at home with Linux.

But seriously, a lot of distributions nowadays are using Gnome as the default DE, and installing KDE is not as simple as just opening a terminal and inserting

Code: Select all


urpmi kde

or something along those lines. Some distributions don't even offer KDE libraries.

After using KDE 4.1 for a couple of months now, i'm starting to grow attached to it. Looks nice, quite a good amount of customizing options (like Windows).

Ironically, i'm starting to shift away from Gnome. But some distributions have done a very good job with Gnome, like Ubuntu, Mandriva and openSuse. Debian Lenny and openSolaris also look rather good in Gnome.

So i really guess it's how the distribution tweaks the DE to work. I personally find OpenSuse's Gnome desktop superior to its KDE 4 version.

Oh, and LXDE is ugly.

Either way, i'm currently very attached to both Gnome and KDE. Probably will never consider using any other DE except for those 2.

I like GNOME's modular design, but it's one of those 'greatest strength is also it's greatest weakness' type of things. I generally find things horrible to operate in GNOME, and it really dosent do much for me so I often find time on the web.
When my computer was introduced to KDE 4, though....you could hear the wedding bells :P. Everything is smooth, the community is excellent, the devs arent ignoring us, my computer is no longer melting (though from the amount of eye-candy here, it should be) and the applications are really top class. Oh, and I now have a longer battery life then I did on GNOME, which is very odd indeed, but VERY welcome!

I would suggest martinkunev to first actually try KDE before making any comments. Seeing his / her postcount is only '1' I believe we have some trollski around....