What Makes KDE So Great?

I'm not bashing it. If you like it then more power to you; I just want to know what it is that makes YOU use KDE.

Personally, I like using Xfce because it suits my personal taste, it's not that big (though I hear it's bigger than it was) and it runs really well. KDE is kind of slow on my laptop (probably my fault) and too big to tickle my fancy. I like stuff that's less frills, more flat functionality. Of course I'm also not exactly experienced in various UIs, though I have a bunch of them installed right now so I can explore them (and give KDE another shot). I do like hearing what people have to say about various subjects, though, so shoot!

I'm generally new to Linux entirely. I have been using Kubuntu for near to 2 weeks consecutively now. I'm a Qualified A+ Computer Technician so I am entering unknown territory here. But i figured this is something i CAN give my thoughts on =).

Before I decided on what DesktopGUI i was going to use i had tried out Fedora, Mandriva (GNOME and KDE versions), OpenSUSE (GNOME and KDE), Ubuntu, and Kubuntu. I was trying to get a feel for what I liked the most.

While I did some research on all of the Linux Distributions and Desktop GUI's, I had decided to go with Ubuntu/Kubuntu in the end because of the large community, good support, and how far along the Distro has come along compared to the others.

personally what it came down to for me was, in all honesty. Eyecandy. Both desktops work the same (when it comes to utility and function.) One of the biggest factors (which may be shortsighted) Was that the standard GNOME gui in Ubuntu reminded me too much of Mac desktops. (I don't like them very much.)

When i had tried Kubuntu I discovered I really enjoyed the sleek looks, and seamless functions. (Im using Kubuntu 8.10 with KDE 4.1x). I also enjoy the methodology that the entire desktop is basically a giant Widget.

That is really the major thing for me. KDE feels a little more evolved than GNOME. (I don't mean to upset anyone by that statement, especially if it is incorrect) But I have only used Linux for 2 weeks. and played around with the LiveCD's for a few hours before i decided in the end.

If you are wondering, I didn't choose Xcfe because it was too Lite for my tastes. I'm sure its a great and very customizable GUI (like all of these are) But KDE had that little something more I like.

I like KDE because I like KDE apps more than Gnome apps. If I'm going to have libraries loaded from a major DE then I only want one of them running. In my opinion, KDE apps are better than Gnome ones... amarok > rhythmbox, kate > gedit, kaffine > totem (though I use smplayer), etc...

Also, I like the look of QT apps more. GTK2 feels very dated to me.

The first DE I used was KDE3 in Mandrake. I thought Gnome was flat and ininspiring. Since using Ubuntu, I use Gnome exlusively. There's just something I don't like about KDE, particularly KDE4. Gnome feels more responsive, and doesn't go too over the top. It also seems far more customisable, although everyone seems to think otherwise.

Options and preferences giving more power and flexibility to the user is why. Outside of the CLI and compiling apps with personal options, KDE is the way to go if you want your box to work the way to want it to. And yes, Xfce is growing larger in disk footprint with each release. And though 4.6 Hopper on Xubuntu looks and feels like GNOME, it does feel snappy. The key is to compile Xfce with debugging completely disabled (minimal is the default) and with the appropriate compiler flags for your system (goes for GNOME and KDE as well).

Firestem4 said: I also enjoy the methodology that the entire desktop is basically a giant Widget.

Actually, I rather enjoyed that too because I almost never have icons on my desktop. The only time I have clutter on my desktop is when I download something (right now I have SLiTAZ-cooking version and DSL on there). All that stuff gets in my way.

KIO slaves

I've been using KDE for over 2 years now and used to enjoy the way you can tweak just about anything! I'm using KDE 4.2 Beta now and it's very usable but at the moment not so configurable as 3.5.*.

I just like the way it looks and feels. It all comes down to personal choice. I say tomato, you say tomahto........

Here's a pic of my desktop.

One of linux's biggest strengths is your ability to choose and customize your system how you want. My first linux desktop was KDE and it worked pretty good but I eventually switched over to gnome. My opinion is that KDE has lots of features and eyecandy while xfce is very streamlined and utilitarian while gnome is a good middle between the two (which is why I use it). Personally I don't think any of them are truly 'better' then the others any more then there is any distro thats better then another. It's a matter of personal choice and I generally recommend people try them out and use the one they prefer.

Well, 3.5 is really good if you ask me. I use it often. 4.1 may look cool and have awesome features, bu I think they made it much much bigger than it needs to be. My personal favorite is GNOME, and I use IceWM when I want fast. Yet KDE is my default session. It's still really good, it's kinda just slow. I actually like using bash. (terminal) I would rather execute commands that way than spend ten minutes navigating through menus. one of the reasons I love linux is because it has a good balance between command lines and GUI. And for anyone who is intimidated by bash, don't be. if you try you will catch on real fast.

Go to my site, http://linuxmadegeeky.weebly.com/ and click download linux, so you can mess around with other distros. I have ubuntu 8.10 with almost every known Window manager, puppy 4.1.0, and nimblex linux 2008. I use them all.:D

I hate to say it, but I honestly use KDE4 because it is so new. I LOVE watching things progress, especially from conception, and KDE4 is very new concept-wise.

I used Gnome for a LONG time, with bouts of KDE2-3 mixed in, and a bit of Fluxbox.... but I always returned to Gnome. I have, though, been solely on KDE4 for over a year now. I enjoy watching new features be worked on and put in, and I love seeing bugs get fixed and things just start to flesh out.

It's exciting... sorta.

Well, that was the reason I STARTED using KDE4, that is, but I got hooked. It's new and current and up-to-date... and I really just enjoy the environment.

If/when Gnome rewrites their entire environment, and went all "Screw this, let's do something NEW!!" I am sure I would use that and watch as it progressed too.

Yeah, I've heard a lot about how great KDE 3.5 is. I can't speak for it though because I've never used it.

Like TheUnabeefer, I find I like KDE4 mainly because of the amazing speed at which it develops. There is an amazing community which seems way more active than the gnome community. Simply compare Planet KDE with Planet Gnome to see how much more development there is going on in KDE. Of course this is also because KDE is in the middle of a complete rewrite with great plans for future world domination!

In truth though, the real reason I keep going back to KDE and trying it out is because it looks so good! However, I am drawn to the stability and functionality of the good old faithful gnome, which keeps me torn between the two.

I very much prefer Konqueror over Nautilus for a file manager. In particular, the split screen mode. It makes organizing files soooo much easier and faster! Also, I'm a web developer and Quanta is a really nice editor for php.

With all this talk about KDE3.5 v 4, I wonder if there is a way to have both installed, and let you choose which one you go into when you start a new X session.

I can start a KDE and Gnome sessions in addition to my usual fluxbox session by opening the tty1 or tty2 terminals and typing: startx /usr/bin/startkde -- :1 startx -- :2

Can I have 3.5 and 4 installed simultaneously? I'd like to try 4 out, but I want to be able to just apt-get uninstall to get rid of it if I find I don't need it any more.

Edit: Actually, way easier than I thought. $sudo aptitude install kde4-core Then from a new session $startx /usr/lib/kde4/bin/startkde --:X where X is your display number.

Doesn't affect your KDE3 installation at all. I have both running simultaneously right now.

I do prefer Xfce (and dwm is better than both combined), but KDE 3.5 is very good. I have found it to be reliable, customizable, and reasonably lightweight (if you know what you're doing).

The name. TLAs are HOT!

I installed kde 4.1 (via kubuntu-desktop) last evening, and wasn't very impressed.

I removed it within 20 minutes, and now I'm stuck with the kubuntu loading screen :/

Gnome and XFCE for me.

So Joshuwa, you believe in giving things a fair trial then?

I removed it within 20 minutes

Joshuwa said: I installed kde 4.1 (via kubuntu-desktop) last evening, and wasn't very impressed.

I removed it within 20 minutes, and now I'm stuck with the kubuntu loading screen :/

Gnome and XFCE for me.

sudo apt-get remove kubuntu-artwork-usplash

Should return you to the old Ubuntu one.

by the way, go to kde.org and gawk at screenshots of 1.0! pathetic!:P

I find the KDE pim package the single reason that makes me slightly prefer KDE to GNOME. But with my older computers I prefer something lightweight like WindowMaker of Pekwm.

Greetings,

mikko

I use the Ubuntu Gnome desktop most of the time but the machine I'm on now has Kubuntu's KDE. I actually like them both but am more familiar with the Gnome GUI. Both are Hardy Herron.

AlanR8 said: So Joshuwa, you believe in giving things a fair trial then?

Whether one prefers or enjoys a desktop environment shouldn't take very long to determine.

Now granted, I'd say 20 minutes would be a bit short for some things, say Linux as an entire OS for example.

But if you're used to using applications, and the desktop environment that is running those applications for you suddenly makes it more difficult and less efficient for you, that doesn't take long to notice.

KDE isn't right for me. That's just me though - it could be right for anyone else out there (and from its fan base I know it is), and that's awesome.

If I was going to write some kind of review or comparison, I'd definitely use it for a much longer time. Though installing it out of a curiosity to possibly use it to replace what I'm used to...20 minutes was more than enough :P

Sand & Mercury said:

sudo apt-get remove kubuntu-artwork-usplash

Should return you to the old Ubuntu one.

Thanks a ton!

I didn't get much farther than you the first time I used it. I think it was on my laptop for a day (maybe) before I took it off.

But that's why I'm giving it another shot, although I agree with you in that I think that I can pretty much figure out when something doesn't work for me in a relatively short amount of time. It never hurts to dig deeper though, since I can be absent minded and miss all sorts of cool stuff on the first go-around.

I thought I'd post a little update, and especially since I think some credit to KDE has been deserved.

While I could not stand the KDE desktop that is in the repos (4.1 currently), I managed to install KDE 3.5.

So far, I've been using it for a couple of hours and really enjoy it. I enabled compiz, and have it working much like my familiar gnome desktop.

What I have noticed is that while running gnome, I was using around 450-460mb of memory. With KDE 3.5 + compiz, I start at around 390mb (it's a little higher now because I've been running firefox, htop, and some other apps).

I am pleased with KDE 3.5, and genuinely feel that if KDE 4.1 was your first look at KDE, try 3.5. I know it may sound silly to suggest a downgrade, but in my honest opinion, 4.1 is rubble and shambles compared to the polish and stability of 3.5.

I'm not a full convert yet, but I will be testing 3.5 out for the remainder of the week. It has the potential to win me over :)

It is a shame the repos and Kubuntu jumped to the 4.1 bandwaggon so quickly.

Joshuwa said: I thought I'd post a little update, and especially since I think some credit to KDE has been deserved.

While I could not stand the KDE desktop that is in the repos (4.1 currently), I managed to install KDE 3.5.

So far, I've been using it for a couple of hours and really enjoy it. I enabled compiz, and have it working much like my familiar gnome desktop.

What I have noticed is that while running gnome, I was using around 450-460mb of memory. With KDE 3.5 + compiz, I start at around 390mb (it's a little higher now because I've been running firefox, htop, and some other apps).

I am pleased with KDE 3.5, and genuinely feel that if KDE 4.1 was your first look at KDE, try 3.5. I know it may sound silly to suggest a downgrade, but in my honest opinion, 4.1 is rubble and shambles compared to the polish and stability of 3.5.

I'm not a full convert yet, but I will be testing 3.5 out for the remainder of the week. It has the potential to win me over :)

It is a shame the repos and Kubuntu jumped to the 4.1 bandwaggon so quickly.

Well yer, 3.5 has had tons more releases then 4.x series, KDE4 has only been out stable for a year and alot of it rewritten and new tech.

I have been messing with KDE for a while before i settled down at Xfce (now Xfce 4.6 Beta 3).

KDE gives be the required functionality in KDE 4.2 whihc still is in development. However KDE is radically slower then other desktop environments, and takes most recourses. On my computer this was the avrage with KDE 4.1.3 with Kubuntu:

RAM: 1,5gb was constantly used CPU: 50-100%

With KDE 4.2 it was this on Kubuntu RAM 1gb was constantly used CPU 40-90%

However with Xfce (not Xubuntu) it was like this: RAM 200mb constantly used CPU 10-50%

And I moved over to Arch and everything was redically lower: KDE 4.1.3: RAM 500mb constanly used CPU: 50-80%

KDE 4.2 RAM 500mb constantly used CPU: 40-80%

Xfce 4.6 RAM: 132mb constantly used CPU: 5-20%

And because I get the same functinality for my needs in both environments I prefer Xfce and not KDE, but KDE is for more like Windows and "easier" to use for Windows immigrants...

I decided to make the jump to lightspeed...er... linux this year fully after hedging around it for a long while. I've used windows and mac both since ... well forever. heh. I burned probably a dozen different linux distros and booted live cds, and I've probably installed 4 or 5 onto the actual drive to continue playing with it. I really wanted to like KDE... I kept hearing how nice it was, how the eyecandy was great, how the apps were great etc. etc. etc. In screen shots and reading it sounds great... in practice, I had the opposite impression of KDE 4. I found that the eyecandy was lacking integration (not talking compiz here... that was harder for Me to get running than on gnome which is what I'm using right now with Ubuntu 8.10... plenty eyecandy there, but that's nothing to do with the actual distro since it's 3rd party apps).

There are some nice features that I liked.. the integrated widget layer akin to konfabulator (coming from using OS X as a primary OS, you get used to having widgets for everything). I also like a lot of the K-apps... they did a nice job of integration on their basic apps... once you get past the learning curve... this isn't windows or mac, so it takes a little bit of learning... which is fine... that's why I switched anyway heh. I gotta say... having the "desktop" be a window is rediculous though. The concept of a desktop is that it's well... the desktop... it's not part of the file structure in it's interativity. Having it function as a widget folder was just plain stupid IMHO... we ditched that functionality in windows 3.1 if anyone remembers... and good riddence.

The famous "configurability"... honestly... I had a hell of a time making the couple of simple tweaks that I wanted to make. Things like I wanted to take that stupid widget swirl in the upper right and move or hide it... never could do that. Moving the main panel to different locations on the screen proved more difficult than it should have been. These were all things that gnome, os x, and windows all let me do pretty quickly within their own methods (gnome is particularly easy with it's panels).

Little things like having the bouncing icon on the mouse to tell you what is loading are cute and I can see where they are nice... but I eventually got sick of it and wanted to turn it off... couldn't find that either.

A complaint I've had about all the linux distros I've used to far is that I would like a centralized hardware device manager tool. KDE is no different about this... couldn't find anything. I don't know if that's the DE or just linux though.

Over all I've installed it a couple times and run it off the livecd a few times... I really want to like it because I agree that it's "forward thinking" and could be great... but in practice it just feels... broken. I'm all for innovation, but I think sometimes in linux development they think "well... we want to not be mac or windows... so we're going to do it different"... which is nice... but sometimes the conventions that are in mac and windows are there because they work. It's a fine line. Linux does give us a lot of choices of how to tweak things (once you figure them out)... certainly more than any other *modern* OS seems to.

Diehard hacker that I am though, I'm planning on reinstalling KUbuntu on some unpartitioned space I have left to play with it some more.

$0.02

Right now there is nothing going on for KDE that makes me want to use it, except the wait for KDE 4.2 For me I prefer KDE 3.5 or Gnome over KDE 4 at this current time. The promise is there, but not the functionality

Half-Left said: Well yer, 3.5 has had tons more releases then 4.x series, KDE4 has only been out stable for a year and alot of it rewritten and new tech.

I think it is a stretch to call KDE 4.x stable by any means.

It's no where near a finished product in my opinion.

liamnixon said: I'm not bashing it. If you like it then more power to you; I just want to know what it is that makes YOU use KDE.

Personally, I like using Xfce because it suits my personal taste, it's not that big (though I hear it's bigger than it was) and it runs really well. KDE is kind of slow on my laptop (probably my fault) and too big to tickle my fancy. I like stuff that's less frills, more flat functionality. Of course I'm also not exactly experienced in various UIs, though I have a bunch of them installed right now so I can explore them (and give KDE another shot). I do like hearing what people have to say about various subjects, though, so shoot!

What I like about KDE: *KDE applications *KDE has more features *KDE uses very little memory when you stick with KDE applications.

What I dislike: *The menu is horrible in KDE 3.5.x, and even worse in KDE 4.x. *Kubuntu. ;)

Joshuwa said: I think it is a stretch to call KDE 4.x stable by any means.

It's no where near a finished product in my opinion.

Finished product, whoever said it was?, if you read about KDE4 proper you'll know some of the KDE4 tech is working alot better in 4.2. it's a simple case of people not understanding KDE4 proper, KDE3.2 didn't get the features and stability 3.5 has, infact some people would saying 4.2 is more stable than 3.2 was.

I dont know any DE that has put so much work into their release of a brand new desktop API and new tech than KDE4, it's amazing work and only about a year old as a release.

Half-Left said: Finished product, whoever said it was?, if you read about KDE4 proper you'll know some of the KDE4 tech is working alot better in 4.2. it's a simple case of people not understanding KDE4 proper, KDE3.2 didn't get the features and stability 3.5 has, infact some people would saying 4.2 is more stable than 3.2 was.

I dont know any DE that has put so much work into their release of a brand new desktop API and new tech than KDE4, it's amazing work and only about a year old as a release. This might be a useful resource in remembering said release.

Half-Left said: Finished product, whoever said it was?, if you read about KDE4 proper you'll know some of the KDE4 tech is working alot better in 4.2. it's a simple case of people not understanding KDE4 proper, KDE3.2 didn't get the features and stability 3.5 has, infact some people would saying 4.2 is more stable than 3.2 was.

I dont know any DE that has put so much work into their release of a brand new desktop API and new tech than KDE4, it's amazing work and only about a year old as a release.

You could 'read about KDE4 proper' all day long, and it wouldn't change the fact that I don't enjoy it and have little interest in using it.

The OP wanted opinions on KDE - that includes those which aren't in favor of it.

Joshuwa said: You could 'read about KDE4 proper' all day long, and it wouldn't change the fact that I don't enjoy it and have little interest in using it.

The OP wanted opinions on KDE - that includes those which aren't in favor of it.

Then why comment about it and say things that are not true?, if you dont like it dont comment on the thead other than to say, I dont like, it's unfinshed product.

Half-Left said: Then why comment about it and say things that are not true?, if you dont like it dont comment on the thead other than to say, I dont like, it's unfinshed product.

He* is entitled to his own opinions. I don't see anything untrue in his post. Is KDE 4 unfinished? Yes. Is it supposed to be finished at this stage? No.

Not everyone has to enjoy testing the latest and "greatest".

cardinals_fan said: He* is entitled to his own opinions. I don't see anything untrue in his post. Is KDE 4 unfinished? Yes. Is it supposed to be finished at this stage? No.

Not everyone has to enjoy testing the latest and "greatest".

The fact is KDE4 is not finished, alot of people just use it and dont understand what it means to be in it's current state.

I also dont think that "I removed it within 20 minutes" constitutes as a good informed opinion and coming out with such comments.

Half-Left said: The fact is KDE4 is not finished, alot of people just use it and dont understand what it means to be in it's current state.

I also dont think that "I removed it within 20 minutes" constitutes as a good informed opinion and coming out with such comments.

Calm down a bit. And then realize that not everybody is so happy about KDE4 - even regarding the current state. But if you want a better informed opinion:

I've been working with KDE3 ever since it came out - and yes, there were some issues regarding stability, speed and so on. But it was at least one thing: intuitive. And that's what still missing in KDE4 (beside stability). It's been out a year now and although I have regular looks at it, I'm still absolutely disappointed. It's slow, it's still very buggy, it's lacking features of KDE3 and I'm missing the feeling of an integrated desktop environment.

I expected Canonical to giving users a choice which KDE version they want to use (yes, I know, I can go back to Hardy), but they obviously had their reasons against it. So I turned over to Gnome which I doesn't like much - but it's still better than KDE in "current state". And yes, I'd been using Gnome for a while, too (some years ago). So I - and maybe other users too - have the option of pest or cholera.... :-|

I installed 4.1 yesterday and I really like it. They have made some serious improvements since 4.0. I have spent almost 2 years customising my gnome desktop so i will not abandon that for KDE anytime soon.

But there are some seriously good things that it has going for it. The number one thing is application integration. Everything look so much smoother when the applications look uniform.

This may seem trivial but i hate the naming convention that kde uses. It may seem clever to some people but i feel that it is becoming a stretch now.

Half-Left said:

I also dont think that "I removed it within 20 minutes" constitutes as a good informed opinion and coming out with such comments. It doesn't, but he has the right to an uninformed opinion. You don't have to agree with it.

The fact is KDE4 is not finished, alot of people just use it and dont understand what it means to be in it's current state.

Regardless of what any tech documents or blogs or articles or crystal balls might say... it's a *released product*. It isn't released with any caveats about being in beta or being in testing or anything like that in places like kubuntu. If you go to download kubuntu for example it asks if you want to download the "cutting edge" version 4. That's it. For most people... if it's listed as the main download... that means it's a release version. I tend to agree with that. So it should be taken as such... no grain of salt necessary. It's released... and intended for mass use... and should be judged by those standards. Would you install windows on a machine and forgive it's bugs and crashes because it's "unfinished"?... even though that is exactly what microsoft does.

I also dont think that "I removed it within 20 minutes" constitutes as a good informed opinion and coming out with such comments.

That's a two sided argument.

1. It's not a fair test of the system... giving it long enough to learn about it.. get familiar with it....etc. etc. etc.

1. If it takes more than 20 minutes to get used to an OS... the OS isn't designed intuitively enough. Especially for linux users who, because of things like this, tend to not be the masses but are still the more computer savvy people. I have been using computers for 30 years... as a user... as a technician for large corporations... as an administrator... as a developer... and as an artist. I installed Kubuntu and within about the same time frame nuked it because I couldn't get it to do half of what I wanted. I am going to mess with it again, but I have to say, it was pretty quick that I realized that it did a lot of things very strangely and took a lot of getting used to to even make it work.

If you're looking to "thouroughly test" something... say you're writing a technical review... then of course you need to spend time learning all the features whether they work well or not. If you're looking to use something for personal use... it's usually pretty obvious if it's comfortable or not and you would have to have a compelling reason to use it if it weren't immediately comfortable. Do you buy shoes that don't fit or pants that are too small assuming that eventually you'll get used to them? Would you buy a snowmobile as your main vehicle in hawaii just because it had a good feature set in some conditions? If you were allergic to peanuts, would you eat peanutbutter cups just because everyone else said they were really good? Hyperbole, granted, but the point being that there are different reasons and needs for using something. The ideal for a *user interface* should be that it is user friendly and does what the user needs without getting in the way or having to be learned. The closer that they get to that ideal, the less time will be needed to judge whether the UI is something useful to you *personally* or not.

Half-Left said:

I also dont think that "I removed it within 20 minutes" constitutes as a good informed opinion and coming out with such comments.

Removing KDE 4.1 within 20 minutes wasn't an opinion - it was something I literally and actually did.

My reasons for doing so, are however, opinions. And like you, I am entitled to them.

You love KDE - and that's great. But just because I feel differently doesn't make the product (finished or not) any less enjoyable to you.

It's too easy for newcomers and curious old-timers alike to judge software by the attitudes of its user-base. If you truly think KDE is worth a shot, why not let people try it, and accept that not everyone will enjoy it. Scrutiny isn't the best form of advocation.

Montblanc_Kupo said: If you're looking to "thouroughly test" something... say you're writing a technical review... then of course you need to spend time learning all the features whether they work well or not. If you're looking to use something for personal use... it's usually pretty obvious if it's comfortable or not and you would have to have a compelling reason to use it if it weren't immediately comfortable. Do you buy shoes that don't fit or pants that are too small assuming that eventually you'll get used to them? Would you buy a snowmobile as your main vehicle in hawaii just because it had a good feature set in some conditions? If you were allergic to peanuts, would you eat peanutbutter cups just because everyone else said they were really good? Hyperbole, granted, but the point being that there are different reasons and needs for using something. The ideal for a *user interface* should be that it is user friendly and does what the user needs without getting in the way or having to be learned. The closer that they get to that ideal, the less time will be needed to judge whether the UI is something useful to you *personally* or not.That's exactly what I think about KDE4 - or software in general.

There has been a lot of talking about the early release of KDE4, and the main reason - AFAIK - was to give software developers a way to port their software on KDE4. The second reason was: give users the chance to thoroughly testing it and reporting bugs. Both could have been done without making a stable release. They could have released the API for developers, and a lot of users surely would have installed a beta. So I think they've done wrong.

By now, many "userfriendly" distros completely switched over to KDE4 without giving users a choice. Suse 11.1 is the only one I know so far (but there may be others). By now, one has to chose between up-to-date distros (latest kernel etc.) or older distros, that still support KDE3 environment. That's sad but true!

SushiR said:

By now, many "userfriendly" distros completely switched over to KDE4 without giving users a choice. Suse 11.1 is the only one I know so far (but there may be others). By now, one has to chose between up-to-date distros (latest kernel etc.) or older distros, that still support KDE3 environment. That's sad but true!

Well that's not really a problem any more (or won't be) with KDE 4.2, as that's stable enough to be used properly.

Mazza558 said: Well that's not really a problem any more (or won't be) with KDE 4.2, as that's stable enough to be used properly.

Just have a look at the "panel". Thats so far away from intuitive use as sun from moon...

SushiR said: Just have a look at the "panel". Thats so far away from intuitive use as sun from moon...

I don't think so. Quite the opposite IMHO. Besides "intuitive" and "easy to use" are very much in the eye of the beholder.

Mazza558 said: Well that's not really a problem any more (or won't be) with KDE 4.2, as that's stable enough to be used properly.

I wouldn't say that's the case. I reinstalled (with some weird headaches) Kubuntu last night with the intent of giving it a long and thorough testing. KDE 4.1 sucks. End of story. It's hard to use and despite all the claims that it's configurable... I found that it forces you to work with it's default methodologies much more than gnome does (more akin to windows). So I installed KDE 4.2 rc1 to give it a try. Much prettier, they're finally getting the UI so that it's more integrated and complete (although they still have a butt ugly set of default themes...sad when the oxygen and ozone plasmoids are actually nice looking). I don't remember if 4.1 could do this, but 4.2 actually let Me use My desktop as a DESKTOP... instead of just a wallpaper. It still has the annoying icon interaction though... making each object a widget in effect. Slows down lots of things. They've done a lot of work in making the desktop completely useless in KDE and they've succeeded wonderfully in that regard. blah.

Neither 4.1 or 4.2 would correctly install and use compiz where as gnome had zero problems. 4.2 isn't ready for release yet though... still crash prone and buggy... things like the top panel vanishing and refusing to come back until I restarted. Needs work. They're moving along, but this should NEVER have been released (KDE 4.x) as a stable version that could be adopted by distros... it's still very very beta and should be treated as such.

So I found a way to install KDE 3.5.10 into kubuntu 8.10. I can see where people might like using this. It's polished, works well, and didn't really have any stability issues. I still don't care for some of the KDE conventions though, but that's personal taste. What I did see though was that KDE is slower than Gnome for Me. Noticeably slower. The windows manager is slower to redraw things, making it feel clunky. Compiz had a hell of a time getting installed and integrated, so I couldn't even really use that. Good luck getting Emerald to even run (not compatible with 3.5 AFAIK and iffy / crashy on 4.x). Processes even through konsole seemed to take longer. Installing applications and doing updates took much longer and had more problems.

Overall... not impressed. I haven't seen any of the "more power" and "more custimizability" that I keep hearing about, in fact, quite the opposite. I would love for someone to prove Me wrong... I really want to like KDE... I can see there is potential under the surface, certainly in the development model... but it just doesn't work. :(

On a tangent... after I got frustrated with KDE, I started installing every desktop environment I could get My hands on to see what other options there were. XFCE really doesn't seem any different from Gnome from what I can tell... it's like Gnome lite heh. Fluxbox... made Me twitchy. Enlightenment was... interesting... I can see it being cool on like... a palm pilot or iPod touch where you could interact with a stylus. I tried to get Sun's Looking Glass installed but it kept giving Me and "error code 1" every time I tried. I've run into this before when there wasn't enough space on the boot volume... but I had 18GB left... so I don't think that was it. heh. I finally gave up.

Anyway... done rambling for now. $0.02 ymmv.

Montblanc_Kupo said: I wouldn't say that's the case. I reinstalled (with some weird headaches) Kubuntu last night with the intent of giving it a long and thorough testing. KDE 4.1 sucks. End of story. It's hard to use and despite all the claims that it's configurable... I found that it forces you to work with it's default methodologies much more than gnome does (more akin to windows). So I installed KDE 4.2 rc1 to give it a try. Much prettier, they're finally getting the UI so that it's more integrated and complete (although they still have a butt ugly set of default themes...sad when the oxygen and ozone plasmoids are actually nice looking). I don't remember if 4.1 could do this, but 4.2 actually let Me use My desktop as a DESKTOP... instead of just a wallpaper. It still has the annoying icon interaction though... making each object a widget in effect. Slows down lots of things. They've done a lot of work in making the desktop completely useless in KDE and they've succeeded wonderfully in that regard. blah.

Neither 4.1 or 4.2 would correctly install and use compiz where as gnome had zero problems. 4.2 isn't ready for release yet though... still crash prone and buggy... things like the top panel vanishing and refusing to come back until I restarted. Needs work. They're moving along, but this should NEVER have been released (KDE 4.x) as a stable version that could be adopted by distros... it's still very very beta and should be treated as such.

So I found a way to install KDE 3.5.10 into kubuntu 8.10. I can see where people might like using this. It's polished, works well, and didn't really have any stability issues. I still don't care for some of the KDE conventions though, but that's personal taste. What I did see though was that KDE is slower than Gnome for Me. Noticeably slower. The windows manager is slower to redraw things, making it feel clunky. Compiz had a hell of a time getting installed and integrated, so I couldn't even really use that. Good luck getting Emerald to even run (not compatible with 3.5 AFAIK and iffy / crashy on 4.x). Processes even through konsole seemed to take longer. Installing applications and doing updates took much longer and had more problems.

Overall... not impressed. I haven't seen any of the "more power" and "more custimizability" that I keep hearing about, in fact, quite the opposite. I would love for someone to prove Me wrong... I really want to like KDE... I can see there is potential under the surface, certainly in the development model... but it just doesn't work. :(

On a tangent... after I got frustrated with KDE, I started installing every desktop environment I could get My hands on to see what other options there were. XFCE really doesn't seem any different from Gnome from what I can tell... it's like Gnome lite heh. Fluxbox... made Me twitchy. Enlightenment was... interesting... I can see it being cool on like... a palm pilot or iPod touch where you could interact with a stylus. I tried to get Sun's Looking Glass installed but it kept giving Me and "error code 1" every time I tried. I've run into this before when there wasn't enough space on the boot volume... but I had 18GB left... so I don't think that was it. heh. I finally gave up.

Anyway... done rambling for now. $0.02 ymmv. Why are you using Compiz with KDE 4.1/4.2? The KDE Window manager has many similar desktop effects built in.

Changturkey said: Why are you using Compiz with KDE 4.1/4.2? The KDE Window manager has many similar desktop effects built in.

It has a couple of desktop effects... none of them were what I wanted or anywhere near as good as compiz. I like compiz. Since you can install it and KDE is supposed to be "completely customizable", it doesn't seem like it's that far fetched an idea to want to use it.

Can you configure KDE to come up with an entirely customizable menu on a left or right mouse-click on the desktop? I can do this with compiz in Gnome, but it seems hardly worth trying out KDE4 if I'm not going to use Kwin.

That, more than any other aspect of KDE has prevented me from giving it a try.

Montblanc_Kupo said: It has a couple of desktop effects... none of them were what I wanted or anywhere near as good as compiz. I like compiz. Since you can install it and KDE is supposed to be "completely customizable", it doesn't seem like it's that far fetched an idea to want to use it.

A couple? To be accurate, it has 37 built in. Yes I counted. And much if not most of what Compiz has is in Kwin. Hell, I never could get Compiz, as a separate window manager to work right-where Kwin works once you have gfx drivers installed.

Your humble opine and choice of course, but please use facts.

I agree with montblanc, i feel that KDE is trying to be a complete desktop environment/experience from top to bottom. It has been a little rough around the edges and has some more refining to go.

yes you do lose some customization options compared to gnome and past versions of KDE but you gain better theme intergration and an increase in speed and responsiveness. And i feel most importantly a complete desktop experience from start to finish. I hope they succeed in their project, i can see this bringing in a lot of non-technical users into the linux world.

Skripka said: A couple? To be accurate, it has 37 built in. Yes I counted. And much if not most of what Compiz has is in Kwin. Hell, I never could get Compiz, as a separate window manager to work right-where Kwin works once you have gfx drivers installed.

Your humble opine and choice of course, but please use facts.

It was entirely My opinion and was never claimed to be anything but that. If you wanted to compare... compiz has 74 categories with multiple effects listed under each category and each has more customization options than you can even use. If you want to spout numbers, feel free to offer both sides of the point.

As for "working right", I had the opposite experience. Compiz works right "out of the box" for Me on Gnome. Never did work consistently on KDE. KWin didn't work that great either. I had menu bars disappearing, it wouldn't hold settings for virtual desktops, effects that were enabled weren't consistent. Underwhelmed.