271
votes
|
|
327
0
56
|
|
|
|
|
Propose your solution
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
ebrahim
wrote on the 11 May 08 at 17:23
|
|
|
|
I would rather see Canonical helping KDE4 and using it as the default DE.
|
|
fragro
wrote on the 11 May 08 at 18:16
|
|
|
|
For what do you need Gnome3? Evolution is better than Revolution!
|
|
Sector
wrote on the 11 May 08 at 18:21
|
|
|
I believe the Gnome 2 platform still has some ways to go.
And that if Gnome 3 is to ever become a reality, that it should be worked on by the majority of the developers (not a few dabblers like now is the case). Maybe skip a 2.x releasedate.
|
|
|
Ubuntu also uses KDE and XFce, so it should help them develop to. And maybe not so much in money or even tips, but more to forward the bugs and issues that Ubuntu users encountered
and ideas that were proposed here and revolv around dektop managers.
|
|
droetker
wrote on the 11 May 08 at 18:58
|
|
|
Better switch to KDE4 my opinion too.
Faster, better, object orientated, & many more things.
|
|
Tuxoid
wrote on the 11 May 08 at 19:15
|
|
|
@ebrahim & droetker
No one here needs to agree with KDE for the default desktop. Neither do they need to agree with Gnome or Xfce. Desktops are a matter of personal preference. If you like to tinker, use KDE; If you just want to get stuff done, use Gnome; If you have low-end hardware, use Xfce. The user should be able to make their own choices, or, if they are new to Linux and are unfamiliar with a choice of GUIs, then they need to be asked questions about what they need their computer to do for them. I have used all three, and based on what I need to with my computer, I use Gnome. I'm not much of a tinkerer and I do not have a low-end computer, so it works for my needs. I find troubleshooting problems is generally easier in KDE, but for just doing what I need to do everyday, Gnome works for me.
|
|
|
Tuxoid, I dont have a low end computer yet I prefer Xubuntu. XFCE is just more elegant than gnome. Don't dismiss XFCE as just a stripped down thing for low end computers, it's not.
Back on the topic at hand, I think evolution is better than revolution. I do however think we have got to keep up, so there needs to be radical evolution.
Ie. We dont need to introduce a bazillion new cutting edge technologies like KDE4 did, but we do need to introduce at least one cutting edge technology at a time. At the moment evolution means just polishing and taking small steps, this is going to leave gnome behind KDE.
|
|
Double D
wrote on the 11 May 08 at 21:57
|
|
|
|
Tuxoid said it all
|
|
Tuxoid
wrote on the 12 May 08 at 02:05
|
|
|
@belovedmonster
I wasn't trying to say that xfce is only for people with low-end computers. I was just trying point out why I would run it. There are several reasons that anyone would need analyze for their own preferences. I was just pointing that you can't push your choices or even your reasons to those other users.
On the topic at hand, gnome developers as of now have very little to no plans for Gnome 3.0. I saw this mentioned on their website somewhere. If I can relocate where on their site it was mentioned, I will post it. Unless Gnome devs have plans for 3.0, I don't think it's a good idea for Ubuntu devs to take an initiative quite just because the uniqueness of each-others design ideals and their respect genres of software.
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 12 May 08 at 02:42
|
|
|
GTK is mainly C, QT4 is C++. Generally, I find OOP programming to be a hell of a lot cleaner. Also, the slots/signals system is a lot better.
Also, in terms of developmement, QT also has official GUI design tools which I find a hell of a lot better to deal with then glade, and apparently even Adobe uses QT for Photoshop elements.
So, in terms of the base, KDE4 really has the advantage.
So in that case, I vote +0 for this. Even in terms of improvements and capabilities in the desktop, KDE4 appears it will have the upper hand for a while.
|
|
pt123
wrote on the 12 May 08 at 03:10
|
|
|
Please xfce doesn't support many things like surround sound (its volume applet kills it). No samba shares in the file manager. There isn't even a find tool in the file manager.
It is not hard to build a clean & fast application if you limit the features like Xfce does.
|
|
mp3phish
wrote on the 12 May 08 at 04:39
|
|
|
I think its obvious to most people that development time should go to KDE4 and making it have a little more polish.
Gnome is going to be a legacy DE before long, with it being written in C, running significantly slower than XFCE, but no improvements over it. And if there are any GNOME programs you need that aren't available elsewhere (there aren't) then you can still run them and the GNOME libs just load in the background.
But to each his own, but I think GNOME already gets too much time spent by the Ubuntu developers when compared to xfce and KDE.
@ Tuxoid:
You stated that if you want to tinker get KDE, get stuff done get GNOME, and run faster get XFCE. Really, it should be stated like: to get stuff done run KDE, to run a simpleton interface, run XFCE. You can tinker in all of them and the "get stuff done" isn't really any truer of GNOME than it is of the other two.
|
|
Tuxoid
wrote on the 12 May 08 at 05:04
|
|
|
@mp3phish
I was only speaking of my experience, not saying that I was right or wrong. I personally feel more productive in Gnome, others may not. It boils down to personal preferences (not someone else's preferences). I can't tell someone what to run. The best thing I can suggest to anyone wanting to enter the world of Ubuntu Linux, download xubuntu, kubuntu, and ubuntu. spend some time with them, see which one you like.
|
|
|
|
Gnome is fast. Crashes close to never. Extremely customizable in look and feel unlike KDE. Gives more respect to fonts and borders. KDE still looks a kids play ground compared to Vista. But GNOME can come very close to Vista or Mac OS.
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 12 May 08 at 09:45
|
|
|
Have you tried KDE4 ravin? I used to work in a Apple premium reseller, and believe me when I say, gnome is the furthest away from OSX really.. (And I use Vista as my primary OS actually atm, because I need flight simulator X), and I don't really agree with that either.
But that is my personal opinion, everyone has a right to make their own
|
|
Sidney
wrote on the 12 May 08 at 10:48
|
|
|
So, mainly I see discussions about which DE is the best. Why can't you agree that choice is good, and everyone has their own opinion about "best"? Why can't you discuss the idea instead of telling us that KDE4 is so hawt?
Thanks.
To your idea: No-one yet cited the Gnome developers' take on 3.0: Right now, there's not going to be one. And I agree: There is no reason besides a cool new number. If you suggest some new and very different (or even revolutionary) things you'd love to see in Gnome, that'd be something different. But a major release just for the sake of it is... not a good idea.
Now, as I said, if there were things to implement, I'd probably be for it, but just to see a 3.0, no way. KDE did some very new things with 4.0 (whether you like it or not), and that's cool. But as long as Gnome doesn't something new with their stuff, we don't need a 3.0.
|
|
|
|
I would really not like to see Ubuntu donating money and resources to Mono development (which IS linked to Gnome)..
|
|
nvivo
wrote on the 12 May 08 at 23:33
|
|
|
GTK3 roadmap just shows that people should start looking for QT. They have come to a moment where they noticed it sucks and need a full redesign that will be painful to develop and to migrate.
Sincerely, if we need to recreate a whole new platform because the old one is old, deprecated and etc, why not just start using the better ones we have today?
|
|
jdevora
wrote on the 15 May 08 at 17:57
|
|
|
What is the point of those KDE4 comments?
Doesn't Kubuntu already exist?
|
|
Matthias
wrote on the 16 May 08 at 21:13
|
|
|
The most important thing is to develop GTK3. Qt4 is better that all APIs I've seen, but if you develop a Qt application that isn't OpenSource (Freeware) you have to pay for it. Also it is developed by Trolltec/Nokia. I think such an important thing should be developed by the community and not by one single company.
With an API that has more features and that is stable and fast the developers can create much better and faster (cross-platform) applications.
@PeterKraus:
I hope Gnome will remove all .NET/Mono components from theit DE. It's a realy bad thing, not stable, an Microsoft idea (I know, that doesn't makes it bad) and if you want a cross-platform application, you can use Java, Python or the GTK+/Qt API.
|
|
|
GNOME needs jesus. There is a significant difference in speed of execution between GNOME 2.22 and KDE 3.5.9/KDE 4.0.4; the latter isn't even completely bug free. Qt has more bindings than GNOME. It is generally held that Qt is easier to develop for. By summer/fall, KDE will be truly cross-platform, which has implications for user migration. There's even a javascript binding.
"Slow and steady" is not winning the race anytime soon.
|
|
mohbana
wrote on the 8 Jun 08 at 23:59
|
|
|
|
As soon as QT implementation of SWT is made, i am switching to KDE full time.
|
|
bart
wrote on the 15 Jun 08 at 16:53
|
|
|
I agree,
With GTK3 the developpers of Gnome must work on a newer version of Gnome, a desktop that has the look and feel of Gnome2 but with some new functions and more eye-candy.
|
|
retj
wrote on the 16 Jun 08 at 07:14
|
|
|
|
Just merge all ubuntu variants and it'll be done.... Ubuntu is Ubuntu there's no point having many Ubuntus... Canonical should pay attention to the whole distro not just Ubuntu with Gnome
|
|
benhongh
wrote on the 20 Jun 08 at 14:34
|
|
|
Currently, asking for GNOME 3.0 is like asking for Linux 2.8. Both projects have switched to this get-this-thing-stable-by-adding-0.1-to-version approach.
I really appreciate how GNOME 2 has grown into the very clean and aesthetically pleasing form as we see it now. Less is more.
I have also used KDE 4 for quite sometime and to honest, while some aspects of KDE 4 are very impressive, the overall feel and finishing is still sub-par, IMHO. The panel is too big, fonts are wrong, etc. What I have to agree, is that what really shines is from the inside of KDE 4, and better visuals can be developed over time.
|
|
|
@benhongh
Both of the things you mention are easily customizable and would benefit from having a distro to set sane, more human defaults for them. Giving KDE4 the Ubuntu touch may be just what KDE4 needs. (But please, no orange :P)
|
|
|
To dualscreenman: I proposed to "Kubuntufy" KDE 4.1
But as I understand Kubuntu's colour is blue.
---------------------------------------------
Anyway I'm always for good competition against KDE, so I did vote this up.
Even though GNOME developers should really think in which way GNOME should go. Because clear and simple is not enough any more I think.
|
|
|
what about talks to Fusion and make a deal?
could be interesting or maybe i'm crazy
|
|
|
|
as I heard, they already began invest in KDE and GNOME
|
|
snirpyor
wrote on the 19 Dec 08 at 11:10
|
|
|
|
QT4 should be used for GNOME, it is vastly superior.
|
|
|
The idea was about Canonical helping Gnome. Now where did KDE come in between?. We are Linux not Gnome or KDE.
BTW, check Gnome 3 now (May 2009). It rocks.
|
cheesehead
(Brainstorm admin)
wrote on the 22 Nov 11 at 22:10
|
|
|
|
Well, seems like Canonical and Gnome went in slightly different directions with Unity and Gnome3.
|
Post your comment
|
