Re: gNOME sucks
+1, craig10x.
I've tried Gnome on several occasions as it announced various upgrades or enhancements, but I never found it as powerful as KDE. There are, however, some very nice apps on Gnome that are missing or underpowered on KDE. However, Gnome is an excellent desktop which I'd take over just about any version of Windows (especially VISTA), except Win7. To say it "sucks" is, IMO, an invalid criticism which depends on emotion and not facts.
Technically one could say the the "Signal & Slot" mechanism in Qt is far superior to the call-back mechanism that was used in GTK+, before it copied, although inadequately, Qt's S&S. One could also say that the Qt AIP is far superior to the GTK+ in both depth and breadth. It is also better documented. The last time I checked, when one installed Glade & the GTK+ API there were at least 6 different independent projects that had to be version coordinated, whereas with Qt a single SDK zip file was all that was needed. KDE's mime implementation is superior to Gnome's. Etc., etc. etc.
But, Gnome is not shabby. It's just different and if I felt like that someone who was asking me to install Linux for them wasn't capable of understanding how to handle KDE I'd certainly install Ubuntu because Gnome is a much simpler desktop, by design. There is only one reason why I would not recommend Gnome in the future and that is if Michael De Icaza is successful in his plans to convert Gnome from a GTK+ base to a Mono base. Mono is based on Windows .NET technology and if the Windows API becomes the base on Linux then what's the purpose of Linux?
+1, craig10x.
I've tried Gnome on several occasions as it announced various upgrades or enhancements, but I never found it as powerful as KDE. There are, however, some very nice apps on Gnome that are missing or underpowered on KDE. However, Gnome is an excellent desktop which I'd take over just about any version of Windows (especially VISTA), except Win7. To say it "sucks" is, IMO, an invalid criticism which depends on emotion and not facts.
Technically one could say the the "Signal & Slot" mechanism in Qt is far superior to the call-back mechanism that was used in GTK+, before it copied, although inadequately, Qt's S&S. One could also say that the Qt AIP is far superior to the GTK+ in both depth and breadth. It is also better documented. The last time I checked, when one installed Glade & the GTK+ API there were at least 6 different independent projects that had to be version coordinated, whereas with Qt a single SDK zip file was all that was needed. KDE's mime implementation is superior to Gnome's. Etc., etc. etc.
But, Gnome is not shabby. It's just different and if I felt like that someone who was asking me to install Linux for them wasn't capable of understanding how to handle KDE I'd certainly install Ubuntu because Gnome is a much simpler desktop, by design. There is only one reason why I would not recommend Gnome in the future and that is if Michael De Icaza is successful in his plans to convert Gnome from a GTK+ base to a Mono base. Mono is based on Windows .NET technology and if the Windows API becomes the base on Linux then what's the purpose of Linux?
Comment