Why did Ubuntu/RHEL choose Gnome over KDE?

[forthewyn]

I'm coming back to the Linux desktop after about 10 years away. (My last 'desktop environment' was fvwm, if any of you are old enough to remember that

And as I started tuning into the podcasts and reading the press - I heard a LOT of excitement around KDE. KDE Neon, people extolling the virtues of Plasma...

But Ubuntu came back to Gnome 3 after they abandoned Unity, and RHEL dropped KDE support in favor of choosing Gnome as their standard desktop.

I tried for *4 months* to get stock Ubuntu running Gnome 3 working on my new Alienware 17 R5 gaming laptop and show stopper bug after show stopper bug made it impossible. I then installde Kubuntu 18.10 and voila - everything works. Flawlessly.

In an era when everyone talks about how we need to get more people to adopt the Linux desktop, why are these mainstream distro makers choosing Gnome when KDE would seem to have so many advantages?

I realize my experience is anecdotal, and that big companies make decisions based on their bottom line, but even from that perspective I'm trying and failing to understand why Gnome makes more sense.

[dibl]

Good question. You're asking it on the wrong forum -- you'll need to find some gnome fanboys to learn their theory of supremacy. (I don't know, either.)

[Snowhog]

Gnome is being commercialized; KDE isn't. In 'mainstream' business, an endeavor that 'costs money' is seen as 'professional', and one that is 'free' is seen as 'amateur'. Simple as that, IMO.

[SpecialEd]

I also see "amateur" youtubers who review KDE and come into it with obvious prejudices. "KDE is a resource hog" "KDE is too complicated for the average user." Just last week a youtuber (whom I've never cared for) that goes by TotalOS was complaining that it took him three clicks to get rid of a panel (after commenters told him how to remove a panel, he couldn't figure it out on his own).

On another note, another youtuber recently shared the story of how Pixar deleted most of their Toy Story 2 files in mid production but luckily one contributor had most of the files on her home system and they were able to restore them. His take at the end was "And that's why you should never use Linux" or something similar.

[claydoh]

Unity is/was heavily based on gnome/gtk. Going back to Gnome is a no-brainer, really.
I am a KDE fanboi, but realize that Gnome, while not in any way better, is simply much more popular than Plasma is, and has been for ages and ages. For whatever reason, people seem to like the ostensibly simpler, cleaner, more stable Gnome desktop, and how it acts and works.


I blame Nvidia, they are an easy target tho.

Luckily we get to have our choice of what to use.

As to Red Hat, they little more than provided KDE as an option, though it was supported. Not much of an install base, though. I do wonder how much/often any GUI gets used on this enterprise level distro. (Plus, Fedora exists....)

[mr_raider]

If memory serves, Ubuntu has always used Gnome, and teh KDE/XFCE flavours have been community initiatives. After dropping unity, it was only natural to go back to Gnome.

[woodsmoke]

"KDE is a resource hog"
KDE is too complicated for the average user
.

This just irks me so much that ties my Duluth Trading Company no stinkum skivvies into a wad!

For the life of me I CANNOT understand why the KDE developers or community won't just sit down and write a one side sheet on how KDE works and spread it around.
I've offered several one side one sheets and was ROUNDLY IGNORED.

Back when Mandriva / Mandrake was having "install parties" they were desperately advertising for people to host them.

They were ballyhooing bags of goodies to give away like stickers, caps, mugs, etc.

I requested the goodie bags and was ignored.

I hosted an install party at the college and we installed on more machines than THE MANDRIVA people balleyhooed on their website.

I took pictures and mailed them off and was ignored.

I repeated this process again and was ignored and again, we installed on more machines than the Mandriva people did.

After that I just gave up and we had our install parties, two more, without them.

So, again, one has to ask WHY?

A) there is an OBVIOUS NEED for a simple one side one sheet to explain "how" KDE works and that it is NOT a resource hog...so WHY do the devs and community ignore this obvious situation?
B) There SEEMED to be a real pentup desire to have install parties for Mandriva. I had them, we installed on more machines than they did...and we were ignored.. WHY?

AAARRRGGGGHHH this whole thing just gets my Duluth skivvies in a wad!

woodaarrrgghhsmoke

[kc1di]

the Gnome KDE war was won by Gnome many years ago. Not because gnome is technically better. But because it was the go to desktop for most who wanted to do business. Redhat in the old days choose gnome and backed it with money and development, conical followed suit. On the other had Suse and Mandrake both choose KDE and their primary DE. But because of turmoil in their Distros over the years then never really got traction in the Americas Suse became pretty big in Europe. Mandrake (Which was great in it's day) had been forked many times and doesn't play. Red Hat offered commercial customers what they wanted stability in both the system and DE used. Gnome 2 was a great windows like DE which made it easier to train workers on the system.

Ubuntu did support KDE for quite awhile but choose several years ago to put it's commercial interest into Unity which was based upon gnome3. We all know that unity failed , well not really failed but the cost of development was too much. And Unity never was able to compete with Gnome or RH. So it has now been dropped and gnome was the logical replacement for ubuntu. Ubuntu was a gnome 2 distro before that so the die was cast so to speak years ago. Had Suse or Mandrake been able to take the position that RH held , KDE would be dominate today.

KDE and Gnome were really the only two players to fight it out and gnome won. most other DE have been seen by the big guys as just toys used by hobbyists. MHO.
XFCE and others are good DEs but just never gain traction. Perhaps because in the early days RH pretty much was the Distro to go to and they choose gnome early on.

[forthewyn]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. RedHat chose Gnome as their default enterprise desktop and contributes heavily to Gnome.

Has the KDE project eschewed commercial support?

[forthewyn]

Unity is/was heavily based on gnome/gtk. Going back to Gnome is a no-brainer, really.
I am a KDE fanboi, but realize that Gnome, while not in any way better, is simply much more popular than Plasma is, and has been for ages and ages. For whatever reason, people seem to like the ostensibly simpler, cleaner, more stable Gnome desktop, and how it acts and works.

OK, so this is what I'm not seeing. I don't particularly see Gnome as simpler or cleaner than KDE. I spent MONTHS trying to get stock Ubuntu running with Gnome 3 on my Alienware 17 R5, filed 5 bugs on Launchpad on various topics, but the net result is that in no way could I configure a usable desktop on my machine.

Kubuntu on the other hand installed and ran like a champ, first shot. Also when I tried to immerse myself in Gnome to understand the architecture a bit - HOLY COW that's a complicated beast! Between the display manager, the window manager, the compositor and a zillion other components...

I'm coming from a place of ignorance here, is KDE really all that much more complicated architecturally?

[Snowhog]

I don't think KDE vs Gnome is more complicated, nor do i think so in the reverse. The difference, as I see it, is that in general, KDE makes configuration of nearly all it's components available to the user, and Gnome does not.