why KDE Sucks · DIGIT-ARC

G

Obsessed with K-K3B,KONQUEROR,K***

FIREFoX on kde sucks
Nvidia driver support is not good
Konqueror is slow
very less tools for kde
dolphin cannot mount xp hdd..without manual fstab entry
kde 64 octave has bugs...memory prob n cant start

i had lot of -ve exp with kde...donno bad system or luck...kde never works to extent i xpect...

---------- Post added at 05:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------

i hope kde 4.5 will do some good

KDE has nothing to do with your nvidia drivers. Which distro are you using? Are you talking about the ugly looks of FF in kde4? One has to install gtk-qt-engine and qt-curve themes to make gtk apps look like native kde4s.

F

* FIREFoX on kde sucks

How so ?

* Nvidia driver support is not good

What does KDE have to do with Nvidia driver support?

* Konqueror is slow

Slow doing what ? Just opening ? Browsing ? ....

* very less tools for kde

This is a new one. I was of the impression that it had more tools.

* dolphin cannot mount xp hdd..without manual fstab entry

If I recall right all I have is ntfs-3g and I have acess to all my Windows XP partitions.

* kde 64 octave has bugs...memory prob n cant start

64 bit for every distro is a touchy subject. Have you given the 32 bit a try?

i had lot of -ve exp with kde...donno bad system or luck...kde never works to extent i xpect...

KDE is doing fine for me although I don't have your expectations so my perception might differ.

G

^^ id sont get total plasma desktop

i get blurred background n 16bit color only

wer as in gnome i have 1680x1050@32bit...it had allowed use of propreitary drivers...i cant find that in kde

wat worst was i wasnt able to boot kde11-fedora in my pc...while buntu was doin good...i know both cd are intact

gopi_vbboy said:
Obsessed with K-K3B,KONQUEROR,K***

FIREFoX on kde sucks

Nvidia driver support is not good

Konqueror is slow

very less tools for kde

dolphin cannot mount xp hdd..without manual fstab entry

kde 64 octave has bugs...memory prob n cant start

i had lot of -ve exp with kde...donno bad system or luck...kde never works to extent i xpect...

---------- Post added at 05:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------

i hope kde 4.5 will do some good

I've been using KDE SC 4.4.4 for more than six months without any problems. Well, I don't know about those windows related problems because I've been a full time Linux user since 3 years. Infact I don't like GNOME much.

My distro: Arch Linux.

Also I feel the same as Filled Void, KDE has no doubt more tools and applets as compared to GNOME.

a_rahim said:
KDE has nothing to do with your nvidia drivers. Which distro are you using? Are you talking about the ugly looks of FF in kde4? One has to install gtk-qt-engine and qt-curve themes to make gtk apps look like native kde4s.

Exactly !

F

wat worst was i wasnt able to boot kde11-fedora in my pc...while buntu was doin good...i know both cd are intact

Did you try KDE on Ubuntu ? I haven't used much of Fedora although I hear its a pretty well polished distro.

Even I have problems with Nvidia & KDE.

There are some common problems with KDE and display drivers. Refer to this thread *forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=6971&sid=54d69b53d9fab6d1a320b1e46e22cfbf

Well, I don't have Nvidia / ATI and neither interested to have one. I have the inbuilt Intel's video card and am happy with it. I don't use faildows (a.k.a windows), so hard core games are out of question. I just play some small games like megamario, etc. when I'm bored. Most of the time, I do programming.

F

There are some common problems with KDE and display drivers. Refer to this thread *forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?f...20b1e46e22cfbf

That thread is from 2008 D: . The last few posts a majority say they dont have an issue at all. But I guess there might be some problems. However I have been using an nVidia 8600 GT and a Ati 5670 and I don't have issues on either of the systems. This is using KDE on Ubuntu.

G

ok let me try ubuntu +kde

FilledVoid said:
That thread is from 2008 D: . The last few posts a majority say they dont have an issue at all. But I guess there might be some problems. However I have been using an nVidia 8600 GT and a Ati 5670 and I don't have issues on either of the systems. This is using KDE on Ubuntu.

Maybe the thread is older, I didn't take a closer look into it. But I didn't have any problems with either KDE/GNOME using any of nVidia/Ati cards. So far I have used nVidia GeForce FX5200 and now nVidia GTX 260 and Ati HD4200 on dad's PC. Not a single problem with any desktop environments.

To get best out of KDE use Mandriva or openSUSE or Slackware. I didnt liked Kubuntu at all. Ubuntu is better at Gnome imo.

PCLos is perfect.

D

Has some common problems with bluetooth stack and other applications solved ? It is more cluttered DE... more towards windows like... someone who like minimalistic approach would never prefer kde

+1 for GNOME...

Lets get these things straight: Those who crib about kde vs Gnome doesnt look at their goals or philosophy behind their approach to DE.

GNOME gives a toned down version aka few but essential options to users. Some might term this as restrictive. KDE gives all the options to users and leaves users to decide what they want to do do with those options. This is freedom.

GNOME thinks their users to be lame while KDE gives total freedom to their users. They dont decide for us.
GNOME hasnt changed for millions of years; KDE4 has albiet radically from rock solid 3.5 to 4.x
The less said about looks the better. GNOME looks dated, pathetic, shameful to show to fellows, boring, lacking, slow pace of development and too much hurrah with additions of even rudimentary features.
KDE4 is not like Windows as some may think; its features have been ripped by MS. KDE4 is very flexible, full of features (a little too much for average Joe), on its way to be stable (i feel its stable already), much faster development time. However it may require some modern hardware to run with its full glory.

GNOME is built on KISS(Keep It Simple Silly); so i agree some features on it, say bluetooth, are better implemented than KDE4. Its much lighter on resources but so is XFCE4, another complete DE and in my opinion, better than GNOME.

So the choice is yours. For some KDE4 might be too much but for some it hits the sweet spot.

i r gnome. Its not restrictive provided u r not a newbie to it. Atleast i never felt any hindrance.

KDE is beautiful but i like my elegant gnome.

a_rahim said:
GNOME thinks their users to be lame while KDE gives total freedom to their users. They dont decide for us.
GNOME hasnt changed for millions of years; KDE4 has albiet radically from rock solid 3.5 to 4.x
The less said about looks the better. GNOME looks dated, pathetic, shameful to show to fellows, boring, lacking, slow pace of development and too much hurrah with additions of even rudimentary features.

I would disagree on both.

1) GNOME has as many options as KDE. Some maybe accessible via GUI, some are via config files/gconf-editor. The number of options are definitely equal or more than KDE. I've never felt I miss something on GNOME as compared to KDE.

2) GNOME hasn't changed from the "outside". But the worst thing about it is that in every revision, they change a ton of things behind the scenes and that's the reason why you see Mac4Lin not carried over to the next version without any issues. There is somewhere or the other thing. If they don't have anything to change, they will rename the icons, just for the sake of it. That is one of the reasons why I kind of hate GNOME, for, after every release I need to re-work on Mac4Lin, not to enhance it, but to keep up with GNOME naming conventions.

3) Some of the best themes are available for GNOME. The choice of window managers is so much that you will run out of time to try all the themes/UIs. You can replace Metacity with Emerald or A, or B or C. There are a ton of alternatives.

Also, GNOME follows a 6month release cycle. So it is updated more frequently than KDE.

Gnome is awesome and so as Gnome Shell

G

and vi suck in kde...

gopi_vbboy said:
and vi suck in kde...

wtf
How can the vi text editor, which is a command line text editor suck in KDE?
wtf indeed

Well, after using KDE in Arch, I have never bothered looking back to GNOME. Choice of my DE depends upon on the distro I am using. If I'll use Fedora or Ubuntu, I know that I will have to stick with GNOME. Whereas while on Mandriva, I prefer KDE. I am comfortable with both, but my preference is KDE + Arch.

gopi_vbboy said:
and vi suck in kde...

G

i mean the gui one

ico said:
Well, after using KDE in Arch, I have never bothered looking back to GNOME. Choice of my DE depends upon on the distro I am using. If I'll use Fedora or Ubuntu, I know that I will have to stick with GNOME. Whereas while on Mandriva, I prefer KDE. I am comfortable with both, but my preference is KDE + Arch.

Every linux user worth his salt knows about the beauty of Arch. Perfect example of OSS freedom.

gopi_vbboy said:
i mean the gui one

Yeah the GUI vim (gvim) sucks irrespective of DE

I never use it, I prefer the command line one

ico said:
Well, after using KDE in Arch, I have never bothered looking back to GNOME. Choice of my DE depends upon on the distro I am using. If I'll use Fedora or Ubuntu, I know that I will have to stick with GNOME. Whereas while on Mandriva, I prefer KDE. I am comfortable with both, but my preference is KDE + Arch.

True ! Arch+KDE is something different

debsuvra said:
Every linux user worth his salt knows about the beauty of Arch. Perfect example of OSS freedom.

Yeah, freedom to have your system as you want without bloats.

F

Yeah, freedom to have your system as you want without bloats.

I just wish that the installation procedure wouldn't have consumed that much work. But I guess its the reason the distro is also quite efficient. I might try installing Arch again like old times for giggles if I can scrounge the time.

I actually don't think that installation of Arch consumes much work. The downloading of packages later consumes time rather.

---------- Post added at 03:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 AM ----------

gopi_vbboy said:
i mean the gui one

I think you want to talk about something else?

FilledVoid said:
I just wish that the installation procedure wouldn't have consumed that much work. But I guess its the reason the distro is also quite efficient. I might try installing Arch again like old times for giggles if I can scrounge the time.

I don't think it consumes too much work ?
I had recently installed Arch on my friend's box, not much work though.

ico said:
I actually don't think that installation of Arch consumes much work. The downloading of packages later consumes time rather.

True, but the things have improved. They have changed the package formats to .tar.xz from the old .tar.gz which reduces the package sizes like anything.

G

ya arch +kde i was having full kde power seen on my acer 5738 lappy

but i had nightmares with fedora-kde ,suse-kde on pc's n even freinds pc it never even boots

gnome never gave me probs till now be it booting,acpi,graphics,mouting...well some depend on distro but kde was a like making a distro uncertaining of working 100%

Fedora is not for KDE.

G

^^ wat do u mean?

F

Well heres the thing. Ive never had a problem with Arch on a system with a single hard DIsk. But now most systems I have access to have at least 2

. Each time I install Arch I run into disk related problems where I end up at a prompt like ramfs . And I cant find anything kind of help that sounds like something that a new person could do to fix the same.

From my experience is if you manage tog et it to run then yes Arch is very good when it comes to performance. However if you are running into an installation problem like I am right now then you are in for one hell of a nightmare.

G

^^arch bang is good....i read abt it in lfy 2day...sad my dvd is damaged...i couldnt try kubuntu or lucid

Ubuntu FTW!

FilledVoid said:
Well heres the thing. Ive never had a problem with Arch on a system with a single hard DIsk. But now most systems I have access to have at least 2 . Each time I install Arch I run into disk related problems where I end up at a prompt like ramfs . And I cant find anything kind of help that sounds like something that a new person could do to fix the same.

From my experience is if you manage tog et it to run then yes Arch is very good when it comes to performance. However if you are running into an installation problem like I am right now then you are in for one hell of a nightmare.

The trick is to have a disk label for / and specify that in the grub line: root=/dev/disk/by-label/FOO
It works irrespective of your IDE/SATA config, etc.

F

The trick is to have a disk label for / and specify that in the grub line: root=/dev/disk/by-label/FOO
It works irrespective of your IDE/SATA config, etc.

Ill give that a try when I get some time.

G

^^rtfm ......

gopi_vbboy said:
^^rtfm ......

hehe, ROFL

I'm noob in linux, i installed ubuntu with gnome and later on installed KDE desktop environment. After booting in KDE it looked better then gnome but after sometime fooling around i realised i liked gnome better.

I geep getting lost in KDE and accidentally removed desktop activity and all my desktop tool gone!
I logged back in gnome and tried to remove it but not able to remove it then i have to format and reinstall ubuntu

Gauravs90 said:
I'm noob in linux, i installed ubuntu with gnome and later on installed KDE desktop environment. After booting in KDE it looked better then gnome but after sometime fooling around i realised i liked gnome better.

I geep getting lost in KDE and accidentally removed desktop activity and all my desktop tool gone!
I logged back in gnome and tried to remove it but not able to remove it then i have to format and reinstall ubuntu

LOL ROFL !!!!

Man you could add it using the tool at the top right corner which is always present in KDE

Also KDE doesn't allow you to remove the last desktop activity (its ubuntu, so doubtful about it

).

This accidental used to happen with me many times, so I switched to folder view instead of desktop view. I put all my icons in the Desktop folder, so my favorite programs' icons exist on the desktop irrespective of the DE I'm using

F

^^rtfm ......

stfu. kthxbai

G

^cool dude..thats how i used to get response in arch irc

lol good one