🚀 go-pugleaf

"Alex Samad" <asamad@bigpond.net.au_NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:fZrs8.12164$vc3.39307@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Hi,
>
> As a new user to Linux Desktops, can some body give some comments on going
> with either KDE or Gnome, is one better than the other or are they about
the
> same?
>
> Alex
>
they are similar, both bloated to all hell
KDE uses qt for some of the gui interface IIRC and
Gnome uses gtk mainly for gui interface
both are just different libraries so stuff looks slightly different
slightly different apps although gnome and kde really are interchangeable
try fluxbox instead its much better fluxbox.sourceforge.net

nich

What does fluxbox give you.
I am looking for something lite to maybe use evolution, maybe or Netscape.

Alex


"nich" <nich@iprimus.com> wrote in message
news:kbss8.12183$vc3.39384@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Alex Samad" <asamad@bigpond.net.au_NOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:fZrs8.12164$vc3.39307@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Hi,
> >
> > As a new user to Linux Desktops, can some body give some comments on
going
> > with either KDE or Gnome, is one better than the other or are they about
> the
> > same?
> >
> > Alex
> >
> they are similar, both bloated to all hell
> KDE uses qt for some of the gui interface IIRC and
> Gnome uses gtk mainly for gui interface
> both are just different libraries so stuff looks slightly different
> slightly different apps although gnome and kde really are interchangeable
> try fluxbox instead its much better fluxbox.sourceforge.net
>
> nich
>
>

Alex Samad wrote:

> What does fluxbox give you.
> I am looking for something lite to maybe use evolution, maybe or Netscape.
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> "nich" <nich@iprimus.com> wrote in message
> news:kbss8.12183$vc3.39384@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> "Alex Samad" <asamad@bigpond.net.au_NOSPAM> wrote in message
>> news:fZrs8.12164$vc3.39307@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > As a new user to Linux Desktops, can some body give some comments on
> going
>> > with either KDE or Gnome, is one better than the other or are they
>> > about
>> the
>> > same?
>> >
>> > Alex
>> >
>> they are similar, both bloated to all hell
>> KDE uses qt for some of the gui interface IIRC and
>> Gnome uses gtk mainly for gui interface
>> both are just different libraries so stuff looks slightly different
>> slightly different apps although gnome and kde really are interchangeable
>> try fluxbox instead its much better fluxbox.sourceforge.net
>>
>> nich
>>
>>


Don't !! use Netscape 4.xx !! Use Mozilla or better yet Galeon which is a 
faster light wieght browser then Netscape 4.XX or Mozilla 9.XX. Other then 
that Evolution is okay and has a lot of features but if you just want a 
basic email client then use Kmail or Sylpheed. 

Alex Samad wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> As a new user to Linux Desktops, can some body give some comments on going
> with either KDE or Gnome, is one better than the other or are they about
> the same?
> 
> Alex

Both are pretty big and hungry - Gnome perhaps a little less so than KDE2, 
and certainly less than KDE3. However, things even up if you put Nautilus 
onto Gnome (look at Ximian if you want to see the neatest (again, IMHO) 
installer....

I use gnome on the laptop (266mmx) and kde2 on the desktop

KDE is a bit more integrated, IMHO, but both can run each others apps, as 
long as the libs are installed

ICEWM and fluxbox (continuation/evolution of blackbox) are light 
alternatives, and will also run the two heavyweights' apps - in the main
-- 
        john in sydney
=================================
 Mandrake Linux 8.2
 Kernel version: 2.4.17-5mdk
 Uptime: 21 hours 1 minute
minutes
=================================

"Alex Samad" <asamad@bigpond.net.au_NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:riss8.12199$vc3.39556@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> What does fluxbox give you.
> I am looking for something lite to maybe use evolution, maybe or Netscape.
>
> Alex
>
>
<snip>
if u can use mozilla over netscape imho its getting
better and will beat netscape some day in terms of
quality + u can get source, not sure bout netscape,
evolution would be a hassle to put on but possible
fluxbox is just a minimalistic windows manager no
apps built directly for it like gnome and kde

nich

Alex Samad <asamad@bigpond.net.au_NOSPAM>
previously enlightened bigpond.broadband.tech.linux with:
> Hi,
> 
> As a new user to Linux Desktops, can some body give some comments on going
> with either KDE or Gnome, is one better than the other or are they about the
> same?
> 
Gnome tends to run faster on lower-end hardware than KDE.  I personally
like it better, but then again the last time I used KDE was about '98...
-- 
Joel Michael

I once knew a woman who could write her name in the snow.
Her name was Dot.

Alex Samad wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As a new user to Linux Desktops, can some body give some comments on going
> with either KDE or Gnome, is one better than the other or are they about the
> same?

I prefer KDE. As for ease of use then which distribution yuo use will 
have more of an effect on that then the windows manager.

They both provide bells and whistles. Neither is really necessary but 
nice to have (if yuo have the hardware for it).

-- 
Hayden

"I had a letter in the post today. It said 'Gas Bill'.
It sounds like a tempting offer"
-- Alan Cox

Due to idiotic Australian laws:
Permission given to freely distribute,
or not, really I don't care.

Joel Michael <jmichael@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:<yTws8.12705$vc3.42308@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> Alex Samad <asamad@bigpond.net.au_NOSPAM>
> previously enlightened bigpond.broadband.tech.linux with:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > As a new user to Linux Desktops, can some body give some comments on going
> > with either KDE or Gnome, is one better than the other or are they about the
> > same?
> > 
> Gnome tends to run faster on lower-end hardware than KDE.  I personally
> like it better, but then again the last time I used KDE was about '98...

Well, I have 7.2 Professional (which included GNOME 1.4 and KDE 2.1.1
if I remember correctly, which I probably don't), and, in my opinion,
GNOME is definitely more resource-hungry on my 300MHz Celeron with
160MB RAM. Shoot, I installed KDE 3 yesterday, and told it to use
every last bell and whistle when it asks you the first time you start
it, and it's still hands down faster than GNOME. Somewhere that I
particularly noticed the difference was when playing Tuxracer. In KDE
2, where I started playing it, it was as smooth as it could possibly
be, quite literally. You never, ever missed a frame. And I played it
so much that it soon became the top program in the K menu. Then I
started using GNOME exclusively a few weeks ago, and every single time
I have tried playing it with GNOME running the frame skippage/sound
screwups/overall slowness and crapiness was pretty ridiculous, to the
point that I don't bother playing it any more when I'm in GNOME. Of
course, this is far from objective, but it's what I've got. Also, the
fact that Nautilus is used by default doesn't help one bit when you
want to look at your home directory. That fricking thing takes three
eternities to load. It's fortunate that I know command-line commands,
because I would have pulled all my hair out by now waiting for
Nautilus to load every time I would otherwise need it. Konqueror from
KDE, on the other hand, loaded quite fast in KDE 2, and loads just
about as fast, although maybe a tad little bit slower (which is
understandable, considering all the other things it does now that it
didn't do in KDE 2), in KDE 3. Especially after the first load. If you
want to become proficient with the command-line though (good in any
case), use Nautilus in GNOME. But then again, Konsole also loads
faster in KDE than the equivalent in GNOME. And something else: if you
have a slow computer, don't waste your time trying the themes in
GNOME. I did, and that was just plain ridiculous. If you thought it
was slow before, try that. Besides, the default doesn't look half bad
once you make the top and bottom bars use the 'Default' background
instead of 'Color' (it's possible that I have those backwards; in any
case, I'm referring to making the bars whitish instead of that ugly
gray). To be fair though, I didn't try the themes in KDE (yet), so
they may be just as slow there or even slower, who knows. If it seems
I have some kind of agenda against GNOME or for KDE, rest assured that
I don't, I'm just trying to expound my experiences (I hope "expound"
fits there). In any case, it's not like you can't try both and use
what you like yourself. One good thing about GNOME though, is the
selection of applets. I constantly have the fire one running (don't
remember what it's called), and tried to find a permanent place for
the weather one but it was taking literally almost all of the CPU just
to sit there, so I got rid of that after a day or two. But there's a
lot more to choose from in GNOME than KDE (at least by default), so
you're bound to find some cool stuff there that you like. I would have
said (until yesterday) that GNOME gives you more power and flexibility
over how the desktop works in general, but after having looked through
KDE 3 for a few hours last night I don't think that's anywhere near
true any more. Oh well, try everything you want and use whatever you
dang well please. I just wanted to mention how claims of KDE's
resource-hungriness or GNOME's lightweightness don't seem to hold
true, at least in my case, where everything is magnified because my
computer is so fricking slow compared to what a lot of people have out
there. But if I had to recommend something, it would be KDE 3, and
that's kind of bold (perhaps foolish) considering that I've only tried
it for a few hours. Of course, then there's that issue about GNOME 2
coming out any day now...

                                                     Tommy McDaniel

I am running Redhat 7.2, on a PIII 550 Mhz 400M ram, use the machine to run
DVD's and play cd's.  also acts as firewall, mail server and file server.

Not really looking to use it as a machine to log into, apart from playing
DVD's and CD's.  But a just in case

Alex

"Hayden" <h_g_f_sp@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3CB2DCBF.6090506@yahoo.co.uk...
> Alex Samad wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As a new user to Linux Desktops, can some body give some comments on
going
> > with either KDE or Gnome, is one better than the other or are they about
the
> > same?
>
> I prefer KDE. As for ease of use then which distribution yuo use will
> have more of an effect on that then the windows manager.
>
> They both provide bells and whistles. Neither is really necessary but
> nice to have (if yuo have the hardware for it).
>
> --
> Hayden
>
> "I had a letter in the post today. It said 'Gas Bill'.
> It sounds like a tempting offer"
> -- Alan Cox
>
> Due to idiotic Australian laws:
> Permission given to freely distribute,
> or not, really I don't care.
>

"Alex Samad" <asamad@bigpond.net.au_NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:Rz2t8.18518$vc3.63197@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> I am running Redhat 7.2, on a PIII 550 Mhz 400M ram, use the machine to
run
> DVD's and play cd's.  also acts as firewall, mail server and file server.
>
> Not really looking to use it as a machine to log into, apart from playing
> DVD's and CD's.  But a just in case
>
> Alex
>
> "Hayden" <h_g_f_sp@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3CB2DCBF.6090506@yahoo.co.uk...
> > Alex Samad wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > As a new user to Linux Desktops, can some body give some comments on
> going
> > > with either KDE or Gnome, is one better than the other or are they
about
> the
> > > same?
> >
> > I prefer KDE. As for ease of use then which distribution yuo use will
> > have more of an effect on that then the windows manager.
> >
> > They both provide bells and whistles. Neither is really necessary but
> > nice to have (if yuo have the hardware for it).
> >
> > --
> > Hayden
> >
> > "I had a letter in the post today. It said 'Gas Bill'.
> > It sounds like a tempting offer"
> > -- Alan Cox
> >
> > Due to idiotic Australian laws:
> > Permission given to freely distribute,
> > or not, really I don't care.
> >
>
>
if the xserver is always running use one of the smaller windows managers,
u dont kneed the bells and whistles of kde or gnome then, + small ones will
do
everything u need, but 500mhz+400mb ram? give me your money rich bastard :)

nich

Alex Samad wrote:
> I am running Redhat 7.2, on a PIII 550 Mhz 400M ram, use the machine to run
> DVD's and play cd's.  also acts as firewall, mail server and file server.
> 
> Not really looking to use it as a machine to log into, apart from playing
> DVD's and CD's.  But a just in case

In that case there's no real reason to run kde or gnome. They're only 
any good for use as a desktop. Other than that they are just a waste of 
resources.

-- 
Hayden

"I had a letter in the post today. It said 'Gas Bill'.
It sounds like a tempting offer"
-- Alan Cox

Due to idiotic Australian laws:
Permission given to freely distribute,
or not, really I don't care.