Very Computer

which of these is the most stable / also which takes least resources. As far as
I have found out Gnome takes least  resources but I cant find stability? do
they both have excellent stability?

KDE seems to have a future. Will Gnome continue to be developed too? I'd hate
to be using a duck!

Cheers
John

You can do better for stability and resources if you use nice little
window manager instead of a bloated desktop.  I personally use Fluxbox,
it's pretty light and very easy to use and configure.

Between Gnome and KDE, I always found KDE to be more stable.  To be
fair I haven't used Gnome2 much.  And they both pale in comparison to
Fluxbox or FVWM or pretty much any other window manager in my
experience.

Quote:> KDE seems to have a future. Will Gnome continue to be developed too? I'd hate
> to be using a duck!

Gnome has a large following, so I would be suprised if development stopped.

Quote:> Cheers
> John

HTH
--
Stephen Paskaluk
4th Year Computer Engineering
University of Alberta

Quote:

>You can do better for stability and resources if you use nice little
>window manager instead of a bloated desktop.  I personally use Fluxbox,
>it's pretty light and very easy to use and configure.

>Between Gnome and KDE, I always found KDE to be more stable.  To be
>fair I haven't used Gnome2 much.  And they both pale in comparison to
>Fluxbox or FVWM or pretty much any other window manager in my
>experience.

Thanks for that (very useful). I guess I'd best widen my search then! I'll
download Fluxbox and have a play.

Anyone got anyother favourites? If so please tell so I can have a look at them
too and then make my mind up. (I'm looking for max stability and minimum
resources)

Cheers
Trom

Actually, BOTH Gnome and KDE "have a future", and BOTH are stable and
unstable, in their own fashion (libraries and applications constantly
changing). BOTH Gnome and KDE have their strengths and weaknesses,
naturally. In general, I have found Gnome to have a "smaller resource
footprint" than KDE. BOTH have specialized applications designed
intentionally for their respective desktop environment. In some cases,
these applications can also run in any other desktop environment, but in
some cases - they are restricted to just one (more true for KDE than
Gnome, I believe).

Each D.E. (desktop environment) comes with its base set of applications.
KDE has more, plus an integrated "office suite". Gnome-2 is in the process
of building up an "office suite", but many of the applications already
exist as standalone programs. KDE may have more specialized tidbits that
are related to Palm Pilots, and "friends". Each has its own "audio
environment" (ie; server) which can impact non-D.E. applications (more
with KDE than with Gnome).

All in all, KDE is more business-like than Gnome, whereas Gnome is more
like an "unexplored country". Ultimately, which specific applications you
need, or choose, to use may decide which D.E. you will live in.

BTW - Gnome-2.2 (Jan/Feb 2003) is a VAST improvement over Gnome-1. FWIW - I run
Gnome-2.0 on top of Solaris-2.8, though I have recently found out that some
specialized commercial applications designed for CDE won't work well under
Gnome-2.0, but I only have one of those.

Yes - Gnome will continue to be developed.

I should mention that smaller window managers might not be as intuitive
at first to someone coming from a Windows or MacOS type environment.
They really are easy to use, just in a bit of a different way.

Hope you have fun.

Quote:> Anyone got anyother favourites? If so please tell so I can have a look at
> them
> too and then make my mind up. (I'm looking for max stability and minimum
> resources)

> Cheers
> Trom

--
Stephen Paskaluk
4th Year Computer Engineering
University of Alberta

On 23 Feb 2003 02:10:21 GMT

J> Thanks for that (very useful). I guess I'd best widen my search then!
J> I'll download Fluxbox and have a play.
J>
J> Anyone got anyother favourites? If so please tell so I can have a look

        I like flwm, it's been on my desktop for a fair while now without
getting sworn at.

--
C:>WIN                                      |     Directable Mirrors
The computer obeys and wins.                |A Better Way To Focus The Sun
You lose and Bill collects.                 |  licenses available - see:
                                            |   http://www.sohara.org/

JohnTromaville pravi:

Quote:> You can do better for stability and resources if you use nice little
> window manager instead of a bloated desktop.  I personally use Fluxbox,
> it's pretty light and very easy to use and configure.

> Between Gnome and KDE, I always found KDE to be more stable.  To be
> fair I haven't used Gnome2 much.  And they both pale in comparison to
> Fluxbox or FVWM or pretty much any other window manager in my
> experience.

> Thanks for that (very useful). I guess I'd best widen my search then! I'll
> download Fluxbox and have a play.

> Anyone got anyother favourites? If so please tell so I can have a look at them
> too and then make my mind up. (I'm looking for max stability and minimum
> resources)

Try openbox, it is similar to fluxbox.

Simon

Quote:

> Cheers
> Trom

Gnome and KDE are not window managers. Comparing them to Fluxbox is like
comparing a wheel to a car. Of course the wheel is lighter but it has
no engine :-)

Personnally i have tried all sorts of Window managers, and in my opinion they
all lack totally in functionality. They can only content old timers who are
used to twm on Sun boxes. Both KDE and Gnome try to close the gap to what
Microsoft Windows has to offer. I better know KDE, and the progress it has
done from KDE1 to KDE2 and now KDE3 are enormous. In fact KDE3 is a marvelous
integrated desktop environment. There are very few crashes, certainly no more
that with Windows XP. The look and feel is quite nice, still not equal to
Windows XP or Mac OS X, but not far. The configurability is excellent, you can
have nice fonts, the window decorations are very fine. Moreover the qt
toolkit on which it is based is a good toolkit, more and more interesting
qt or kde applications are available. For example the Koffice suite, which
was a year ago a pile of crap, is now something which does not crash each
minute, even if it is still basically unusable for real work. In this domain
you need to know the existence of good products, abiword (a word clone) and
gnumeric (the gnome spreadsheet) which at present are far superior to
Koffice components. On the browser front, Konqueror has progressed much.
It used to crash a lot, now it is quite stable, and fast. You know that Apple
has chosen the Konqueror html engine for Mac OS X, hence one can expect this
engine will come out fully debugged and with extensive functionalities (they
contribute back their patches). The traditional argument against KDE is the
general slowness due to the dynamic linking of tons of virtual functions.
Clearly this problem has been considerably alleviated with the present version
of KDE3. I am here using it on a Celeron 400 machine, and it is reasonably
fast, much faster than KDE2 was. Since i suppose most people now have

Quote:> 1 Ghz machines with > 256 Megs memory, this question is a moot point, in my

opinion. In fact i have run KDE2 on this same machine when it had only 64 Megs
memory, and it was not so terrible.

Quote:> Anyone got anyother favourites? If so please tell so I can have a look at them
> too and then make my mind up. (I'm looking for max stability and minimum
> resources)
> Cheers
> Trom

--
Michel Talon

I never claimed they were.  I have used and like KDE, and you'll note
that I am always eager to help people with their KDE questions.  But,
and this is just IMHO of course, KDE is just too much stuff I don't use,
so I use Fluxbox.  I do find fluxbox to be more stable (YMMV) and
lightweight, so I mentioned that a small window manager may be
appropraite for the OP.

Also, as someone who likes KDE, I would like to complement you on a
great summary of why people should use it.

Quote:> Personnally i have tried all sorts of Window managers, and in my opinion they
> all lack totally in functionality. They can only content old timers who are
> used to twm on Sun boxes.

I am no oldtimer, I'm only 22, and I've been using *nix for about three
years.  I came from using Windows.  Different strokes for differen folks
I guess :)

Quote:> Both KDE and Gnome try to close the gap to what
> Microsoft Windows has to offer. I better know KDE, and the progress it has

They do that well.  I found KDE great to use when I first started using
Linux and FreeBSD.  But I also had some exposure to FVWM2 around that
time.  When I got more used to the system FVWM didn't seem too bad.

Quote:> done from KDE1 to KDE2 and now KDE3 are enormous. In fact KDE3 is a marvelous
> integrated desktop environment. There are very few crashes, certainly no more
> that with Windows XP. The look and feel is quite nice, still not equal to
> Windows XP or Mac OS X, but not far. The configurability is excellent, you
> can have nice fonts, the window decorations are very fine. Moreover the qt

I totally agree that KDE is a beautiful interface.  Moving from Win98
and 2000 to KDE I was blown away by how good it looked.

Quote:> toolkit on which it is based is a good toolkit, more and more interesting
> qt or kde applications are available. For example the Koffice suite, which
> was a year ago a pile of crap, is now something which does not crash each
> minute, even if it is still basically unusable for real work. In this domain
> you need to know the existence of good products, abiword (a word clone) and
> gnumeric (the gnome spreadsheet) which at present are far superior to
> Koffice components. On the browser front, Konqueror has progressed much.

I use OpenOffice when I need an office suite, mostly because I'm very
familiar with a suite from a certain large corporation.  But mostly I
use HTML for simple documents and LyX for some stuff.  I did find kWord
to be quite usable.  My one beef was that it would change the number of
pages the document takes up depending on the zoom you were using.

Quote:> It used to crash a lot, now it is quite stable, and fast. You know that Apple
> has chosen the Konqueror html engine for Mac OS X, hence one can expect this
> engine will come out fully debugged and with extensive functionalities (they
> contribute back their patches). The traditional argument against KDE is the
> general slowness due to the dynamic linking of tons of virtual functions.
> Clearly this problem has been considerably alleviated with the present version
> of KDE3. I am here using it on a Celeron 400 machine, and it is reasonably
> fast, much faster than KDE2 was. Since i suppose most people now have

I agree, I noticed a vast improvement overall with KDE3 over KDE2.

Quote:>> 1 Ghz machines with > 256 Megs memory, this question is a moot point, in my
> opinion. In fact i have run KDE2 on this same machine when it had only 64 Megs
> memory, and it was not so terrible.

I agree with that too.  I guess to summarize, I'd just like to say that
my recommendation should not have been interpereted as anti-KDE, or anti-
gnome, just another option that the OP might not have considered.

Quote:>> Anyone got anyother favourites? If so please tell so I can have a look at them
>> too and then make my mind up. (I'm looking for max stability and minimum
>> resources)

>> Cheers
>> Trom

--
Stephen Paskaluk
4th Year Computer Engineering
University of Alberta

This still might be confusing the newbies, because you're comparing a
window manager (Fluxbox) to a desktop environment (KDE), which also
happens to include a window manager (kwm?).  I don't think it's always
apparent to newbies that they can use a lightweight window manager
while still taking advantage of all the KDE and Gnome apps out there.

I've been running WindowMaker for my window manager for a while.  I
also run Galeon, a Gnome-based web browser.  A couple of the games
I've installed are KDE-based.  Some applications appear to be built on
older desktop environments, like Motif or Athena widgets.  I could
also run all these apps in any other window manager.

So if I've got a point here, it's that folks with slower machines
shouldn't be afraid to install the big DEs like Gnome and KDE.  If you
find that their window managers, with all their extra features, are
too much for your machine, you can certainly switch to a lighter one.

--
Aaron

Quote:

>This still might be confusing the newbies, because you're comparing a
>window manager (Fluxbox) to a desktop environment (KDE), which also
>happens to include a window manager (kwm?).  I don't think it's always
>apparent to newbies that they can use a lightweight window manager
>while still taking advantage of all the KDE and Gnome apps out there.

Firstly thanks to all who replied.

Secondly you were right, when I tried KDE my machine just went ga ga (i guess
it just doesn't have to resources - I'm using a v old one just to learn on).
When I tried a couple of window managers they seemed to work ok (I say seemed
to cos I'm still trying them out - they all seem to be similar - i think based
on BlackBox)

To be honest I much prefer the window manager style of things than I do the KDE
(i'm picking on KDE cos I used it on a friends linux - have never used Gnome).
Still got a lot of playing to do but I really do prefer window managers.

You say that you can still take advantage of KDE and Gnome apps - how easy is
this. I mean do I have to jump through hoops to get them to work or is it
straight forward? I'm thinking mainly of KDevelop but also any of the other
apps.

Thanks all once again
Trom

quoting words of JohnTromaville:

Quote:> You say that you can still take advantage of KDE and Gnome apps - how
> easy is this. I mean do I have to jump through hoops to get them to
> work or is it straight forward? I'm thinking mainly of KDevelop but
> also any of the other apps.

If you've KDE installed you can run separate progs (like kmail or
whatever) as easy as any other program. Just "call" it to run in the
window manager of your choise. I use fvwm f.i.

--
* -- http://www.veryComputer.com/: F86289CE
++ Running FreeBSD 4.7 ++ Debian GNU/Linux (Woody)

You're always using a window manager when you use X.  The Gnome and
KDE packages include window managers, which is where it can get a
little confusing.  

Quote:> You say that you can still take advantage of KDE and Gnome apps -
> how easy is this. I mean do I have to jump through hoops to get them
> to work or is it straight forward? I'm thinking mainly of KDevelop
> but also any of the other apps.

You just run them.  They've been compiled against that desktop
environment's libraries, which will be used within that application.
In the FreeBSD ports tree, if you install something that needs Gnome
or KDE, and you don't already have that DE installed, it'll be
installed for you.  But that doesn't change your window manager.

There's a non-obvious separation between what WMs and DEs do.  Put
simply, a window manager is a program that manages the windows on your
desktop.  That means it controls where they go, how they layer on top
of each other, how you move and control them, and what borders they
might have.  Some window managers also add extra features like docks,
toolbars, menus, and other things.  But everything your WM does
happens 'outside' your applications.  If I switch from windowmaker to
fvwm, my apps themselves will all look exactly the same, but the
borders and title bars may change, and the methods for iconifying and
moving them around may change.

A DE, on the other hand, is a set of libraries and an API for building
graphical applications.  Let's say you want to design a web browser.
You could design all your own graphics and menu functions and
scrollbars and so on, or you can use a DE that already provides those
things ready-made.  That allows you to say, "Create a File menu, with
New, Open, and Quit options, which call these routines.  Stick a
scrollbar on the right side."  The DE libraries provide a defined way
to do those things.  So if you design your browser using Gnome, it'll
have a different look than if you use KDE, or Athena widgets, of
LessTif, or some other DE.  

Newer DEs like Gnome and KDE go further than just offering graphical
routines, providing sound routines and other libraries.  But all these
things effect what happens within the application, or 'inside' the
window, if you will.

--
Aaron

You can start any KDE application (provided you have installed the KDE
packages of course) even when running say under windowmaker. The problem is
that as soon as you start such an application, it will fire up the whole KDE
suite in background, it will load the KDE and qt libs, run DCOP so you will
lose all the benefit of using a lightweight window manager. If you intend to
run regularly such applications, i don't see any reason not to run the KDE
window manager and task bar, which at least have definite usability advantages
over what windowmaker or icewm offer, in my opinion. If you intend to run
mozilla regularly, then KDE is of no use, and mozilla will be happy enough to
occupy all your memory and processing power :-)
Indeed on small machines one has to be careful to run lightweight window
manager and lightweight applications, for example links -g as browser.

Quote:> Thanks all once again
> Trom

--
Michel Talon