Lan Barnes wrote:
I've always done the RH default install simply because I'm not that
interested in GUI controversies or trying to have the coolest set-up in
the known universe. And since I've done that, I have a lot of practical
knowledge in Gnome that I am loath to give up by switching. Lazy.
In contrast, I used Gnome exclusively from the first time I installed
Redhat. I actually preferred a combination of Gnome and Enlightenment.
When E and Gnome started clashing to the extent that they broke each
other, I kicked E and ran Gnome in combination with Sawfish.
At the time, I thought KDE to be to esoteric and confusing in many ways.
Of course, we all know that different is, by definition, worse than what
we already know.
Then Redhat dropped Sawfish while at the same time Gnome started
crippling the configurability of their interface. When Gnome became (as
it is now) less usefully configurable than Windows, I tried KDE, and
have stuck with it - although I do occasionally switch to Gnome for very
short trials. I like to pretend to be fair.
I don't like being treated like an idiot, but if simplicity works, I
appreciate it. Most of the RH/Gnome GUI utilities work fine, and none
prevent me from going to a lower level when I want to.
For me it's not about simplicity or complexity, it's about being allowed
to choose either extreme or anywhere in between. Gnome just doesn't
allow that anymore. KDE does.
That Gnome might have some secret, esoteric hidden strings which might
be accessible to the Gnome-enlightened is only evidence that it's less
useful than it might be.
While KDE does have impressive and extensive user-accessible
configurability, there is nothing requiring the user to make use of
every bit of it. But it's there if needed.
The only thing I miss is Gnome's Drawers, but then they too often
disappeared and had to be rebuilt anyway. I've since learned that by
using the Run Command applet, I don't really need but two or three app
icons anyway.
The shortfall I have right now comes from (1) my ignorance of DVD
issues, and (2) my using an old (but beloved) burning front end that is
neither Gnome nor KDE. I think if I knew what I was doing, I'd be able
to make old-but-beloved work.
Which is neither here nor there as far as desktop managers go.
Especially since it seems most if not all such tools use the same
backend anyway.
I think Linus is a great man with strong opinions that I don't always
share. Come to think of it, that's the exact way I feel about Richard
Stallman! Ain't it nice to be able to admire people without having to
agree with everything they say ;-) ?
In this case, after having followed the thread, I have to side with
Linus on this one. Simplicity and flexibility are two different, yet
un-opposing concepts. Gnome has sacrificed flexibility, and thus a more
universal appeal, by imposing simplicity and elegance as opposed to
functionality and flexibility as its guiding principles.
But then user interface design is, despite the millions of dollars
devoted to demonstrate otherwise, an art, and not a science. A good user
interface is the one preferred by the designer, and if he's lucky (or
really good), by others as well. Good design has no universally accepted
definition: there's no accounting for taste. The KDE team seems to
accept this, the Gnome team seems to ignore it.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
