This is going to be based not on which is better, but on which WM is the default on the most distros. Remember lots of users (particularly new users) don't change their WM from whatever the default for their distro is.

These are both very bad. If you want to get the feel of a light and nice desktop without much learning curve, then try xfce4. It has the ease of use of desktops (menu bars, easy config) and the lightness of a WM. After that you can find many nice WMs you will like.

Sorry, exactly what is 'bad' about that?

Sorry, what?

You said both are bad and he is asking why you think they are bad.

Thanks, man. I was just kidding him a little because after reading his sig (which is more like a novel) I would have thought he would have phrased his question "mo bettah!"

KDE and GNOME are both bad choices because Linux is not about being a Windows replacement. Yes, Linux can certainly supplant Win in the majority of cases. But it's better to consider it on its own terms. To do that, using something like xfce is a good start. It can give you a good feeling for the responsiveness and flexibility of Linux without the burden of bloated desktops like KDE (which seems like it tries to do battle with Win all by itself.)

GNOME is lighter, but ugly as hell. I'm sorry, there just isn't any polite way to say it.

Anyway, give Linux a chance by taking it on its own terms- xfce is a good middle ground. After that, as I said, there are many WMs to explore which are lighter and faster yet.

I'd say, to get anything done you use either KDE or Gnome.

KDE is very configureable but quite slow and bloated. Too many space-wasting buttons and applications for that matter. For example there are about 3 multimedia players, none of which compareable to any decent media player on Windows (Zoomplayer/MPC/VLC) functionality-wise. Kate/Kwrite offer the best syntax highlighting I have ever seen.

Gnome is a lot faster then KDE, especially the last release (2.14). Very clean and pleasant interface. Compared to Gnome KDE looks like poop (obviously an opinion). But not as configureable and thus offers less functionality in some areas compared to KDE. But like I said, a lot of that is bloaty redundant anyway. It takes a lot too slow Gnome down whereas KDE will assume snail speed when running more then four applications (maybe a tad cynical). I must say though that gedit sucks balls as does any other Gnome code/script editor. Gnome has Totem to handle multimedia content and I must say, despite the lack of options, it's the finest damn video player out there.

I'm actually waiting for e17, it's looking good though not yet a full DE.

As for Fluxbox and other WMs I just don't see the point. I would rather use plain commandline then any of those.

I my self prefer gnome, but purly because its much easier to make it look how I want it to, i dotn ahve to worry about compiling kwin style and what not, its a simple one file works on all gnome systems.

In terms of usability and ease opf use I do not see any difference, both gnome an kde are making great strides on the usability front and to the average user both are exactly the same to sue interms of difficulty, the hardest bit is realising that little features are not present in one that are in another e.g. pressing f4 in kde on a directoy in konquer will open a terminal automaticly in that directory and things like that.

Another thing is altering the menu list. In kde its easy you right clikc on the k and your away, with gnoem its more difficult as the files are spread across the system, tools liek alacarte can let you do it easily though

My advice would be take a look round various sites wth screenshots of the two and see which you like the look of. In my view both are equal until you get to support for diabilities, kde seems to have better support for people with disabilities e.g. poor eye sight and things, i dont know about hard of hearing or anything though.

Michael

The benefit of Fluxbox/blackbox/icewm etc is that you can set them up to look and act pretty much exactly how you like it. You can have an empty screen with nothing on it but wallpaper...you can have menus with exactly what you want, how you want it, and nothing more...you can get instantaneous response from the WM instead of KDE's frustrating "bouncing ball of bloat"...and you get much more flexibility in the look and feel.

The "problem" with those WMs is like anything else- it takes some time and effort to get them to do what you want (which is why I think xfce is a great middle ground between the bloatware of KDE and to a lesser extent, gnome) and the high-performance minimalist WMs. After that when you know what you want, those minimalist WMs (and many others we didn't mention) are really sweet.

I do use the command line, a lot. But sometimes it's nice to have eye candy and performance at the same time, and they're not mutually-exclusive. For example, you could set up a very cool desktop using Fluxbox/blackbox etc with nothing on it and have all your menus contoured as you like. Or you could install ROX and have icons on your desktop, just like gnome and KDE but about a million times faster and more responsive. I just open a terminal and do what I want, just because I'm running in *box doesn't mean I don't use the command line. But I get to have my terminal windows how I want, backgrounds, transparency, etc and have other windows open at the same time while not trading off any visible performance to just having a console with no X.

It's just another advantage of *NIX to have many choices.

KDE is highly configurable and you can make it look whichever way you want, strip it of icons, panels etc and remain with just wallpaper. As for the bouncing ball and other features, they can be switched of using kpersonalizer or kcontrol. Other applications can be configured on an individial level for things such as transparency.

Personally I don't see KDE and GNOME as bloatware, they provide a lot of features, applications and integration that you do not get in minimalist WMs. KDE and GNOME have also vastly improved their DEs and latest versions are quite snappy. With modern computing power, it seems like the choice between a full DE and a minimalist WM is now more of personal choice than lack of system resources.

And I thought you preferred Blackbox

Nope I prefer Fluxbox.