147
Fedora 40 boasts more spins and flavors than ever
(www.theregister.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
147 points (94.5% liked)
Linux
48180 readers
793 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Tbh I am fully behind KDE as flagship desktop. Dealing with GNOME users problems all day in the forum, KDE is just better for usability?
GNOME is reduced over the amount that makes sense. KDE could use a bit of reduction, but not as much as GNOMEs. People need the Terminal or random extensions for basic things, this is not a good experience.
On the other hand, GNOME and KDE both have really nice features, GNOME with their Microsoft integrations being particularly powerful (their account system works at all, unlike KDEs which I think nobody uses. But when using Thunderbird, which has standalone Exchange support, you dont use that account system anyways so it doesnt matter again).
Also GNOME has like all their apps on Flathub. GNOME Boxes is particularly crazy, having sandboxed virtualization. This means you can mix match GNOME Flatpaks on a KDE desktop without any problems, KDE even handles the theming for you. On GNOME on the other hand... it actively breaks Qt apps, its insane.
So I think GNOME has some great apps (snapshot, decoder, simplescan, carburetor, celluloid ...) but you can install them anywhere.
It seems not unimaginable that whichever is more popular (/the default) will have more people reporting problems in the forum, regardless of how good it is?
Yeah okay. I dont deny that I would also prefer maintaining and QA-ing GNOME over KDE, as its just so much smaller.
But stuff like "there are no right click options for zip" are pretty crazy. Or the total lack of templates by default, for stuff like text files.
GNOME looks better out of the box and configuring KDE can be very tricky. There are also a lot of outdated "addons" for KDE and you need some in order to get what you want. extensions are better integrsted in KDE but it's not like KDE has everything out of the box. I'd love to see more KDE support.
I think KDE looks great out of the box, includes all the extensions I want, and is easy to configure.
This is what people dont get. Different DEs best serve different people. We should always push to have a better experience but sniping between DEs makes no sense
That's good :)
True. KDEs virtual desktops are also basically unusable for me, idk I just dont see them so they are not used.
There are pros and cons. Its simply a tie, I stay with KDE because the lack of some things (like close buttons with the hitbox in the very edge) would annoy me.
This is my issue with KDE. Virtual Desktops are too unnecessarily convoluted to use. Even Alt-Tabbing is a pain if you have anything over 1 single workspace. I decided to daily drive KDE for a few months to give it a good chance, because before I would usually just go back to Gnome after a few days. It's been 2 months now, and I don't think I can take much more of it.
Their Plasma 6 overview is great, just needs the panel displayed or even an app menu and it could be similar to GNOME.
I actually tweaked it to be more "gnome-like", but the desktops are a hot mess. At the end of the day, it's a matter of taste, and I'm a huge fan of Gnome's simplicity.
I don't really get this but I'm going to assume it's that my workflow is just different than yours.
I have keyboard shortcuts I'm happy with that let me navigate my virtual desktops as desired and place widows on them. If I wasn't happy with those shortcuts I could change them. I can see having different preferences, or etc, but what makes it a hot mess exactly?
When I Alt-tab it always goes to the apps open on the next desktop, and never shows the apps on the current desktop. So, say I have Vivaldi and KWrite on desktop 1, and Brave and LibreOffice Calc on desktop 2.
If I'm on desktop 1 on Vivaldi and Alt-tab, it'll move to Desktop 2 and move between Brave and Calc, and but will never show anything from Desktop 1, until I release the Alt key and Alt-tab again.
Now, for me it's even worse since I have 3 Desktops instead of 2.
Have you dug into the options at all? If I'm visualizing what you are describing correctly, I think spending some time here should solve your issues.
edit - specifically the options in the lower right
Agree on the looks. Even though GNOME is literally a "no blur" macOS clone, which I also dont find really inspired
My father uses a mac and it is plenty different. Maybe the design philosophy of MacOS and GNOME are similar but the implementation is very different.
What is different? I think GNOME diverged a bit more, by removing window buttons, desktop icons, the dock etc. And they dont use blur and transparency at all.
But with dash to dock, blur my shell and some decoration manipulation changer it is very similar.
Not that I dont think this makes sense (I dont, as having a dock but also a top panel wastes space) but it is not really a unique workflow
Well the way the workspaces and the overview work is completely different which means that workflow is night and day different. Not to mention how the differences in how floating windows work, what role the top panel plays and things like that.
They might look similar just like how KDE 'looks' similar to windows but that is only true at the surface level. The way the desktops behave and hence the workflow is very different in each case
Okay that may be true. GNOME is very usable (with extensions), macos is hell
Removing window buttons ? the trio of buttons for controlling window size ? or is this something else
Yep. And removing the maximize button doesnt even make sense, apart from "looking better". Not everyone can easily double click I guess
but what. This is completely dumb. How do you do those actions then ?
Double click somewhere on the oversized titlebar
But there's 3 actions right ? is there a way to minimize and close too ? triple click ? that sounds so counter functional on paper. I guess I'd have to try it
There is a close button, thats it.
You wont believe me but minimize is not a thing as there is no panel or dock. You open stuff, move it somewhere else and you will never use a dock as a container, just as a quicklauncher.
I think that is fair, but it for sure forces many people to adapt their workflows.
I never understand the "Gnome is a MacOS clone" thing.
Other than a black bar at the top which has the time and a few system icons, what to they really have in common?
The workflow is entirely different, the dock is almost always hidden in Gnome, MacOS has no activities view, Gnome doesn't even use the icon in the top left as a start-menu.
Yes it is MacOS with the dock hidden. And without window buttons. And they are not on the left and not damn colorblind unfriendly.
I mean the top bar is the exact same, the app drawer, the workspaces. The quicksettings. They just removed even more stuff.
Edit: there are many things about them that are different, but the overall design seems similar to me. I think GNOME is way more usable and makes more sense. But still, having a top bar already is kinda odd and I think using that already makes you "macOS like".
No it isn't.
The top bar isn't the exact same, it's extremely different. Gnome doesn't use a global menu, doesn't have a start menu, doesn't have the clock on the right. The only similarity is the bar being at the top and containing stuff like WiFi and battery icons.
The window decorations are different. The UI looks different. Gnome doesn't have a permanent dock, doesn't have stuff on the desktop. Window management works in a very different way, MacOS doesn't have the activities view, etc.
They are not alike.
Nah Mac OS looks far more ugly than GNOME imo