|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:55 pm
skatcat31 At 2 above: that way you can run a full linux distro without killing your compy if you do something stupid. At above: You got player, you should have gotten server. Yea I know, I use it alot when I'm playing around with my system. The best way to know what you can and can not do is to try to break it every way you know how to xd PS This topic is off topic, we need to get back on the subject of GNOME and KDE or move the topic
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:49 am
Although virtualizing both KDE and Gnome runs very well ussually without lagging... (back on topic.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:49 am
both gnome and kde are good platforms but having them both (if you have the space) on your hard drive is even better some gnome apps work better than kde apps and some times the other way around. If you choose both you can decide which one you want to use
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:00 pm
I'm totaly for KDE because I had Gnome for like 1 month and it made me mad because I couldnt fix anything because I was to nobish biggrin now maybe I could use it a bit bether but not much.
I oprfer designe on KDE because it is more curved gnome is like boxes atleast the one I know (probably much bether looking now biggrin ).
But probably they both are cool and there must be some other that is even bether biggrin but I dont know it yet biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:57 pm
jmad980 both gnome and kde are good platforms but having them both (if you have the space) on your hard drive is even better some gnome apps work better than kde apps and some times the other way around. If you choose both you can decide which one you want to use You don't even need to install both, KDE can run GNOME apps, and i'm pretty sure GNOME can run KDE apps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:05 am
vendion jmad980 both gnome and kde are good platforms but having them both (if you have the space) on your hard drive is even better some gnome apps work better than kde apps and some times the other way around. If you choose both you can decide which one you want to use You don't even need to install both, KDE can run GNOME apps, and i'm pretty sure GNOME can run KDE apps. You need at minimum, Qt. You may, depending on how dependant the program is, need kdelibs, arts, and/or something else... Most apps work with just Qt...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:26 pm
PhaseBurn vendion jmad980 both gnome and kde are good platforms but having them both (if you have the space) on your hard drive is even better some gnome apps work better than kde apps and some times the other way around. If you choose both you can decide which one you want to use You don't even need to install both, KDE can run GNOME apps, and i'm pretty sure GNOME can run KDE apps. You need at minimum, Qt. You may, depending on how dependant the program is, need kdelibs, arts, and/or something else... Most apps work with just Qt... Oh well in that case all the more reason to run KDE! xd Just kidding, I respect GNOME and I know that it is very powerful desktop system
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:54 am
Making the huge difference between Kubuntu and Ubuntu? Do both have the ability to run Beryl???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 1:41 pm
Yes both KDE and GNOME can run Beryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm
vendion Yes both KDE and GNOME can run Beryl from what i have read, Kubuntu sounds more perfered than Ubutnu... the ONLY difference is Gnome and KDE?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 6:18 am
Basicly, and KDE is a little easier to learn because it is close to windows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:08 pm
vendion Basicly, and KDE is a little easier to learn because it is close to windows. then i will install Kubuntu instead of Ubuntu...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:02 pm
My only real thoughts between the two - Gnome no click anywhere menu system so either you have to go to the corner and click or setup a bunch of icons or whatever....
KDE - no icons small tool bars - and click anywhere menus - biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:55 pm
The one thing that makes me prefer KDE over Gnome is the click anywhere menu system - I can go anywhere with out having to click down in the corner like I would on Windows... for the menus...
Although I most prefer a different one that I had called Enlightenment - very clean desktop and could run both KDE and Gnome items.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:00 pm
Oddly enough, KDE's "Click anywhere menus" are not a function of KDE itself, but KDE's default window manager, kwm. Gnome's default window manager, "metashitty", is piss poor, and a pale shadow of what sawfish was (and still is). You can get "Click anywhere menus" in gnome quite simply by using a wm that supports it - including kwm. Sawfish doesn't support them by default but can be configured to do so with a simple lisp plugin/addon/extension/whatever-you-want-to-call-it-except-COM+...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
