Why are the corporates so antiKDE 7330

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:24:45 -0500, Jean-David Beyer

I suspect you're right, and Gnome certainly seems the more 'visible' of the two, probably largely due to RedHat's adoption and pushing of it several years ago.

Historically I used to like KDE much better as Gnome was the more bloated of the two and used to get in a horrible mess when trying to run Gnome apps remotely (the split of what config settings should be queried on the server and what ones queried on the client didn't seem to have been thought about properly).

It's interesting the comment made about KDE now being the bloated one and Gnome being a lot leaner - if the Gnome designers have got the concepts of working in an environment where the display isn't always on the same machine as the application host worked out then maybe it's time for me to have another look at it...

Of course in the past both environments seem way too bloated - or rather they aren't configurable enough at install time and need a lot of tuning post-install to remove features that users don't need (which is easier said than done given all the inter-dependencies). Hopefully that's something that has been addressed - I suspect that a lot of users just want a decent coherent desktop environment, but not a million extra utilities or lots of code bloat through providing extra eye candy. Traditional window managers probably aren't featured enough for most users, but both Gnome and KDE seemed to suffer from being *too* featured...

cheers

Jules