LinuxWorld: KDE 3.1 vs. GNOME 2.2: How GNOME became LAME
Mar 04, 2003, 02:00 (51 Talkback[s])
(Other stories by Nicholas Petreley)
"Judging from the comments about my article last week, many
readers seem to have missed the point. I used installation
experience to draw attention to both the negative and positive
consequences of the different designs in GNOME and KDE.
"What should have tipped off most readers is the fact that the
very things I complained about--the GNOME approach of scattering of
configuration files, the imitation of the Windows registry, the
inconsistency of the user interface, the lack of features in the
user interface, the lack of features in Nautilus, etc.--have
nothing to do with GNOME on Debian. Unless Debian alone has a
special 'crippled design' version of GNOME 2.2 that is based on an
entirely different framework than GNOME 2.2 for every other
distribution, then the issues I raised apply whether your
installation of GNOME goes perfectly or not.
"Since so many people seem to have missed the point, allow me to
elaborate on one of the core issues this week. One of my readers
identified the problem with GNOME best when he said that GNOME is a
Franken-GUI, cobbled together from disparate pieces..."
LinuxWorld: A Brief Comparison of KDE 3.1 & GNOME 2.2(Feb