Why Gnome?

A 5 star hangout for overworked and underpaid system admins.
voltrem
Posts: 30
Joined: 2007/03/31 14:37:10
Location: Turkey/Ankara

Why Gnome?

Post by voltrem » 2008/05/03 19:39:17

I wonder why the developers chose Gnome as the default desktop manager for CentOS. I like KDE much more for the reasons that you probably know. And also you might wanna have a look at these:
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS8745257437.html
http://www.desktoplinux.com/cgi-bin/board/UltraBoard.pl?Action=ShowPost&Board=talkbacks&Post=391

scottro
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2434
Joined: 2007/09/03 21:18:09
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Why Gnome?

Post by scottro » 2008/05/03 21:05:39

My own question is similar. I do wonder why a server oriented O/S would choose Gnome (or KDE) and why would it be so heavily GUI oriented in the first place?

It probably goes back to the good old days, whatever those were, and inertia is a powerful force.
I should probably point out that I'm *really * not trying to be a troll here, it is something I frequently wonder.

User avatar
toracat
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7413
Joined: 2006/09/03 16:37:24
Location: California, US
Contact:

Re: Why Gnome?

Post by toracat » 2008/05/03 22:07:25

[quote]
voltrem wrote:
I wonder why the developers chose Gnome as the default desktop manager for CentOS. I like KDE much more for the reasons that [/quote]
Regarding gnome versus KDE, this is not CentOS developers' decision but upstream's. Perhaps, it is necessary to go through the history of the redhat development to find out why they chose gnome as the default. But it is also true that there are many people who prefer gnome over KDE...

[quote]
scottro wrote:
My own question is similar. I do wonder why a server oriented O/S would choose Gnome (or KDE) and why would it be so heavily GUI oriented in the first place?
[/quote]
At least no-GUI install of CentOS is possible, so this may not be bad. That is, server admins can choose to not install X. Then, for those wanting GUI, yes, it would be nice if a lightweight desktop is offered at the install time.

voltrem
Posts: 30
Joined: 2007/03/31 14:37:10
Location: Turkey/Ankara

Re: Why Gnome?

Post by voltrem » 2008/05/03 23:20:44

[quote]
toracat wrote:
But it is also true that there are many people who prefer gnome over KDE...
[/quote]

I just wonder, do you have statistics on that? Because I really doubt which one is preferred more. By the way, my personal choice is KDE. It would be nice if we made a pool about that in the forum

scottro
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2434
Joined: 2007/09/03 21:18:09
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Why Gnome?

Post by scottro » 2008/05/03 23:30:31

Statistics aren't really an issue here. I see your point, but as toracat points out, it's an upstream RedHat issue. So you'd have to take it up with them.


Although an X-less install is possible, it's difficult in some ways as so many rpms have various X related dependencies. CentOS and its upstream people have a lot of things connected with Gnome. For example, if you choose to install package X during install, even if you've unchecked Gnome, it gets installed.

Fedora, being more desktop oriented, is even more Gnome-centric--at this point, it's almost impossible, for example, to not install consolekit which is a Gnome thing. Sound, for example, may not work without it.

It's an upstream design decision, and I guess it works for them--still, it wouldn't surprise me if most of their clients tend to avoid the GUI server tools. .

User avatar
toracat
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7413
Joined: 2006/09/03 16:37:24
Location: California, US
Contact:

Re: Why Gnome?

Post by toracat » 2008/05/03 23:34:34

If someone is interested in statistics, this site may provide some info:

http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/kde-or-gnome-or

Looks like, currently:

gnome 45%
KDE 35%

User avatar
WhatsHisName
Posts: 1546
Joined: 2005/12/19 20:21:43
Location: /earth/usa/nj

Why Gnome?

Post by WhatsHisName » 2008/05/04 01:58:37

From my point of view, the history of gnome being "redhat-preferred" over kde has a lot to do with resource usage and more recently, it's a momentum issue.

Historically, meaning up to about 2004, kde was a resource pig compared to gnome and taxed the typical 3 to 4-year-old systems of that era. I remember the first time I fired up Suse/kde on a 500MHz P3, I thought the system had locked up.

By comparison to kde of the time, gnome was almost a lightweight desktop, but unfortunately, gnome did not impart a very positive user experience. Gnome had some really rough spots that have been fixed over time.

On modern systems, the user no longer senses a difference in system load when running gnome vs. kde. In the good olde days, you sat there wondering if kde was ever going to finish its startup and let you actually do something.

mgbowman
Posts: 1
Joined: 2008/12/22 10:58:26

Re: Why Gnome?

Post by mgbowman » 2008/12/22 11:14:07

Just my 2 cents, but I do believe the main reason upstream has chosen Gnome over KDE is simple - GTK (backbone of Gnome) is licensed under the [b]L[/b]GPL (keyword "lesser") and Qt Open Source (backbone of KDE) is licensed under the GPL. Simply put, with KDE you cannot develop a closed source application without purchasing a commercial license for Qt. However, with GTK you are free to do so without purchasing any such license. I'm sure upstream's vendors simply appreciate (and prefer) this (as do I).

--mgbowman

marek158
Posts: 114
Joined: 2008/08/12 11:32:43

Re: Why Gnome?

Post by marek158 » 2009/02/02 15:11:18

Hmm, I remember in "good ole days" RH used Enlightement R16 as their default GUI. Compared to that, Gnome (still) runs like a slug. Dunno why they dropped it (E development too slow, not enough Windows-like..?), it was my environment of choice till my (then) girlfriend pushed me to abandon it (I can't see any "Start" buttons here!) in favor of KDE.

heiden98
Posts: 7
Joined: 2006/02/03 09:59:40
Location: Wendland, Germany

Re: Why Gnome?

Post by heiden98 » 2009/03/01 05:57:39

[quote]
mgbowman wrote:
Just my 2 cents, but I do believe the main reason upstream has chosen Gnome over KDE is simple - GTK (backbone of Gnome) is licensed under the [b]L[/b]GPL (keyword "lesser") and Qt Open Source (backbone of KDE) is licensed under the GPL. Simply put, with KDE you cannot develop a closed source application without purchasing a commercial license for Qt. However, with GTK you are free to do so without purchasing any such license. I'm sure upstream's vendors simply appreciate (and prefer) this (as do I).

--mgbowman[/quote]

Almost, but not quite. At the time KDE appeared, QT was still privately licensed (Trolltech?), albeit quite "open". RH made a big fuss of not wanting to invest in non-GPLd code and started to develop what later was merged into Gnome. SuSE didn't have those qualms (probably being German as KDE was then) and so, for a while, the choice between S and RH was also a choice between KDE and the other desktops. As Gnome became a product I preferred to use it (KDE was so Windowish, yuk!), but soon went back to ole' fvwm, because I found configuring it to my liking much easier, and it left me more memory to do some work. Later they broke compatibility too often and since I was then using Mandrake, I replaced it with .... KDE.
S**t happens :-) .

BTW, I sure hope we will be spared KDE 4.x (or have a choice to use 3.x) for a loong time. What I saw makes me want to go back to fvwm!

-gh

Post Reply

Return to “CentOS Social”