gnome since 2.x, consistent, simple and customizable
very interested in cosmic
this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
130 points (93.9% liked)
Linux
48542 readers
1360 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
Check Bodhi Linux's Moksha Desktop. Pretty lightweight and does work
I love GNOME and the way you just open everything in a full screen window and just switch workspaces easily.
I find it so much better than just switching windows the way I have to do on Windows 10 at work.
I might be tempted to try to have the same workflow on KDE one day as personnalisation might a bit too limited on GNOME. Does anyone know if you can do it?
I had a similar workflow with maximized screens residing on different workspaces. KDE Plasma also have window rules which you can set on a per-program/application or a per-window basis (for example, main window for a program goes fullscreen into one monitor, in a workspace you specify, and the tools window opens in a different monitor in the same workspace you specify).
Is it something enabled by default or are you forced to go through a lot of customization to arrive to this result?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Good question, but you should definitely install both and try them out! Just in case you didn't know since you're new to Linux, you can install as many desktop environments as you want. You pick the one to use at the login screen. All your programs and files will still be there.
To answer your question: I prefer Gnome because I find it simpler and less distracting, but I've since moved to i3, then Sway, and now Hyprland.
I did not know that I could install more then one and pick that easy, that’s really good to know. I figured if I installed more than one there’d be conflicts or something but that’s really nice I’ll have to do some experimenting. Thanks for mentioning that!
You can install both but it can get a but messy in menus with 2 settings apps and 2 versions of lots basic apps all over the place. It can be cleaned up but it can be a bit frustrating to do.
You may be better trying them both out with live images on USB sticks or a virtual environment like virtualbox. Both are relatively easy to set up without making any major change to your current pc.
You could just do a live install on a USB, and you don't even have to install to your machine to try it out. Debian has live installs available for both KDE and Gnome and should be perfectly fine for just checking out the DE (and most distros have a live option, check to see if your preferred distro does), just know that it will be slow and you won't see that in a proper installation.
Edit: just saw further down thread, Mint can do a live USB but you'll probably just want Cinnamon with that. Bazzite does not have a live boot, and from my cursory glance at possibly running both DEs it seemed to be a bit more of a headache on Bazzite than other distros. Trying Gnome on a Debian live install will at least tell you if you like Gnome.
I prefer GNOME on my Microsoft Surface because I fine it much better than KDE for touchscreens. And GNOME's dynamic workspaces are amazing to use for my screen.
I prefer KDE on my desktop and laptop. Highly customizable and works great. I wish it natively had dynamic workspaces though
KDE, mostly as that is what I first used in 2000 in Mandrake. in saying that my laptop is a M2 mac with macos on it
Started with gnome but stuck with KDE. Gnome just kept frustrating me and I had to do things their way or not at all.
I use KDE as I can set it up just how I like it. I never got on with Gnome at all. The truth of it is that the only way to know if you prefer Gnome to KDE is to give it a good try out. Don't forget Cinnamon, Xfce, and Mate also!
I'm using Cinnamon, I find it better when using a customized Cinnamenu applet (instead of the default app launcher).
I prefer Gnome's user experience and polish.
KDE certainly has more options and customization, but Gnome always looks great and just has a workflow that I prefer.
I recommend GNOME from a purely security perspective. Currently, "GNOME is the only desktop that secures privileged wayland protocols like screencopy." It also has a nice permission system for (dis)allowing microphone, camera, and location access. I wish the developers were more open to encouraging customization of the certain GUI elements, like KDE. KDE Plasma does not protect against screen capture, though it is on their radar.
it's ok. I don't need protection from myself.
While this is true, if your pc is secure and you don't install crap then this is not going to be a major issue for the vast majority of people. Both desktops have their own security flaws but always the number one flaw is the user.
Keep systems up to date, do not side load software from outside well managed official package systems, use strong passwords, use encryption etc. This counts for far more than the various security flaws and fixes that constantly come and go with any system. If you don't give bad actors a route into your system to exploit flaws then you are generally OK.
Like the screen copy flaw would need someone installing software that would exploit that - possible but unlikely in a well managed environment with a good robust distro.
And it's worth saying that generally Linux remains less targeted than Windows and Mac for malware. That does not mean people should then be lax in their behaviour but it's a better starting point for being secure if you look after your Linux install properly.
The weakest link of any secured system is the user. I know that will never change, especially as computers/software become more complicated over time. But I don't understand why many people argue that "since the user is the weakest link, we don't need more secure systems, we need better users." We need both.
Explaination
For anyone who suggests that a user can "just be smarter and not install malware" think about this: do you check read all the commits to the software you install, for each update, and then compile from source. The answers is no. And I don't think we should need to.
Linux is not secure, it is still meant for tinkerers and by design is very open. This is one of my favorite aspects of Linux, just how open it is. The result though is an insecure system with many attack vectors that are hard to protect against.
For example, I recently wanted to patch a game for mod support. This required me to run a script that i didnt fully understand. I did my best to read it and nothing looked suspicious, but I couldn't fully understand because I am not a modder for that game.
This script could have done a number of things:
- Added a fake sudo script to the path in the user's home resulting in privilege escalation.
- Created a user Systemd service that logs everything added to the clipboard or keylog, since that is also possible on Wayland with an LD_PRELOAD attack.
- Create a Systemd service that records the screen to grab passwords.
- Edit the user's .bashrc file.
- Delete/encrypt every file owned by the user.
- Read and exfiltrate all app data from the $HOME
- Or a combination of multiple other things.
The solution is sandboxing, permission system, secure defaults, and transparency to the user. And of course a way to disable security checks for tinkerers.
My point is that the perfect user does not exist. We (inevitably) use our computers to do all sorts of niche things, the perfect user does not even turn their PC on.
I tried a lot of desktop environments and I think KDE is the best one, games runs much better than GNOME while the desktop is so smart and many features... I really tried so hard GNOME but the UI sucks, it is slower running games, there are missing options very important for me that KDE has, so for me GNOME is a NO for working/gaming purposes.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I used Gnome on my desktop and it was great! But after a while I just wanted to try something else, so I switched to KDE on my desktop and laptop which is also great. I technically have both installed but I mainly just use KDE plasma. I also recently switched to Wayland. For me at least both are equally good buy in different ways.
Yes
Plasma on the desktop with the 40" 4K screen with lotsa windows and desktops. Gnome on the laptop, each app full-screen and swipe left-right to switch between them.
load more comments
(6 replies)
I use KDE Plasma on my desktop and GNOME on my laptop — though, by my experience, GNOME has been mildly annoying. I just find it too "restrictive" when compared with KDE. I'm also not super fond of how some apps seem to integrate rather poorly with GNOME. I do think that GNOME's interface works well with a laptop, but the UX hasn't been the best for me. I have few, if any, complaints regarding KDE.
I don't really like Gnome as I like to tinker with everything, so I use KDE. I also have a laptop with Cinnamon, which is also pretty good.
Both KDE and GNOME are good DEs (and there are many other great ones, and you don't even need to use a DE; a mismash of applications with your compositor of choice works just aswell - but I digress), you can't really go wrong with either.
For someone new to Linux, I would likely recommend GNOME, because it is more opinionated. While KDE is a lot more configurable, that also has a huge downside: configuration fatigue. GNOME is more restrictive, yes, but that has the advantage of not overwhelming you right out of the box.
If you like and wish to tinker, though, go with KDE. If you want to gently ease into Linux, go with GNOME first, and once you're comfortable, you can still experiment with KDE. You can install both, and switch between them simply by logging out of one and into the other.
Gnome on my work notebook, KDE Plasma on my own machines. I like KDE Plasma better overall but Gnome was a little bit more stable for me so far. I don't mind UI differences that much, I'm not very much reliant on the GUI and can deal with pretty much any UI paradigm.
@[email protected] KDE is more customizable and supports more things where as Gnome tries to keep things simple and cohesive in its theme. Ex: Gnome currently has some issues with supporting things like VR but that should be fixed soon. Both work well and have the option of including a suite of useful "default" apps (with KDE pushing the bounds of default). Comes down to what you like. FWIW I use KDE.