I've been playing around.

George Peatty

On 7 Dec 2007 11:43:18 +0100, Mark South <mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

>So, did we ever definitively decide which is better, emacs or vi?

Such mystical, transcendental questions have no solution. It's like asking,
what is the value of pi?

Chris

Lionel B wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:19:52 +0000, Daniel James wrote:
>
>> In article news:<1197006806.24616.0@iris.uk.clara.net>, ChrisC wrote:
>>> Does any one notice that KDE is less stable than Gnome. I find Gnome
>>> crashes less and is a lot more solid.
>
> [...]
>
>> I find KDE has slightly more useful functionality than Gnome, but it
>> also has more complexity and more useLESS functionality. A trimmed-down,
>> leaner, KDE would be better than either.
>
> It's called xfce
>

XFCE is GTK+ based so is more a cut-down version of Gnome rather than
the QT-based KDE.

Chris

George Peatty wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2007 11:43:18 +0100, Mark South <mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:
>
>> So, did we ever definitively decide which is better, emacs or vi?
>
> Such mystical, transcendental questions have no solution. It's like asking,
> what is the value of pi?

That easy. It's three something

ray

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 05:53:26 +0000, ChrisC wrote:

> Does any one notice that KDE is less stable than Gnome. I find Gnome
> crashes less and is a lot more solid. This isn't Gnome Vs KDE debate,
> just an observation.

I had not noticed that - I've never had any issues like that with either
one.

ray

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:12:28 -0500, George Peatty wrote:

> On 7 Dec 2007 11:43:18 +0100, Mark South <mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:
>
>>So, did we ever definitively decide which is better, emacs or vi?
>
> Such mystical, transcendental questions have no solution. It's like asking,
> what is the value of pi?

3.141592653589+

Meat Plow

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 05:53:26 +0000, ChrisC wrote:

> Does any one notice that KDE is less stable than Gnome. I find Gnome
> crashes less and is a lot more solid. This isn't Gnome Vs KDE debate,
> just an observation.

Haven't noticed. I haven't had a crash in KDE 3.5.6 that I can remember.
I use gnome and qt apps also in kde.

ray

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 06:06:06 +0000, Bit Twister wrote:

> On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 05:53:26 +0000, ChrisC wrote:
>> Does any one notice that KDE is less stable than Gnome. I find Gnome
>> crashes less and is a lot more solid. This isn't Gnome Vs KDE debate,
>> just an observation.
>
> Change distributions. I run Mandriva Linux and yet to have a crash.
>
> I recommend you boot a rescue cd and run memtest overnight.

Good point - I would suspect hardware problems if either one has
significant problems. The only desktop I've ever had problems with was E17
about two years ago - and it's still under development.

Mark South

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:12:28 -0500, George Peatty wrote:

> On 7 Dec 2007 11:43:18 +0100, Mark South <mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:
>
>>So, did we ever definitively decide which is better, emacs or vi?
>
> Such mystical, transcendental questions have no solution. It's like asking,
> what is the value of pi?

355/113 :-)

If you need a better approximation, you're building very big things, or
taking the universe apart.

J.O. Aho

ChrisC wrote:
> Does any one notice that KDE is less stable than Gnome. I find Gnome
> crashes less and is a lot more solid. This isn't Gnome Vs KDE debate,
> just an observation.

First, I make an assumption that you mean Gnome2 when you write Gnome, IMHO
you shouldn't mix those products, a good environment with Miguel de Icaza in
charge and a product I would cal bloat ware, cpu hog by Havoc.


No, I haven't noticed that at all, and I use KDE 9-12 hours per working day at
work and at least the same amount at weekends at home out over the couple of
hours I use it when I get home from work.

I have noticed the slowness, instability and the feeling of bing a prisoner
like when using microsoft explorer environment.


I should say that I loved Miguel's Gnome, but that Havoc ruined the name...

--

//Aho

Hadron

ml2mst <> writes:

> ChrisC wrote:
>
>> just an observation.
>
> Or flamebait?
>
> I use both DE's on a regular base and neither of them frequently
> crash.

Hey marti, remember the last time you started throwing around unfounded
insults to posters here? Yes. You had to apologise. Unless you KNOW
someone is trolling then have the good decency to STFU. No one cares who
think is a troll or not. Save it for COLA.

To the OP - yes, I did indeed find KDE less stable than Gnome - but the
last time I tried it was over a year ago. I also found it generally
kludgier and over stuffed with useless features that personally I don't
need or want. Gnome does exactly want I want it to do - provide a clean
stable desktop from which I can select the applications I need to do
real work. A lot of people rave about Konqueror but frankly I hated it -
it is trying to be too many things to too many people.

And don't forget you can always use Gnome but still run your favourite
KDE apps too.

--
Remember: use logout to logout.