3 ms·
> KDE has some nice features but under the shiny screenshot it's still a disorganised and inconsistent jumble. I'm not too deep into GNOME's architecture, but
by Sylos 8y ago
> KDE has some nice features but under the shiny screenshot it's still a disorganised and inconsistent jumble.
I'm not too deep into GNOME's architecture, but I don't see that at all.
KDE is the KF5 Frameworks on top of Qt on top of QML and C++. Desktop widgets, panel widgets etc. are all architecturally the same thing, "Plasmoids". Settings screens are all isolated and also architecturally the same thing, "KCMs".
On the other hand, GNOME is GTK on top of GObject on top of C, Vala, JS, Python, Rust and a few other languages still, because they still haven't really decided what they want to go with. The extensions are written in JavaScript, but run in the same process as the entire Shell, meaning that if anything locks up or just takes longer in an extension, then your Shell does the same.
I don't want to argue that GNOME is horrible in this aspect, but in my opinion KDE is better at it.
- petepete 8y agoYes, I agree that GNOME under the hood isn't the most sensible or consistent of designs. But 'over the hood' that's all hidden away, if you use it as-intended it works just fine. KDE/Plasma has a much better design and is built on more stable technologies, but there are just too many options and too much configuration.