KDE vs. GNOME session management

[tmetro-blu-5a1Jt6qxUNc at public.gmane.org (Tom Metro)]

Dan Ritter wrote:
> ...part of the Rox desktop...

Do you use the Rox desktop?

I've seen a bunch of non-GNOME or KDE desktops mentioned, and some sound
interesting, but few sound compelling enough to justify "swimming
against the tide" - which inevitably happens when you chose a platform
that only a small minority use. They seem like a better fit for special
circumstances, like low-end hardware.

One GNOME/KDE review I read mentioned an alternate desktop that had a
name like E17 with the compelling feature that you could independently
switch virtual desktops on each of the physical monitors attached to the
machine. Seems like a logical way to arrange things, and I'm surprised
both GNOME and KDE (according to the author) span virtual desktops
across both monitors.


Scott R. Ehrlich wrote:
> I once experimented with switching from GNOME as my established desktop
> to KDE.  I discovered the various documents I had on my GNOME desktop
> did not transfer over to KDE.

I've read that KDE doesn't treat the desktop as a part of the file
system, unlike most other desktops. I think Mark Woodward mentioned this
a little while ago.


> Also, various menu items, as I recall, seemed to have been either
> relocated to nonobvious places or just not there.

I'd say it was coincidental that anything carried over at all. I'm not
aware of either environment making any attempt to import settings from
the other.


> The thought then occurred to me - why can't there be a simple
> mechanism to permit, effectively, a seemless transition between the
> two, apparently most popular, window managers?

Sounds like a reasonable idea.


> This would, or could, be the equivalent of skins, or desktop themes.
> You place a new theme (i.e. new Windows XP vs old "classic") - some
> basics look different, but your environment hasn't fundametally changed.

Switching between the two desktop managers is like switching skins?
Really, if that were true, there wouldn't be much point in persisting
with two different desktops. You'd just turn one into a theme and merge.

While aesthetics do distinguish the two desktops, given a little bit of
effort, you should be able to reproduce a look from one in the other.
(With the exception that apparently some KDE apps don't adopt the
appearance of the user set theme as well as they should.)

The real differentiator should be the non-aesthetic behaviors of the two
desktops. This often gets blurred with the behaviors of the bundled
applications, which seems less relevant now that you can mix and match
apps between the two desktops. What remains has the feel of "vendor
lock-in" where certain apps only offer their full complement of features
(like session management, for instance) when used with their native desktop.

I agree with those that say that a bit of competition in the free 
desktop area is good, but when it comes to the bundled apps, I'd wish a 
bit more effort was put into developing and adhering to freedesktop.org 
standards, rather than developing redundant applications that are 
tightly integrated to a specific desktop.

  -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/