Do you use Gnome or KDE Plasma?
Do you use Gnome or KDE Plasma?
I'm relatively new to the linux space, I was introduced by the steam deck which uses kde, and it's pretty similar to windows in terms of how it works so that's the DE i'd be leaning towards when I eventually switch. I've never used gnome so i'm not sure if it'd be worth using I guess?
So I'm just looking for some input from the community, do you use Gnome or Plasma, why do you use it, and what's kind of like a pros and cons kinda thing between the two?
KDE Plasma. GNOME is nice but I like the customizability and the features of KDE Plasma.
after changing animation speed in KDE i have never managed to get back to gnome, holy cow does my computer feels responsive
Gnome is Snow Leopard OSX basically in attitude and experience, do NOT try to customize anything, go limp and do the experience. KDE is Windows 98, full of fun customizations, but unpolished in odd ways no matter what you do. Choose your fighter!
KDE is Windows 98, full of fun customizations, but unpolished in odd ways no matter what you do.
Absolutely perfect. And part of why I've grown to love it.
I agree, but I got hooked on Apple gestures from work. I'm like a cop who had to go undercover and got hooked on speed to operate
I like Plasma. It feels very modern and has an easy interface with lots of customization if wanted. It also supports Wayland and lots of HDR features. Overall it's a cutting edge DE
I haven’t been following the HDR news on Wayland lately, does this work across all Wayland compositors or just Plasma?
I don't know the details but my understanding is Plasma has a more developed HDR system than other DEs
XFCE fan here.
Agreed, especially if the point is to breathe life into old hardware.
It’s great for machines you’ll be using via VNC a lot, too.
I would agree but it still heavily relies/requires X11 for many of the core components and apps. Wayland support on the horizon. For now though I wouldn't recommend anyone use any DE that doesnt support Wayland, since X.Org is has been unmaintained for many years, it is a bloated protocol, and is insecure by design. This is because it was designed 40+ years ago in a time before security was a big concern to developers.
I use KDE. It's very powerful and flexible. While it can be windows like, you an also craft pretty much any GUI you like with it with relative ease. It can be Mac like or something unique, or even Gnome like if you really want that.
It's also intuitive and user friendly, with well made apps and a comprehensive settings menu.
I've found KDE to be reliable and stable, as well as attractive and customisable.
There are a lot of apps made for it - the only downside is software bloat if you install all of them. I'd start with the basics KDE desktop and add apps one by one rather than install the whole KDE app suite. Although the apps are usually excellent lots of the apps may not be useful to you personally . For example I don't like installing the PIM suite (email, contacts etc) as I don't use it - all that is online for me so I don't need the native apps.
I'm personally not a fan of Gnome. It's got a single rigid GUI philosophy which you can now expand with extensions but I find they can be hit and miss on whether they work or are stable, and time consuming to set up how you want.
So for gnome you either like it as is or you don't, and if you dont like it then honestly I'd say don't bother trying to make it be what you want - just use something more flexible.
But regardless of what desktop you use, Apps will work on either or any of the others available.
Gnome is my choice because it doesn't look and feel like it was designed in 2015. I also much prefer the workflow with the touchpad gestures. I used to have extensions but since I reset my PC and didn't install any apart from the one that shows my cpu temperature in the top bar.
I agree. I want the DE to be opinionated and lean toward heavily opinionated software in general.
Touchpad cringe
I use GNOME. KDE is nice in that it allows you to customize everything, but if I want that degree of control I'd rather use a fully customized window manager setup (sway is generally my go-to).
GNOME is also designed to be used in a keyboard-centric workflow, which I prefer. It's a nice comfy default for when I want the option to use my computer "lazily", i.e. just kicking back mostly using the mouse to browse the web, but still has enough power-user functionality to make zipping around without touching the mouse feel good.
I also just like their defaults a lot. If you start to install a bunch of third party extensions etc it starts to get messy and degrade the point of the whole unified vision, and at that point you're better off with KDE IMO.
It's also worth noting that I don't really like the default Mac OS UX -- while I can see why people say "KDE is like Windows, GNOME is like Mac," it's really only a surface level comparison that mostly ends at "KDE uses a taskbar and GNOME has a dock".
Gnome is so much more different, the closest comparison would be android but android is frankly a downgrade of gnome for me with how slow and clunky it is even with touch controls funnily enough
KDE... Mostly sane defaults out of the box and tons of customization options if there's anything you dont like.
Kde. I’d love to be able to give some erudite examples of why.
Alas, the default is clean and works for me. It stays out of the way.
KDE.
I use and love both. KDE (Bazzite) on my desktop gaming PC, and Gnome (Bluefin) on my laptop for casual stuff, mostly YouTube.
KDE is a bit better for gaming since it has HDR and VRR and is the standard DE on the Steam Deck. I tried Gnome too just a few days ago, but it felt inferior in regards of gaming and content creation.
Gnome on the other hand has a place reserved on my laptop aswell as in my heart. Especially the ultra smooth and well thought out touch gestures and minimalist UI makes it perfect for laptop usage.
For me personally, I prefer Gnome over KDE. KDE is a bit more capable, but it overwhelms me sometimes. Gnome has a better concept and workflow for me. You either love or hate it, I do the first.
KDE.
As a former Windows user myself, I find it to behave pretty much like how I'd expect, albeit some differences in details.
KDE Plasma. It makes sense to me and everything functions more or less how I prefer it to. If I need something, it's usually easy enough to find. Plasma being flexible is a plus, but I rarely need to do any modifications.
I loathe GNOME. Any time I use it it's like pulling teeth. On a touch surface I can maybe get it, but on desktop I honestly think it has some serious usability problems cooked in. And since GNOME extensions can break at any time, trying to "fix" GNOME is a losing battle. If I had to use GNOME, I'd install GNOME Classic which is ok. Or better yet, use XFCE or MATE. GNOME is highly opinionated and that's fair enough, they can do their thing and people seem to like what they offer, but boy is it not for me.
GNOME on desktop is built for keyboard-centric workflows, it really shines when you don't need to use the mouse. I'll also say that the official extensions do not break, that's why they're official. Third party extensions can and do break and have weird wonky behavior, because they're not up to the same standards.
It's certainly not for everyone, but a big part of the reason some people have such negative views of it is because they install a bunch of third party extensions to change it into something it was never designed for, and then inevitably there are bugs or conflicts or updates break some of them. A vanilla GNOME environment with maybe a couple judiciously picked third party extensions is a very comfy experience.
I used KDE for about 10 years, but switched to GNOME when 3 came out and haven't looked back. It's a little unusual if you're coming from Windows, but I've found that once I let go of old paradigms like a start bar and icons and embraced multiple workspaces, that GNOME is pretty damned amazing.
KDE if these are my choices & by a long shot.
I usually cobble together my own tiling setup. This has less bloat, but also a lot less integration.
Plasma.
As a Linux convert from Windows, IMO it's really close in look and feel to Windows 7 or 10 but with none of the bullshit. You barely have to change your workflow if you're already used to Windows.
I used KDE Plasma for a long time ever since I started daily-driving Linux.
I like how KDE Plasma allows quite a surprising amount of customization. I also had some experience with Gnome via Ubuntu, and XFCE. Gnome looks polished, but doesn't allow for much customization. XFCE is a lot more customizable than Gnome, but getting it to look quite right took a lot of effort.
Does XFCE today look any less late 90s than when I tried it 10 years ago?
Can't really remember much of how it looked out of the box, since I proceeded to customize it quite heavily. However, though my memory is fuzzy, I remember it looking like a combination of Windows XP and mid 2010's Ubuntu.
Checking with the xfce website, they have this screenshot of one of their latest versions:
Very no.
Kde, nothing against gnome, I just need to adjust KDE less to get what I want.
I was on xfce for a long time due to having low power hardware. I got a decent computer around the time kde plasma came out. I tried it and have stayed on it.
I hate gnome with every fiber of my being.
I've used GNOME in the past but currently use KDE Plasma. Both are good, but as for recommendations most Linux people I know of say for new users that if you're coming from Windows start with Plasma and if you're coming from Mac OS start with GNOME since those are the closer desktops to what you used before and will make things a bit easier. Depending on the distro you choose you may also have access to other desktops like Cinnamon, which I haven't used but have heard is even easier than Plasma for new users coming from Windows. It's not ready for daily use yet, but the upcoming Cosmic desktop may also be quite good for that.
KDE, coming from Windows it was the easiest to get used to for me. It has a lot of options and required some tweaking to get it the way I like, but once I did it was smooth sailing.
KDE for 27 years.
Oh hi, this is me too. Since 1.0alpha ;)
Gnome! I use Nixos so I prefer to use things that can be configured using its system, I like KDE but I can’t find a elegant way to configure the UI layout using nix
I've seen a kde configuration thing but it needs home-manager I think
Used to use GNOME. But now I worship KDE.
Same here.
Although when I say I "used to",it was in the gnome 1.1 days, so it's been a while.
Out-of-the-box GNOME, with no extensions or tweaks.
I used to be a customise-everything kind of guy. But I'm not naturally efficient, so any workflow I designed for myself would always end up being inefficient. With GNOME I see it as a kind of off-the-shelf workflow that I can adapt to, something I wouldn't have come up with myself but it makes me more efficient.
Why do people downvote this?
Default gnome is honestly a GOAT, face of Linux for me and it is far more convenient than any other workflow I used before in the past
I totally get people saying things like "I couldn't live with GNOME because it's difficult to customise" because I used to be that guy. It took a significant shift in my mindset to come back to GNOME (having moved away from it previously when GNOME 3 was first released).
with no extensions or tweaks.
🫥
Use both! You can switch between them when you log in. Find what you like.
I enjoy gnome but that isn't everyone's cup of tea.
This is the power of Linux. Not that it gives you a nice configuration (it does) but it gives you the power of choice and control over your own device.
This. When you install a desktop environment (DE) in most Linux distros, it's just available, not forced on you. Then, as OC said, you can choose which to use each time you login.
Try them all, decide for yourself. This is the way.
yo i tried installing kde alongside gnome before and it ended up just feeling sorta "after the fact" and scrambled, with mishmashed applications on both environments.
I prolly just did it wrong tho, is there a way to do this seamlessly you know of?
I imagine it's due to the default apps not being changed when you switch between the environments. For example it's probably still using GNOME's Files application in KDE instead of Dolphin (or maybe vice versa). You should still be able to manually launch the "correct" app in each case, but of course you'll have to know which is which. There's no actual problems created by having both installed, but most people don't because of this and other annoyances.
Neither, XFCE.
Gnome
I used to use KDE but I tried gnome and the default settings is exactly what I want anyway so I just switched
Would put gnome in my phone if I could but android itself already acts similar enough, but switching between apps is such a damn pain why is this such a pain god just be fast for once android
Using KDE configured like GNOME.
KNOME, if you will.
Gotta show some screenshots
GNOME's minimalist so not sure what else to show. Technically, I shouldn't have icons on the desktop I guess.
I have the overview (forget the actual name) on super, which is similar to GNOME's. And also have the virtual desktops set up to horizontal only with some similar keyboard-based shortcuts for switching.
I wanted to try the "one application per desktop" paradigm, which I did and didn't really like it, so I went back to regular alt-tabbing + overview switching but left the layout alone.
Interested in this configuration also
I'm in love with KDE right now.
Of the two I prefer Plasma. I strongly dislike Gnome. My absolute favorite DE is Cinnamon.
KDE for best fully integrated, out of box, modern DE.
XFCE + Compiz if you're running on lower end hardware (uses less ram and utilizes gpu better). Also if you want even more customization than KDE with the drawback of limited SVG support (and still on X11 if that matters for you)
GNOME if you hate yourself and want to use a knockoff of ChromeOS or Mac.
Cinnamon and MATE if you want to see when GNOME used to be good.
LXQt is the XFCE equivalent of KDE, but is now on wayland with GPU accel, so it can fit the same area as XFCE+Compiz.
Wayfire (compositor) basically Compiz for Wayland if you want all the fancy effects on anything that uses wayland.
I settled with Plasma. It has its fair share of issues, mostly minor things compared to coming from Windows and its environment. But you really can customize it the way you want and it's relatively comfortable, so I'm fine with it. I still miss the old KDE3, but I'm not that hardcore to use Trinity. Not even sure how's Trinity nowadays.
Gnome 3 is just not my world, at all... at least, for desktop. I kinda use it on my htpc if I need an environment. That, or Xfce. I can imagine on a palmtop pc or other portable device that runs Linux, either with or without a touchscreen Gnome could be a pretty decent choice. Also, I'm sure I could/would get used to it if there's nothing else, but there are other options so I'm not going to sit down and get to (re)know Gnome, tho it's not like I'm against it.
I just like GNOME better. Especially on a laptop. KDE is technically better on a desktop but all the things that annoy me on KDE tip the scales enough for me to use GNOME instead.
Gnome ftw
KDE Plasma is really nice, I love all the settings. But every time I try it, I give up after a couple weeks because I get annoyed at the hangups/crashes. Maybe because I'm always on old hardware. But I've never had Gnome crash. In 2 weeks, I had to ctrl-alt-f2 to reset plasma like 5 times. I never had to do that with gnome.
Sometimes on Gnome I really wish I could change a setting that would be easy in Plasma. but it's just not worth the hiccups. And it's nice that Plasma gives access to a bunch of different task switchers. But I couldn't find any that work as well as the Gnome task switcher. Plasma feels like beta testing
❤️ to KDE, though. I love K3b, KDEconnect (plus the GSconnect gnome extension), kate, krita, etc.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as KDE, is in fact, KDE Plasma.
Anyway, I use Gnome but if you are used to Plasma, there is no need to make things harder by using Gnome on a device and Plasma on another. Just stick to Plasma.
Afaik, Gnome is very opinionated about how it should work. This makes it work out of the box, but if it does something that you don't like, it might be a pain to fix it. I use KDE because configuring it is relatively fast and easy, and it has some neat features and custom plugins.
KDE because it has a lot oft integrations and I can mostly configure it how I want. I previously, ran i3 and then Sway, but I grew tired of having to integrate everything myself.
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 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.
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.
I use KDE atm I'm really new to Linux at the moment though and I will switch at some point to see the other side. But KDE seams really good after just coming from Windows.
gnome since 2.x, consistent, simple and customizable
very interested in cosmic
Kde. It's nice but I get some hangups and crashes sometimes.
XFCE
KDE - Was Gnome, but I switched for a reason. I, uh, forgot the reason.
I'm pretty happy using GNOME on my laptop. Never tried KDE in my ~6 years of using Linux, maybe if I install it onto another device I will.
KDE Plasma Wayland, I'm using it for gaming mainly and occasionally for VR.
Pros:
- supports DRM leasing mandatory for wired VR headsets
- supports tearing (also in windowed apps but requires an additional setting) which reduces input latency in games
- usually all the new fancy features, ex. HDR, appear quickly
- decent support for fractional scaling (handy on laptops)
Cons:
- you might encounter bugs. While Plasma 6 has been a much better experience as opposed to older versions of it, there are still some bugs here and there appearing between the updates. As of this writing thought I can't recall any bugs on my system.
Gnome. Love how it just gets out of the way and let's me do whatever I want without interruptions.
I'm OK with GNOME.
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).
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
I use GNOME and I enjoy it a lot. If you decide to go with GNOME, imho try to install as few extensions as possible so that you can experience the desktop environment the way it's intended by the developers. Of course, if it's not for you, then with the help of extensions you can adapt it to your liking.
Pros:
- Beautiful to look at and gets out of the way. GNOME scored great productivity gains for me.
- Fast, responsive and very stable (I'm on Fedora 40).
- Great experience with flatpaks.
- The best touchpad gestures in the world. Any DE, any OS.
Cons:
- Even though it is very stable, sometimes it crashes. Last time the crash was caused by Thunderbird; then I switched Thunderbird to flatpak too, so that if it crashes again it will not bring down the whole DE (applause to flatpak for delivering the tech 👏). Disclaimer: prior to the crash, I haven't shut down / restart my laptop for 20 days... it might not be Thunderbird alone that caused the problem.
🚧⚠️ That said, there's currently a really annoying bug in GNOME that causes HUGE (or even - INSANE!) disk I/O! I don't know when it is going to be fixed, but for the first time in two years this made me consider trying other desktop environments.
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
I use a window manager on my desktop, and gnome on my laptop. Gnome's gestures are amazing with a touchpad
Agreed, Mutter's 2 finger and 3 finger swipes (similar to macOS) are one reason why I haven't jumped from Gnome yet
KDE since I hand compiled a 2.0 beta.
KDE. Historicaly I was using Gnome (1 then 2) but Gnome3 was just .... So I switched to KDE and never looked back since, it so customizable that I can set it just right for me. No shade to the great work made by the Gnome3 team but I am a KDE guy now...
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 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.
GNOME because it just works better with network shares. Really wanted to use KDE but I use a lot of network shares and it just annoyed me.
In KDE I open a network folder in the file browser, double click a video and VLC can’t see it because it uses a different sharing protocol.
On GNOME it just works seamlessly.
I know I can fix it in command line, but I don’t want to. I tried the KDE fuse plug in but that had other issues.
I'm using Cinnamon, I find it better when using a customized Cinnamenu applet (instead of the default app launcher).
Five years of Mate (which is essentially Gnome 2 on life support) replaced by a couple years of KDE Plasma.
Mate treated me well enough, it was mostly stable, capable, and competent. But it was a bit crusty around the edges, and being so niche meant search-engine-visible help resources for anything than went wrong were virtually nonexistent. In hindsight, using it as a beginner's DE was probably a mistake. I suppose in being so austere and devoid of resources it taught me to develop more of a "get to the bottom of it yourself" attitude to debugging and have humbler expectations about form versus function, but that's a pretty rough sell to most people. Mate is definitely better as a drink than a desktop environment.
I don't need to talk about KDE Plasma at all because the rest of the thread already has. I have nothing new to add beyond the comment that I like their mascot character.
I have no informed opinion on Gnome 3. All I've gleaned about it is that it's supposedly "my way or the highway" by design, and the "my way" in question is controversially counter-grain to a lot of established expectations (e.g. it's literally why Mate exists). Which is neither here nor there to me, objectively. But I will say I have no interest learning a new way of doing things, even if it's theoretically superior, when a conventional system still exists, is viable, is highly polished, and is kept sharp-edged. Hence, KDE Plasma.
I started on gnome. Used gnome for most of my linux life. However, after some memory and performance issues, I decided to try KDE. That was about 3 years ago and everything that handles it well and I use a GUI with has been moved to KDE.
Gnome user here.
KDE with Polonium for Window Management because I want tiling but still looking for a better way to get tiling into KDE. If someone knows.
Have you seen https://github.com/zeroxoneafour/polonium/issues/195 ?
Oh no! Haven't seen this! Thanks a lot. I'm gonna look at krohnkite then I guess.
Edit: installed and it works fine except for borders but I found a workaround ! 😊
To be clear, these are not the only two options, just the biggest and most new-user-friendly.
I got started in gnome, but am currently using Hyprland (and QTile if I need X)
Budgie on Solus here.
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.
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.
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.
Are you gaming on that screen, video editing, or something else? Just curious about the use case for the 40 incher. I feel like I'd be in a neck brace w/ all that real estate.
it's way less neck strain than the usual dual 24" side-by-side. this is like having 4x 20" 1080p screens in a grid but without the annoying bezels, and that's how I'm mostly using it. plus you have the option to expand a window in any direction when you need it, which you can't do in a multi-monitor setup. I arrange the windows in a 2x2 grid, or go smaller, usually 3x2 with keyboard shortcuts, by way of Better Quick Tiles for Plasma 6 (Kwin extension). tried the auto-tilers, hated 'em.
when I'm done with work, jellyfin-media-player in Fullscreen TV mode with a $5 bluetooth remote from the couch for movies and shows.
gaming sure, I run the games in 1080p and the desktop in 4k, so older games allow me to turn on FSR. had problems with Gnome Shell crashing regularly, zero crashes since I switched to Plasma.
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.
Unless you're barely meeting the minimum specs for a game, on a properly configured system any impact on game performance between the two should be a rounding error.
But that's the theory, when I run games on GNOME the games and desktop itself looks laggy, on KDE 4 I still noticed some lag while with KDE 5 I feel almost like playing on i3wm, with 3iwm you can run many games faster and with less lag than many Windows users (my Windows friends normally have more issues than me). While KDE 5 is my second-best option, there is no third for me. Or i3wm or KDE for gaming. And normally my PC specs stands higher than the recommended on many games (also new ones). If you can test it and provide some feedback would be great.
Yes
Been using KDE for 2 years and love it. Only weird issue is my old desktop i am running Arch with KDE headless to stream to the steam link in the kids room and plasma shell crashes a bunch. Still haven't figured out why.
No, I don't
XFCE + xmonad
Check Bodhi Linux's Moksha Desktop. Pretty lightweight and does work
Doesn't really matter for 90% of cases, best bet is to go for what feels good for you. Each distro is similar to each version of windows, they are a little different from one version to the next, but for the most part it just changes how you interact with it.
Started on Gnome 2 for a short stint then used Unity for a while (used to be Ubuntus DM). When I switched away from Ubuntu I was still looking for something "familiar" so switching to Gnome (it was like 3.8 at the time) felt right. Have been using Gnome ever since.
I've thought about switching to KDE a few times (when Gnome made some bone headed decision) but the way key combos and workflows are ingrained to me I would just set up any DE to feel like Gnome so why should I switch.
I use KDE for desktops/workstations and Gnome where I want more of a 10ft interface...like HTPC, or if I have a touchscreen device.
You are used to KDE and Gnome is very different But also KDE is buggy, I dont know how Steamdeck people make it better. If you chose Xfce, you will get a KDE similar desktop but more robust. Xfce can look modern with few efforts. MX Linux distro is a good example of a nice Xfce config.
I use lxqt mostly beacause it's simple and moderately lightweight.
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.
If you're new, IMHO you should be looking at the distro as a whole, not the DE specifically. Yeah, if you find one you mostly like but want to try other similar distros, it's probably a good thing to stay with the same DE. However, it's not something to get hung up on as distros often tweak the DE.
And to answer your question, Cinnamon. After years of distro-hopping, I've spent most of the past decade on Linux Mint.
Linux Mint is what I was mainly looking at for daily driving, and then bazzite for a gaming setup of sorts.
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.
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.
@[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.
I use both: GNOME works better for a desktop, KDE Plasma works better for a laptop.
There are more than those 2 options for a Desktop Environment, by the way ;)
Funny, I have the opposite opinion. Gnome is great on laptops, especially 2in1s. KDE Plasma is a great desktop PC environment.
I have a potato laptop, so GNOME is a little too heavy on it. I think KDE Plasma would be fine for a desktop, but I'm addicted to GNOME
yeah i know but as an entry level user it just seems like they're the two most popular and they must be for a reason, I'm sure I'll explore more in the future
Started with gnome but stuck with KDE. Gnome just kept frustrating me and I had to do things their way or not at all.
Any tips for 4k gaming on Plasma?
If i force system scaling, everthing looks great but games dont get to use the full 4k. If i go with app scaling the games look fine but some apps are blurry.
I figured out a halfway solution where i use no scaling and just made the fonts bigger, but some ui elements are still tiny, and steam doesn't scale at all.
Is there a way to disable system scaling for just selected applications?
neither. i think i have cinnamon now on everything except the old junk that has peppermint (its xfce there) or is a console-only box or vm.
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.
The nice thing is, you can pretty easily run both and switch around. Just get a distro with one, and then it's usually just 1 or 2 commands to get the other as a choice on the login screen. KDE and Gnome apps are also largely compatible, regardless of desktop environment.
I've been using KDE mostly, it's just nice being able to customize it so easily without too much technical knowledge of the environment or hoping someone already made an extension for it like on Gnome. Then again, some may like the simplicity of shopping around for extensions and calling it a day, or later even editing the extensions.
Recently, for my tiny laptop I switched to gnome, it's also just pretty :)
Gnome. It feels better even tho it runs so much worse
Why am I getting down voted? It does