You are not logged in.

#1 2019-09-22 09:32:00

Jason P.
Member
Registered: 2015-02-26
Posts: 171

Desktop environment stability. Gnome Shell vs Others

Hi,

I'm using Gnome as my desktop environment since years. I have to say that is aesthetically pleasant and I'm basically used to its ecosystem. In general I think it is a great product but lately I've changed a bit my mind.

There are frequent warning messages and non-important errors in the logs, many of them related to X11, but others come from the desktop environment. I'm not saying it's better to hide errors (it's the opposite), but some of them can be there forever and it makes me think that nobody is taking time to fix them. Obviously this is not a problem by itself if the system just works but it could be an indirect and subjective measure for quality.

On the other hand, there are errors that can be problematic and I think I'm seeing more of these from time to time, specially during important Gnome updates.

Do you have the same "feeling" with Gnome? It's more or less the same in every major DE?

Offline

#2 2019-09-22 13:03:38

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 11,867

Re: Desktop environment stability. Gnome Shell vs Others

I haven't used a big DE for years, but some of my friends do[1] .
(I also read/participate many forum threads)

Looking at things from a troubleshooting point of view :

During KDE4 period troubleshooting KDE & Gnome issues had about the same difficulty factor.

With the transition from code from KDE to QT5 things became harder for KDE troubleshooting, otoh gnome had it's share of problems with the transition from gtk2 to gtk3 .


Both Qt5 and Gtk3 have stabilised and are now mature toolkits.

KDE has separated the code into applications,Frameworks and plasma . Those 3 categories are developed & released separately.
This has made troubleshooting KDE issues much easier.

Gnome hasn't made such a separation.

At best gnome troubleshooting difficulty has stayed the same while KDE troubleshooting has become easier.
In the long term this may very well lead to an improvement in KDE quality, while gnome quality stays the same or decreases.

[1]
3 use KDE, 1 uses gnome.
All 4 use X11.


Disliking systemd intensely, but not satisfied with alternatives so focusing on taming systemd.


(A works at time B)  && (time C > time B ) ≠  (A works at time C)

Online

#3 2019-09-24 10:44:00

Jason P.
Member
Registered: 2015-02-26
Posts: 171

Re: Desktop environment stability. Gnome Shell vs Others

Oks.

In terms of libraries, if you had to choose one app either developed with Gtk3 or Qt5, would you have any reason to favor one over the other besides look and feel? Just curious wink

Offline

#4 2019-09-24 12:14:20

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 11,867

Re: Desktop environment stability. Gnome Shell vs Others

My main concern when choosing between alternative apps is usually "who's in control : me or the app ?"

GTK3 apps often feel less under my control then QT5 apps.


Disliking systemd intensely, but not satisfied with alternatives so focusing on taming systemd.


(A works at time B)  && (time C > time B ) ≠  (A works at time C)

Online

#5 2020-02-05 07:07:38

killdashnine
Member
Registered: 2020-02-04
Posts: 5

Re: Desktop environment stability. Gnome Shell vs Others

I use Gnome for last decade. I find it's generally less buggy and consistent. KDE is nice but it has more bugs and footguns. I know KDE is very popular so I'm glad we all have freedom of choice.

Offline

#6 2020-02-05 08:29:59

V1del
Forum Moderator
Registered: 2012-10-16
Posts: 21,413

Re: Desktop environment stability. Gnome Shell vs Others

This will by definition be incredibly opinionated. Also you should probably disclose what kind of errors you are seeing. There's e.g. at least one class of error that's basically unavoidable regardless of what you are using, that sometimes window states get queried of windows that don't exist anymore but this information being "late" from the xorg <--> application communication. That will lead to an error being logged out that is completely harmless but it has a chance to pop up each time a window is closed (where "window" is a loose term, this could also be panel widgets that you open and close or context menus or....)

Also errors that are expected and thus safely handled and properly logged don't really mean anything regarding to software quality. There's a wide array of potential errors that can simply happen (IO issues for example), regardless of application and if the application handles them correctly and logs out the fact I'd consider that a positive measure of quality.

There are also some things you can expect by definition of the relevant projects. GNOME does state explicitly that they don't have extension API/ABI guarantees between major releases so you can expect that third party extensions are going to break on new major releases if not updated timely. If you know and understand that "limitation" it's possible to plan around it and/or quickly get to the bottom of an issue when you hit it.

Online

#7 2020-02-26 17:12:00

sevendogs
Member
From: Texas
Registered: 2016-01-24
Posts: 201

Re: Desktop environment stability. Gnome Shell vs Others

The few times I have used Gnome 3.x I have not received any Gnome specific errors, but the DE has locked up from time to time, more than likely due to themes I used. It is generally stable from what I have seen. I have not used a single extension though and I generally turn all of them off so perhaps that is why I have not had any real issues.

KDE has been good as well as far as my experience goes anyway. I have used Gnome since the 1.0 days but am not a fan of 3.x so jumped ship years ago, trying it from time to time to time for nostalgic reasons. KDE reminds me too much of windows and is really way more than I need. Been a fluxbox user now for several years and stability wise, it is rock solid. Minimal but still provides great functionality for me.


"Give a man a truth and he will think for a day. Teach a man to reason and he will think for a lifetime"

Offline

#8 2020-11-03 19:46:25

maboleth
Member
Registered: 2020-01-03
Posts: 220

Re: Desktop environment stability. Gnome Shell vs Others

In the past (like past decade), GNOME used to be buggy, easily experienced and seen.

But now, I find GNOME not only pleasant, modern and minimal in aesthetics, but stable as a rock and intuitive. The only time I reset my machine now is when new kernel or video drivers come. It just works no matter how I stress my hardware.

I tried KDE, but always felt bloated for my view and needs. And too much like Windows look alike. That being said, you could try Xfce.

Last edited by maboleth (2020-11-03 19:47:59)

Offline

#9 2020-11-03 20:11:06

sevendogs
Member
From: Texas
Registered: 2016-01-24
Posts: 201

Re: Desktop environment stability. Gnome Shell vs Others

KDE is actually much lighter than Gnome in terms of resource usage. I have never had a Gnome install be less than 900mb of ram  at idle, while KDE is around 600. Not that big of an issue in this day and age of cheap hardware.  Gnome is easy, yes, I just dislike the interface. That’s the good thing about FOSS: if you don’t like something, there are lots of other choices out there.


"Give a man a truth and he will think for a day. Teach a man to reason and he will think for a lifetime"

Offline

#10 2020-11-04 17:55:46

maboleth
Member
Registered: 2020-01-03
Posts: 220

Re: Desktop environment stability. Gnome Shell vs Others

Out of curiosity I installed Plasma and kde-applications and my findings were that it was overall noticeably slower than Gnome 3.38. Maybe because it was started with gdm - not sure if that makes it more or less speedy. I also noticed the system after restart in Plasma used around ~2gb ram, while Gnome uses 1.2gb. Also, after restart, as soon as gdm starts, you're ready to work in Gnome. In KDE, there was a screen of "getting ready" that lasted 1-2 secs. Maybe it was because my system was tailored to Gnome and KDE was installed as an afterthought, idk?

It is nice how KDE renders thumbnails, I think it's more dynamic and faster. Some native programs like Krita and Digikam are so advanced also.

Anyway, it was a nice experience seeing something new. I give kudos to KDE at their visual approach to wallpapers and desktop effects. It is true that Gnome tends to be a bit more sterile/conservative in the looks, esp. the extras. But still, the simplicity, usability + speed in Gnome was something that I sorely missed when I was in the KDE. Text editor, Evolution mail also.

So yeah, in a nutshell, long live the FOSS and the multi-options of DEs.

Offline

#11 2020-11-04 18:35:04

sevendogs
Member
From: Texas
Registered: 2016-01-24
Posts: 201

Re: Desktop environment stability. Gnome Shell vs Others

So, with a clean Arch install and plasma only, for me the desktop runs around 600mb at idle. Switching from Gnome to KDE with Gnome installed still probably runs those horrific "tracker" processes. I definitely have had far better performance from KDE, even on OpenSuse, than Gnome on any distro, in terms of resource usage. Having said that, I have a lot of ram and am full SSD so I don't notice any slowdowns using any DE actually. It's just what I see when I look at top or htop.


"Give a man a truth and he will think for a day. Teach a man to reason and he will think for a lifetime"

Offline

#12 2020-11-06 16:58:55

maboleth
Member
Registered: 2020-01-03
Posts: 220

Re: Desktop environment stability. Gnome Shell vs Others

sevendogs wrote:

So, with a clean Arch install and plasma only, for me the desktop runs around 600mb at idle. Switching from Gnome to KDE with Gnome installed still probably runs those horrific "tracker" processes. I definitely have had far better performance from KDE, even on OpenSuse, than Gnome on any distro, in terms of resource usage. Having said that, I have a lot of ram and am full SSD so I don't notice any slowdowns using any DE actually. It's just what I see when I look at top or htop.

Since we first talked, I got that itch to try new stuff. Every day I was installing plasma and then deleting it. xD It was the way for me to get that novelty hooks and vibes, but also to see how much i loved Gnome.
But yesterday I bit the bullet and uninstalled the entire Gnome, sort of the project to see how well I'd go to the new territory. I have .config files anyway in case of returning.

The thing that made me switch wasn't just the novelty stuff, but also the fact that I could run two intensive (windows) games with Steam/Proton at the same time. Or to watch YT on the 2nd monitor while I had the game in the 1st. With no penalties or video hiccups.
Sure these are games, nothing to worry about, but I just couldn't run games + darktable + yt and have good fps everywhere!

That simply wasn't possible in Gnome. Same drivers, same card, same kernel. In Gnome, it's like Steam was taking the entire resources for video, while somehow, KDE allows all to function without any problems. Maybe it's the way it handles the overall resources, like what you said, a lighter footprint.

So I'm now a happy KDE user! (: If anyone struggles with OpenGL stuff in Gnome, have a look at KDE. I have since completely uninstalled every gnome package, gdm (using sddm now) and have KDE native machine.

Last edited by maboleth (2020-11-06 17:01:06)

Offline

#13 2020-11-06 17:08:46

sevendogs
Member
From: Texas
Registered: 2016-01-24
Posts: 201

Re: Desktop environment stability. Gnome Shell vs Others

Great! I have played with a bunch of DE's and love the way pacman works because I can literally rip out (surgically) every piece of the previous DE and start fresh. I have had great luck with KDE personally. I was a Gnome guy for years, mainly because  started at version 1, was a "HIG" tester (human interface guidelines) on version 2.x and mod on their forums back in the day, but when 3 hit, I walked away.

Glad you got everything working and are a happy camper.


"Give a man a truth and he will think for a day. Teach a man to reason and he will think for a lifetime"

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB