Frank ess wrote:

> hiwa wrote:
>> John Bailo <jabailo@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:<4LLec.7809$A_4.4451@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net>...
>>> Lucas Tam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Someone told me KDE has better rpm support
>>>
>>> Did someone tell you about the low cost swamp land in Florida ?
>>
>> Yeah. I was told about the land on the moon, $299 for an acre.
Whirrr. Click. Click. Click.

Nothing personal. You've been obliterated by the
Ignore-Repliers-to-Trolls-and-Other-Miscreants and
Cross-Posters-With-Negative-IQs Robot.

Sorry.
--
Ralph Miguel Froehlich
Linux 2.4.21-199-default #1 Fri Mar 12 08:27:41 UTC 2004
7:42pm up 1:39, 1 user, load average: 0.02, 0.12, 0.10
Registered Linux User 199550

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Lucas Tam
<LucasTam@hotmail.com>
wrote
on 12 Apr 2004 23:22:52 -0700
<ce88a04b.0404122222.73eb3885@posting.google.com >:
> Someone told me KDE has better rpm support

This is like mixing apples and giraffes. RPM is a *text* utility and
a file type (basically, an archive for installing software); however,
graphical managers for RPM do exist -- e.g., gnorpm. I don't know
what KDE has for handling RPMs.

--
#191, [email]ewill3@earthlink.net[/email]
It's still legal to go .sigless.

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Lucas Tam
> <LucasTam@hotmail.com>
> wrote
> on 12 Apr 2004 23:22:52 -0700
> <ce88a04b.0404122222.73eb3885@posting.google.com >:
>
>>Someone told me KDE has better rpm support
>
>
> This is like mixing apples and giraffes. RPM is a *text* utility and
> a file type (basically, an archive for installing software); however,
> graphical managers for RPM do exist -- e.g., gnorpm. I don't know
> what KDE has for handling RPMs.
>
For the RPMs under KDE, there is kpackage

Lucas Tam wrote:

> Someone told me KDE has better rpm support

Have you investigated this statement in order to establish the veracity
of your informant?

Secondly, why did you need to know?
--
Two Ravens
"...hit the squirrel..."

Lucas Tam wrote:

> Subject: Re: Which is better KDE or Gnome

*XFce*

[url]http://xfce.org[/url]

:-)

--
Flood of Sins

Lucas Tam wrote:

> Someone told me KDE has better rpm support

..... troll
..
--
<< [url]http://michaeljtobler.homelinux.com/[/url] >>
"The only real way to look younger is not to be born so soon."
-- Charles Schulz, "Things I've Had to Learn Over and
Over and Over"

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.]
Error BR-549: MS DRM 1.0 rejects the following post from ray:

> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:22:52 +0000, Lucas Tam wrote:
>
>> Someone told me KDE has better rpm support
>
> I would suggest that you try them for yourself. I have always had the
> feeling that KDE was "better" or "more complete" and that Gnome was
> "lighter". I tend to use KDE on systems with sufficient horsepower and
> Gnome on slower equipment. I do, however, use GTK for software development
> (unless I use X/Motif). XFCE is also worth exploring - IMHO.

I like to load most Gnome stuff, and run it under fluxbox, icewm, or xfce.
Currently using xfce a lot.

--
Don't let Windows XP nag you anymore! Linux rocks!

[email]LucasTam@hotmail.com[/email] (Lucas Tam) wrote in message news:<ce88a04b.0404122222.73eb3885@posting.google. com>...
> Someone told me KDE has better rpm support

Plug in a Kodak digicam to either and they will both blow up on your
face. Maybe that will keep you out of the photography NG's.

Jubei wrote:
> It largely depends on preference. There is a plethora of apps
> designed for both. Gnome has been around a little longer, KDE seems
> to have a faster development cycle. More distributions tend to
> support KDE than Gnome these days, many support both. Its simply a
> matter of taste.
>
> I personally prefer KDE.
>
> On 12 Apr 2004 23:22:52 -0700, [email]LucasTam@hotmail.com[/email] (Lucas Tam) wrote:
>
>
>>Someone told me KDE has better rpm support
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> [url]http://www.newsfeeds.com[/url] - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

First of all, KDE was around prior to GNOME. KDE is based on the Qt
toolkit, GNOME is based on the GTK toolkit. To keep it short, when KDE
started QT was not licensed completely free so the GNOME project started
out, to provide a "free" desktop (i.e free speech), since then QT
toolkit has been relicensed.

Now, to the original question, better rpm support? You mean acting as a
package manager front-end? Or do you mean it's easier to find RPM's
built of KDE? My understanding of your question is that it handles
installing rpm's better (i.e a graphical front-end), which I can not
disagree or agree with, 'cause I use the command-line most of the time
for that

Personally, I use GNOME because I use OpenOffice and FireFox frequently
and don't see the need of loading up more graphical libraries (uses RAM)
considering they both basically do the same thing. I use the odd KDE
application such as Rosegarden4 because I can't find a GTK application
that does the same just as well as rosegarden does. GNOME basically
just works, it doesn't offer you that many configuration options. Where
as KDE you can customize your desktop more, I find I use my computer
more with GNOME (I mean use, not just play around with).

Dave

I can use QT and GTK apps in either so I don't see any difference other than memory footprint, looks, and flexibility. I run KDE personally, but I was running GNOME for a while and I have always used K3B for DVD burning.

It looks funny on GNOME, but I really like the KDE look. It's all preference anyway.

i have the regnome cd but have no idea how to install it when comp boots

There are several good packages for this for both Gnome and KDE. Synaptic is great, runs on both Debian and Red Hat based systems. It used to be for dpkg, but now handles RPM's too. Kpackage is really good, too.

As being said here I think it's upto the choice of the user. Both KDE and GNome are good. I am not sure about KDE's memory requirement. I have the memory requirement of GNome.