Linux offers an overwhelming number of distributions and there is something for everyone. Desktop environments (DEs) add the visual means to interact with the underlying operating system, and there is no shortage of them either. You have GNOME, KDE, xfceCOSMIC, just to name a few. It’s also possible to switch to a different desktop environment, which is one of the key things I love about Linux. I have been using Ubuntu with GNOME and KDE Plasma for a long time for little less.
Despite using the same underlying operating system, both desktop environments differ markedly in approach, intent, and execution. Both GNOME and KDE Plasma are exemplary DEs, but with different areas of focus and user expectations. One is intentionally simple but reliable, while the other has a treasure trove of features, customization options, and is aimed at advanced users. Let’s explore how they belong to a similar category of software and yet try to solve different problems and differentiate ourselves.
difference of philosophy
Control versus minimalism
When you think about switching to a new operating system, you expect a certain set of elements and features. Since Windows and macOS are the two main operating systems, migrating to any Linux distribution is a difficult decision. GNOME The approach to this decision is to serve a desktop environment that offers the basics.
In GNOME, you get a slightly different desktop layout, activities view, and workspaces. These elements don’t look like or replicate the design of macOS or Windows, but they work well. You must comply with the rules of the desktop environment, and there are limited native options for making breaking changes. GNOME comes with a default usable layout that may not appeal to you, but it works.
KDE Plasma is a desktop environment that takes modularity and control into account. Anticipate that a user switching from a conventional operating system needs a certain level of control and customization with the desktop environment. Plasma doesn’t skimp on necessary elements like tiles, themes, and workspaces, and expects you to take the reins.
It’s amazing how GNOME tries to wrap you in a minimal and functional space to eradicate confusion. In contrast, KDE Plasma attempts to open doors to infinite customization and align it with your workflow.
Customization Scope
KDE surpasses GNOME
KDE Plasma looks familiar. That’s the first thing every new user notices about it. There’s a familiar-looking bottom taskbar panel, an app launcher on the left side, and a system tray-like layout on the right. It looks a bit like windowssince the attention is focused on something identifiable and less confusing.
But Plasma doesn’t stop and offers granular access and customization options. You can completely modify the desktop experience, whether by adding or removing panels, moving elements, changing appearance and widgets, and more. Some of these changes are cosmetic, while others affect your daily workflow, such as animations, virtual desktops, tiling behavior, window behavior, effects, and rules.
GNOME looks polished but very minimalist for a mainstream linux desktop environment. It sticks to a very basic customization system and can be infuriating for a new user. You can only modify the behavior of desktop elements and cannot add any new panels or widgets. The settings app seems very limiting as you can only show or hide the dock and make a few more desktop-related changes.
The only way to introduce a new feature is through GNOME Extensions which can inject a new feature into the shell. I have mixed feelings about extensions because they extend GNOME’s features but compromise stability. Extensions have difficulty adapting to GNOME updates and stop working unless developers maintain them.
I like the idea of extensions, but when they stop working and crash the desktop, it’s a painful sight. Most extensions add small, essential features, like advanced tile support or a categorized app section, and relying on extensions feels like a Band-Aid on a big, gaping wound. GNOME is suitable for users who rely less on GUI elements and can work with native functions.
The target user base is different
Productivity versus power users
GNOME leans towards simplicity mode, where the main desktop environment is basic while extensions try to close the feature gap. It’s perfect for users who just need a regular desk that’s less prone to breaking and won’t get in the way while they’re working on it.
If you are a casual user who spends most of your time in the browser, terminal or other applications, and have a basic workflow, GNOME will be enough for you. It won’t get in your way or overwhelm you with features and options you’ll rarely use.
KDE Plasma It is more aimed at advanced users, who want everything to be perfect and accessible. It allows you to create your workflow, manage system settings and item behavior. You don’t need to limit yourself to mundane design options and tools, and it includes many useful tools, such as KDE connection and KRunner by default. I like both, as one allows me to pair my phone with the system while the other acts as a floating search bar that I can conjure at will. These tools, along with the endless supply of possible settings, make it interesting for advanced users like me.
Desktop environments are unique
Juggling desktop environments is very exciting for me as I try out most of the new things on the spectrum. COSMIC is a good example that will mature over time, but GNOME and KDE Plasma have already achieved most of the attributes. Choosing any of them depends on your needs and expectations, but I tend to lean towards the KDE Plasma desktop for an everyday system. GNOME works perfectly for my virtual machines and servers and I don’t want to replace it.
