GNOME or KDE?

[shadow]

John,

>>Nearly all my Linux use has been using bash on boxes used as servers
>>or for machine control.  I used X ages ago on solaris and rs6000
>>boxes.  Now I have a Celeron 433 box available with 512 RAM that I
>>want to set up as a Linux desktop to really and truly begin my walk
>>down the yellow brick road away from the M$ desktop.  My questions
>>are: 1) does this 433 celeron have enough horsepower for GNOME or KDE?
>>and 2) which of the two is better suited for a new Linux GUI user?   I
>>have RH 7.2.

A C433 has more than enough horsepower for X-Win.  My secondary desktop 
machine is a K6-233 running Gnome 1.4 and I haven't had any real speed 
issues.  The real concern isn't X or Gnome, but other media programs 
under X such as Video players or harddisk access delays.

>>Also, 3) are there any good open source development environments
>>available (replacement for visual studio or codewrite)?  (yes, vi is
>>an option, but I've become addicted to the color-coded keywords)

<UNDERWARE TYPE="asbestos" STATUS="on">
Personally, I prefer Gnome.  Both KDE and Gnome are supported equally 
well under RedHat.  I started using Gnome under Debian when there were 
licensing issues with KDE and QT.  I've stuck with Gnome because the 
developers at Ximian/Helix Code/Gnome.org have spent much more time 
writing a solid backend instead of releasing a good enough version.  KDE 
does have it's strenghts, but I feel that Gnome will become the dominant 
Desktop in the near future.
</UNDERWARE>


-- 
Chris Lewis
shadow@digitalnirvana.com
----------------------------------------
If it compiles, it is good, if it boots up it is perfect.
       - Linus Torvalds
----------------------------------------