As a dedicated Arch Linux enthusiast, I’ve always appreciated the distribution’s philosophy of simplicity, customisation, and user control. This ethos extends to the choice of desktop environments, where Arch’s flexibility allows users to tailor their systems to perfection. Among the myriad of options available, two desktop environments stand out as the most popular and widely discussed: KDE Plasma and GNOME. Both are powerful, feature-rich, and capable of transforming Arch into a polished, user-friendly experience.
After extensive use of both, I’ve found myself gravitating toward KDE Plasma for its unparalleled customisation, flexibility, and user-centric design. In this post, I’ll walk you through my journey of comparing these two desktop environments and explain why KDE Plasma has become my preferred choice on Arch Linux.
A tale of two philosophies – the first impressions
When I first installed Arch Linux, I decided to start with GNOME, a desktop environment known for its clean, minimalist design and modern workflow. GNOME’s focus on simplicity is evident in every aspect of its interface. The Activities Overview, with its dynamic workspace management and search functionality, felt intuitive and polished. GNOME’s adherence to a “less is more” philosophy is admirable, and its seamless integration with Arch’s rolling release model made it a compelling choice.
However, as I began to explore KDE Plasma, I was struck by its customisable approach. Unlike GNOME’s minimalism, KDE Plasma embraces a philosophy of flexibility and customisation. From the moment I logged in, I was greeted with a highly polished interface that felt both modern and familiar. The default layout is reminiscent of traditional desktop environments, with a taskbar, system tray, and application menu—elements that many users, including myself, find comforting and efficient. This contrast in philosophies set the stage for my deeper exploration of both environments.
KDE Plasma’s crown jewels – customisation
One of the most compelling reasons I prefer KDE Plasma is its unmatched customisation capabilities. GNOME, while elegant, is relatively rigid in its design. Customising GNOME often requires installing extensions, which can feel like a workaround rather than a seamless experience. Even then, the level of personalisation is limited compared to what KDE Plasma offers.
With KDE Plasma, every aspect of the desktop is customisable. From the layout of panels and widgets to the behaviour of window animations, KDE Plasma puts the user in control. I found myself spending hours tweaking the interface to match my workflow, and the process was both enjoyable and rewarding. The System Settings panel in KDE Plasma is a treasure trove of options, allowing users to fine-tune everything from keyboard shortcuts to display scaling. This level of control is particularly appealing to Arch users, who value the ability to tailor their systems to their exact specifications.
A close contest – some words on performance
Both KDE Plasma and GNOME are optimised for performance, but they differ in their resource usage. GNOME, with its reliance on the Mutter compositor, tends to be heavier on system resources, especially on older hardware. While this isn’t a deal-breaker for modern systems, it can be a consideration for users with limited resources.
KDE Plasma, on the other hand, has made significant strides in performance optimisation in recent years. Thanks to its KWin compositor, Plasma feels snappy and responsive, even on mid-range hardware. During my testing, I noticed that KDE Plasma handled multitasking and resource-intensive applications with ease, making it a more versatile choice for a wider range of systems. For Arch users who pride themselves on efficiency, KDE Plasma’s performance is a major advantage.
Workflow efficiency – tailored to your needs
GNOME’s workflow is centred around its Activities Overview, which combines application launching, workspace management, and search functionality into a single interface. While this approach is efficient for some, I found it less intuitive for my multitasking-heavy workflow. The lack of a traditional taskbar or dock made it harder to keep track of open applications, and the reliance on keyboard shortcuts felt cumbersome at times.
KDE Plasma, by contrast, offers a more traditional yet flexible workflow. The default layout includes a taskbar and application menu, which I found more intuitive for managing multiple windows and applications. Additionally, KDE Plasma’s Activities feature allows users to create custom workspaces tailored to specific tasks, such as work, gaming, or multimedia editing. This level of workflow customisation is something I’ve come to rely on, and it’s a feature that GNOME simply doesn’t match.
Beauty in the eye of the beholder – notes on appearance
Both desktop environments are visually appealing, but they cater to different tastes. GNOME’s design is sleek and modern, with a focus on simplicity and consistency. Its Adwaita theme is clean and professional, though some may find it overly minimalist.
KDE Plasma, on the other hand, offers a more versatile aesthetic experience. The default Breeze theme is polished and modern, but KDE Plasma’s theming capabilities go far beyond what GNOME offers. With support for global themes, icon packs, and even custom window decorations, KDE Plasma allows users to create a desktop environment that truly reflects their personal style. For someone like me who enjoys tweaking the look and feel of my system, this was a major selling point.
Software ecosystem
Both GNOME and KDE Plasma come with their own suite of applications, such as GNOME Files and Dolphin for file management, or GNOME Terminal and Konsole for terminal emulation. While both sets of applications are well-designed, I found KDE’s applications to be more feature-rich and customisable. For example, Dolphin offers split views, integrated terminal access, and extensive plugin support, making it a more powerful tool for advanced users.
That said, GNOME’s applications are tightly integrated with the desktop environment, offering a cohesive and consistent experience. If you prefer a more unified ecosystem, GNOME’s applications may appeal to you more.
Why KDE Plasma works for me
After spending significant time with both desktop environments, I ultimately chose KDE Plasma for its flexibility, customisation, and performance. While GNOME’s simplicity and elegance are undeniably appealing, I found that KDE Plasma better aligned with my needs as a power user. The ability to tailor every aspect of the desktop to my preferences, combined with its robust performance and feature-rich applications, made KDE Plasma the clear winner for me.
Which one should you choose?
Choosing between KDE Plasma and GNOME ultimately comes down to your personal preferences and workflow needs. If you value simplicity, consistency, and a modern design, GNOME is an excellent choice. However, if you’re like me and prioritise customisation, flexibility, and a traditional workflow, KDE Plasma is the way to go.
For Arch Linux users, the beauty lies in the ability to experiment with both environments. Arch’s minimalist design and rolling release model make it easy to install and switch between KDE Plasma and GNOME, allowing you to find the perfect fit for your needs. Whichever you choose, you’ll be working with one of the most powerful and user-centric Linux distributions available.
As for me, I’ll be sticking with KDE Plasma—a desktop environment that not only meets my needs but also inspires me to make it truly my own.
