How Configurable Should a Desktop User Interface be?
The Original Yama writes "In the world of user interface design there are two main schools of thought. The former maintains that the environment must be flexible and configurable enough to adjust to a user's needs. The latter takes the opposite perspective, arguing that many of today's user interfaces have become bloated and overloaded with features, and consequently have become difficult to maintain and use. KDE developer Mosfet shows how the KDE Project has managed to bridge the gap between the 'highly configurable' and 'less is more' camps."
it should be themeable thats it, stop giving power to little nerds who have nothing better to do then find some screwed up way of reconfiguring their desktop so that it's totally useless then touting that idea online as if it's a UI he or she had done actual research into.
choice? bah. fuck you even. nobody has time for choice, they only wanna get their work done and get out from in front of the computer
and this, I believe, is FIRST P0ST!
No, interestingly enough, 'KDE' popped into my mind. I know I'll get modded down to hell by the KDE weenies, but really, what right has a KDE author got to talk about 'simiplicity' and 'efficiency'. It sucks.
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Speaking of phrases...
KDE is for Windows users switching to linux.
gnome is for KDE users switching to linux.
TWM is for gnome users switching to linux.
root@localhost:/# is for real linux users.
people who like to use a GUI (especially KDE) probably won't give me good mod points. but hey, if i cared about what most people thought i wouldn't be a geek in the first place.
Karma is like sex. I can't remember the last time I had either of them.
You mean Linux is doing this "embrace and extend" thing? :)
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
I wonder, when Linux takes 90% of PC OS market, whom will DOJ sue? :)
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install