KDE 3.2-beta2 - Towards a Better KDE?

JigSaw writes "KDE 3.2-beta2 was released last week for general testing and OSNews offers a preview of what's expected from the 'popular X11 desktop environment' early next year upon its release. The article mentions KDE's new features (faster loading times, Konqueror's Service Menus, Kontact, KPDF, Plastik theme etc), the problems that still plague it (cluttered Kmenu and Konqueror menus, too many disorganized kontrol center modules) and some constructive suggestions on how to get over the bloat without losing the functionality."

Comments

I think

[Pingular]

constructive suggestions on how to get over the bloat without losing the functionality
I think shortcuts are definetly the way forward, for example pressing ctrl+? opens fsck or whatever :)
Much faster, easier, and makes desktops less clutered (as you don't need icons etc on desktop)

Re:I think

[sujan]

To each his own.

For some the options are a nifty thing. For others, a headache. I think KDE team should implement a beginner/advanced profile.

Re:I think

[Anonymous Coward]

For some the options are a nifty thing. For others, a headache.

Like how klipper insists on popping up a window everytime you copy a url or email. It pains me to watch people who don't know how to turn that off (should be off by default.)

Re:I think

[pantherace]

That is a bad idea for this reason: Who will help the beginners? If the advanced people are used to a different interface how easy is it to tell others how to use a different one?

Re:I think

[sujan]

I don't think that could be a big of problem. I Just hiding options from beginners to make it simpler for them.
How hard could it be to help them?

Re:I think

[frodo from middle ea]

I don't think he is talking about the interface. He is probably repreing to the plethora of configuration options in things like control panel, KDE Menu, etc.

Having two profiles (begineer/advanced) would if at all anything help begineer get used to KDE. The less options for them to configure , the more better.

As for teaching begineers, it has to be a self learn excersize, this is not 1990, that people should need to be tought how to use a freaking UI. A little bit of common sense is all that it takes to use modern day UIs.

Re:I think

[selfabuse]

I think that commands are the way forward, for example, pressing 'fsck /dev/hda1' opens fsck oh wait..

Re:I think

[pantherace]

I think that if people want to experement they should be able to (even if newbies need their .kde removed to fix it) find the option.
KDE's Control Center (Not Kontrol Center) is organized well and people after being shown the Control Center seem to have little/no problems in my experence. I propose an alternative: when you start up kcontrol, you should have a "If you mess with these you may mess up the way it looks/works"... with an option to turn it off.

Re:I think

[gnu-generation-one]

"For others, a headache. I think KDE team should implement a beginner/advanced profile"

It seems quite distracting that way... trying to find something, only to discover (or not) that you're in the wrong mode. Most programs solve the problem with really good dialog-box design, and that should be the ideal goal of any KDE application.

Example: why implement an "easy options" mode, when you can just put the relevant controls on the first tab, or on the top line of each tab?

Why implement a "braindead options" mode when those people are handled by the setup wizard?

Why implement an "advanced users" mode, when anybody who's decided to go into the third tab of a configuration window is probably someone who needs to control detailed options anyway, regardless of whether they dared click the "scary options for grey-bearded tinkerers" mode?

Re:I think

[sujan]

Hey, I used Konspire few months ago.

How's the development going?

Re:I think

[netsharc]

Maybe they should just have 2 buttons "Reset settings to: Beginner Mode/Advanced Mode/Custom", and when I click "Beginner Mode", the options that are for advanced users are turned off. Like in BIOS setups there's the 2 options: "Stability/Performance" which set the other options accordingly.

Re:I think

[antiMStroll]

I think KDE team should implement a beginner/advanced profile.

I think all OS/desktops meant for mass consumption should, Windows especially. What would be so difficult about adding beginner/advanced/expert options?

Re:I think

[molnarcs]

Blame your distro for shipping it on by default. On my system (FreeBSD 5.1) is off by default.

Re:I think

[molnarcs]

Besides, many linux newbies begin their adventure into linux-land by tweaking the hell out of the UI - for they know that its one thing that it is not 'dangerous' to experiment with.

Seriously, it surprises me that no one mentions this, although I think this is not a negligible aspect - changing colors, widgets, icons, sounds, shortcuts, blah yields immediate and _visible_ results, and a sense of accomplishment (a very small sense, but it still feels like you did something, and it worked, and - gasp! - it was on linux!). I believe this is the reason why so many newbies prefer KDE: they can browse through kcontrol and try out things (and read a lot of excellent description) - and get somewhat confortable with the system.

The main reason for so many people not trying out (or not staying with) linux is simply fear: what if I break something? But playing around the UI won't break any serious things for them. Now try to play around with GNOME: in a few hours you would have tried out everything that is possible in its 'simplified' menus, config tools, options, and then ... what? Switch to KDE of course ;) - that's how it happened with this one time noob (and I spoke to other people who had the same experience).

So, are these options _really_ intimidating/confusing? That's bs. No noob who tentatively tries out 'the other' OS would go like: I want that up button out from the file-manager! The usual rant of Eugenia (it is getting rather old) displays a total incapability of understanding how a newbie might feel before an alien environment ... hence she was never able to explain how, for all its 'terrible' flaws KDE managed to harness the largest user base, despite corporate support for the other DE.

Re:I think

[wolrahnaes]

IMO Xteq X-Setup has the config utility UI just right. There are wizards for the most common changes and full featured (and well grouped I might add...) panels for advanced tweaks. There is also a feature that warns you before entering any panels that may let you bork your system.

I think that kcontrol is in the same place as many other parts critical to a Free (speech/beer) desktop, where it is very good and on the right track, but still has some problems. Someone mentioned the sheer number of tweakable options. I like to tweak as much as the next guy, but sheesh! I would personally prefer the way I have customized my Win systems to, which gives me four stages when I want to change a setting:
1. Normal Control Panels - The basics. Plain and simple, only the most commonly used options like desktop, themes, resolution, etc...
2. Advanced Control Panels - Hidden options buried in the stock control panels. A good example in Windows is the Advanced properties of the Display control panel.
3. Add-on tweakers - X-Setup, TweakUI, etc.
4. Manual tweaks - tweaks that require digging in to regedit, obscure config files, or odd CLI commands.

Most people will never venture beyond stage 1, except for the occasional trip to stage 2 when instructed by a tech. Most "power users" are content with the capabilities afforded by stage 3, and the most hardcore can put the time in to performing stage 4 tweaks

I'm not sure how clear this rambling post is, but I hope someone can understand what my sleep deprived mind is thinking ;)

Re:I think

[fault0]

Ehm, it has been off since KDE 3.0, mostly because people considered it annoying. If it's on by default, it's probably the fault of your distro, as another user said.

Re:I think

[brendan_orr]

actually there already is a "Reset to Beginner Mode" Everybody sees it with a fresh install and is easily accessed from the KMenu>Settings>Desktop Settings Wizard (excluding distros that change this) alternatively, run "kpersonalizer" --Brendan Orr

Re:I think

[killerkalamari]

Stage 5: Modifying/replacing executables

Why would anyone want to do this? Mainly to do things the OS was not meant to do, or purposely cripped not to do (you can get MS-DOS in ME, some people are convinced it's not there, stages 1-4 would convince them). Another example: although not so useful now, it's possible to get Windows 95, 98, and ME, to "dual" boot and peacefully coexist on the same partition (add xp for a quad boot). Some would say impossible, and this would be true only using stages 1-4 above. If you modify a few binary files (io.sys, command.com and a few others) it becomes possible. Or a more modern example is booting to MS-DOS and then loading XP. "Can't be done", but it can, by loading an XP boot sector and calling the bootstrap loader again.

Don't forget stage 5, that's where the real fun begins :)

calamari

Re:I think

[spongman]

When was the last time you saw some regular "joe shmoe" windows user customize anything about their computer. Most of them don't even know how to change the desktop image let alone how the window focus depends on mouse clicks/hovers. And most of them don't care. How much do you think the customizability of their interface affects their productivity? How much of a sense of acomplishment do you think people get from customizing such things, or even knowing that you can? I'll tell you: none at all. To most people their computers aren't toys they can tinker with; they're tools they use to get work done. Nobody really cares that you can change the behaviour of the the thingamyjigger when you click on the whatsamecallit.

You're quite right about the fear factor. Imagine if your average car had 150 different knobs and switches in the dashboard. Most people would be scared shitless. The first thing they'd say is: why do I need all these things, how do they help me? And the next thing they'd say is: can't I get one without them? I mean, cars used to have such things as chokes and starter heaters, clutches and gear shifters. Who uses those anymore?

You have to pick your target audience and stick with it.

Re:I think

[qoa]

You nailed my begining experiences on the head there. I "broke" the OS a few times at first, then was scared to mess with anything. After a while I started changing widgets and messing with icons. I learned things this way. Having no outside help at all, this felt like a pretty big acomplishment. I never really felt there were too many options in those menus, just that they were buried.
It's a slow process to learn something new for some people, and these minor factors are nice and encouraging.

Re:I think

[gnu-generation-one]

"Hey, I used Konspire few months ago. How's the development going?"

Not a developer, just a user. It seems like one of the best concepts for P2P to appear for a long time.

The technical qualities of bittorrent, with the social qualities of blogging.

Re:I think

[BridgeGarth]

Well, the vast majority of people in the UK (maybe all of Europe) use gear shifts and clutches. Automatics are quite uncommon.

Re:I think

[wolrahnaes]

In my mind, that was included in stage 4, but I guess it probably would be better as a 5th stage.

Using a hacked .dll to allow skinning WinXP without that Object Desktop thing is another example of this.

The State Of KDE -- new, improved edition

[Anonymous Coward]

NEW! Revised and updated!
The State Of KDE

We have seen a lot of important news regarding the KDE project over recent weeks, so it is worth pausing to consider the ramifications.

Let us start with the recent acquisition of SUSE by Novell. SUSE was the biggest Linux distributor (though still dwarfed by Red Hat) to use KDE as its default desktop. SUSE has, for many years, neglected to package the GNOME desktop properly or even do basic Q&A... much to the delight of KDE fanatics. Now, however, Novell has purchased the SUSE linux distribution and Ximian, a company best known for the producing the most polished and professional desktop available for Linux (GNOME-based). The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that KDE is about to lose its main commercial support.

Let us take a look at some of the reasons why this is so:

• GNOME has always been the commerical desktop of choice. It has long been focussed on getting the basics right and building from there... as opposed to the KDE Project, which is entirely aimed at pleasing the slashdot peanut gallery with pointless eye-candy. KDE features are thrown into the mix with little or no regard for usability, or even good taste. The end result is disasterous, as can be seen by anyone unforunate enough to be forced into using it.
• KDE is extremely expensive to develop for, unless you intend to produce GPL software. TrollTech, the owners of KDE and Qt, license the X11 version of their Qt toolkit under the GPL. This forces anyone wanting to develop software built on top of it (including KDE), to be (L)GPL licensed -- or pay TrollTech $3000 for every developer you have working on the application to purchase a commercial license.
• TrollTech is also vulnerable to takeover by companies hostile to Free software and good corporate lawyers who can blow holes in the laughable FreeQt agreements.
• Qt's/KDE lack of accessiblity. Accessiblity is vital feature for a modern desktop. A desktop cannot be sold to the U.S. government unless it supports the features necessary for disabled users to make full use of it. The lack of said feature effectively cuts it off from the biggest software purchaser of all. GNOME has spent the last 18 months and more doing the ground-work and developing/polishing the accessiblity of the GNOME desktop (thanks to the fine work of Sun engineers). KDE has spent the time making *fake* translucent menus to help make impressive screenshots. Over the next few months you can expect increasing numbers of near-orgasmic announcements of weak accessiblity support from the KDE project, as the full extent of their folly and just how far they are behind GNOME finally becomes obvious to them. The end result will be, as with all KDE features, half-assed and broken -- designed only to function as a marketing feature tick-box filler.
• Novell is already engaged in training its engineers in development using GTK/GNOME -- not Qt/KDE.
• Novell introduced a GNOME integration bug bounty scheme, in which hackers can claim a small bounty for performing nips and tucks on GNOME applications making them work together better. No money is on offer for working with KDE.
• Nat Friedman (co-founder of Ximian), recently made a post to slashdot explaining the take-over and future directions. Much has been made of Novell's claims that it will continue to "support" KDE, but this is merely as legacy software. As Nat's post makes clear, the future of Novell is GNOME and the push for a single dominant desktop. Even the letter written by SUSE a manager claiming that KDE has not been abandoned means very little. The letter itself is 90% P.R. puff, and says very little, other than SUSE will now be shipping GNOME is a reasonable condition, unlike its previous efforts. At no point does it say that KDE will remain the default choice, or that GNOME will not be the main focus

Re:The State Of KDE -- new, improved edition

[DarkOx]

I will bite ---

Say what you like about KDE but there is one line of your post which is total crap!

"KDE has lost the only major commercial Linux distributor to support it" SUSE may have been bigger but never forget SUSE is just the BASTARD step child of Slackware and Slackware is a major commercial distro on which KDE is still the primary desktop, even though I don't install any of that KDE crap.

Re:The State Of KDE -- new, improved edition

[The Kiloman]

Yes, it's flaimbait - but it's also true. Somebody throw it another Informative or two.

Re:The State Of KDE -- new, improved edition

[fault0]

That post is in extremely bad taste. Desktop wars are one thing, but largly inconsequental in comparison to human life!

Re:The State Of KDE -- new, improved edition

[neonmagic]

Myself personally:

I used to use Gnome back when it was 1.x. I preferred it to KDE then. But then Gnome was the first Linux desktop that I used. And I also didn't like the qt license issue either. That meant my prediliction for using Gnome at the time.

However, times change, desktops evolve. I find the Gnome desktop unintuitive and not particularly attractive. Humans are visual creatures, nothing you say or do can change that basic fact about our species. KDE looks great and seems very reliable (i'm using KDE 3.0.3 on Libranet 2.7 classic on my laptop). I've also heard of horror issues with Gnome breaking very easily. That said my laptop is an aging Compaq Armada 1750 (333mzh p2, 128mb ram) and KDE runs fine. Bloat? Man if KDE is bloated then Windows XP is really bloated.

Features? KDE has many nice applications. Kstars anyone? I'm an amateur astronomer, and even though I have a legal copy of Software Bisques The Sky pro level 4 I found kstars to be very good (and this was on the early version that runs on KDE 3.0.3 - kstars is improved on KDE 3.2 beta I believe).

Codebase I have no idea, since I don't code. KDE does look very professional and organised. I'll give an example if I may - I noticed that you weren't able to download user manuals for KDE and Gnome in pdf format from their respective websites. I emailed both KDE and Gnome about this - only KDE replied. That says a lot about professionalism.

I also personally found the comment by someone in this thread about the 2 Gnome developers that passed away very distasteful. That person should have his/her /. account disabled imho. That's very disrespectful of the dead.

I've used a lot of different desktops and my personal choice of preference is Mac OS X Aqua. It's a joy to use, secure, reliable and just damn well looks good. Whilst KDE does lack the polished look of Aqua, it is still very nice. Gnome no longer appeals to me in both looks and functionality and features. That's MY personal choice. Personally, I'd like to see both major desktops merge, but it's an impossibility.

Dave

Re:The State Of KDE -- new, improved edition

[brendan_orr]

I used to use Gnome back when it was 1.x. I preferred it to KDE then. But then Gnome was the first Linux desktop that I used. And I also didn't like the qt license issue either. That meant my prediliction for using Gnome at the time.
Yeah, I don't like Qt's licensing scheme either, it makes it hard for commercial developers to make software with it, since it, IIRC, is a per-developer license. I hope that someday it will go to a pure GPL, instead of a bi-licensed QT/GPL. Codebase I have no idea, since I don't code. KDE does look very professional and organised. I'll give an example if I may - I noticed that you weren't able to download user manuals for KDE and Gnome in pdf format from their respective websites. I emailed both KDE and Gnome about this - only KDE replied. That says a lot about professionalism. Yeah, I love doing development for it (however I don't do any core/library development yet). One thing I like about KDE is its developement process:it is very solid and very organized. At this moment, KDE 3.2 is in string freeze, so the focus is not obviously making it better (from a feature standpoint) but making it faster and more stable. When it will be released in Jan. 2004, it should be one hellofa DE. That's MY personal choice. Personally, I'd like to see both major desktops merge, but it's an impossibility. Right on about the personal choice. KDE and GNOME users shouldn't see it as a battle between us. It is like saying that slackware is better than RedHat or Debian, when in fact no distro is better than another, just different. Same holds true here. GNOME is much simpler in controls: "it just works" Whereas KDE is for those of us who need to tweak every single option to make it not only unique, but to give ourselves an environment that is truely ergonomic. --Brendan Orr

Re:The State Of KDE -- new, improved edition

[brendan_orr]

Blech, sorry for the formatting, forgot to insert a few
's (Yeah, I know, "Use the friggin Preview Button") give me some slack (no pun) its nearly 2:30am :)

Re:The State Of KDE -- new, improved edition

[10Ghz]

GNOME has always been the commerical desktop of choice.

How so? Which distros are GNOME-centric? Well, there's Red Hat and.... That's about it. Sure, there's Fedora, but their KDE-support is alot better than Red Hat's was. Then there is Sun, but we'll have to see how that pans aout. They don't even call their desktop GNOME though.

If we look at KDE, there's SUSE, Mandrake, Lycoris, Lindows, Xandros, Knoppix and Conectiva. I bet I missed few though. Rest (Debian, Gentoo, Slackware etc.) are more or less desktop-agnostic.

To me it seems that KDE is the "desktop of choice"

KDE is extremely expensive to develop for, unless you intend to produce GPL software.

So, let me get this straight: Before, GNOME-fanboys whined because Qt was not 100% free (as in speech). Now that it is, they whine because Qt does not allow them to write closed and proprietary software for free? How's that for hypocrisy!? "I support open source and free software! I want others to give me free tools so I could write proprietary software for profit with them!"

TrollTech, the owners of KDE and Qt

Trolltech does not own KDE.

Qt's/KDE lack of accessiblity

Examples please?

KDE has spent the time making *fake* translucent menus

I have seen similar fake translucency on GNOME as well, so what's your point?

thanks to the fine work of Sun engineers

Those "Fine Sun engineers" that are now working on GNOME used to work on CDE. A ringing endorsement, don't you think?

TrollTech is also vulnerable to takeover

Over 60% of TT's shares are owned by the emplyees of TT. The shares are not publicly listed. So how exactly are they "vulnerable"? And even if they were taken over and GPL'ed Qt was eliminated, Qt would be automatically released under a BSD-style license. Do some research, OK?

OpenOffice v2 -- the only open source desktop capable of satisfying business needs -- is already working on integration with the GNOME desktop

And they are working on integraring it with KDE as well, so what's your point?

Re:The State Of KDE -- new, improved edition

[wathead]

I sure kope KDE is not a legacy. I started out with RedHat 7.3. So I guess that makes me a noob. Any way I would not use KDE period Gnome only for me.
Then I tried RedHat 8 it sucked it was a step backwards I formated and went back to 7.3. Then came 9. I tried it and liked it I guess they got the bugs worked out from 8 to 9. But Gnome sucked to the max no menu editor(WHAT) So off to KDE I like it much better has more control middle click right click etc. All the stuff gnome lacks and a Menu editor.
I tried fedora core just a day or two ago. It sucks no aumix-X11. No pine . The Nvidia Drivers wont compile and yes I had the kernel source installed. Less control during installation.
I know this is off topic but the hat scene is going down. I guess I will continue with RedHat 9 and Slack 9.1 on my test box. I would switch them both over if I could get evolution to work on Slack. That is the one good thing to come from Gnome or Xiamian its all the same.
If I install user linux it will have KDE added on.

Re:The State Of KDE -- new, improved edition

[ahillen]

The letter itself is 90% P.R. puff, and says very little, other than SUSE will now be shipping GNOME is a reasonable condition, unlike its previous efforts.

AFAIK, SUSE was shipping Gnome so far more less like the GNOME team released it, including application start menues that reflected the installed programs and maybe a background image with the SUSE logo. So I think GNOME was shipped in an as reasonable condition as it was released by the GNOME team. OK, maybe you think that the GNOME team doesn't make reasonable releases and that it takes a distributor like Red Hat or Ximian to make it reasonable... but I don't think so.

Re:The State Of KDE -- new, improved edition

[teprrr]

Features? KDE has many nice applications. Kstars anyone? I'm an amateur astronomer, and even though I have a legal copy of Software Bisques The Sky pro level 4 I found kstars to be very good (and this was on the early version that runs on KDE 3.0.3 - kstars is improved on KDE 3.2 beta I believe).

You can find the new features of KStars 3.2 here. Looks pretty promising, but don't know as I'm not into atronomy.

Re:The State Of KDE -- new, improved edition

[adrianbaugh]

Bah. It was in reply to a troll bizarrely modded as insightful. Sure, it was in poor taste and fair enough to mod me as a troll, but my post was really no more offensive than much stuff in mainstream media. Sometimes, political correctness is just too limiting.

For what it's worth I was extremely upset when I read about both deaths. But, as someone at least vaguely famous once said, there is no subject which is unsuitable for comedy.

Misspelling?

[SeanTobin]

I liked the review, but in the end they misspelled "Konclusion".

Re:Misspelling?

[American AC in Paris]

I liked the review, but in the end they misspelled "Konclusion".

Gnerd.

Re:Misspelling?

[Tyir]

Kome on.....

Re:Misspelling?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen to that! The reason I like KDE is because of its extensive use of the letter 'K' wherever it can be shoehorned in. It's very professional, and is sure to appeal to a wide audience. The average Joe User, konfronted with these kwirky spelling kontortions, will surely not be turned off. On the kontrary, he will surely be impressed by the efficient leverage of this most esteemed letter of the alphabet, and is likely to keep koming bak for more. "Kudos to KDE", he will say, "Keep Windows. I don't knead Mikrosoft, just give me more of this LinuKs OS. I am produktive, kontent, and in Kontrol!"

Remember, that letter, again, is "K". Rhymes with "gay".

Re:Misspelling?

[steeviant]

Yeah, I Gnow what you mean. GNOME is so much more professional, they Gnever use stupid Gay names like GayDE do.

KDE preview

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a good article actually. I didn't expect it to be so positive and harsh at the same time but there is definetely some nailing going on there.

KDE is quite complete

[rkz]

I think it is comparable to windows / macs featurewise. What linux needs are the apps everyone can't live without. Things like AutoCAD or MS Publisher (for making those crappy xmas cards).

The control center is very nice i have found it simple and easy to use I don't see how they can make it better.

Re:KDE is quite complete

[CvD]

Nice sig... asshole. :-) Nice way to hide it with a number IP instead of a domain name. Hehehe.

Re:KDE is quite complete

[radixvir]

What about photoshop or the other adobe apps? In my opinion, thats what missing most from linux. Its the apps people cant live without that are keeping people from moving

Re:KDE is quite complete

[adrianbaugh]

Not really. People "couldn't live without" MS Office until they started to drift to OOo. Similarly, people will drift to gimp etc. (especially when there's finally a version of gimp that does high-res colour and colour proofing[0], maybe gimp 1.6ish...)
I guess QuarkXpress would be harder to replace (is that Adobe?) as there isn't (afaik) a comparable open-source project.

[0] Like a combination of filmgimp and regular gimp-1.4. It's apparently on the cards but nowhere near imminent.

Re:KDE is quite complete

[brendan_orr]

Nope, Quark isn't made by Adobe. Pagemaker is however. There are linux equivalents. Including (arguably) KWord. Scribbus is perhaps the one that comes to my mind the most however

Heresy

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

KDE is (gulp) >faster> than Gnome? There goes one myth. Take away the Eugenia standard carping over the UI and you have a pretty good review.

Re:Heresy

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE faster? From one of the dumbest people ever to post their opinions on the web?

Just read back over Eugenia's previous reviews and you'll see that she can't find her ass with both hands. For all we know, she probably had a ray tracer running in the background while testing GNOME -- or more likely, she tried to compile it herself and made a right royal fuckup.

GNOME is faster than KDE -- FACT. Some clueless fucks view the slightly messier redraw under GTK ss "slower"... when, in fact, it is not. It's a point that people have been (justifiably) carping at the knuckle-heads developing GTK+ for years.

Re:Heresy

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Hell, I couldn't tell you. KDE seems just as fast to me but I run pretty high-end machines w/ plenty of memory. I like the uniformity of Gnome but find myself getting stuff done w/ KDE, especially comparing Konqueror to Nautilus which is definitely slower IMHO.

Re:Heresy

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Wait, forgot to ask if you have tested KDE 3.2b against Gnome like she did. Did you?

Re:Heresy

[schon]

GNOME is faster than KDE

On my current machines, this has been my experience as well, however I've not tried KDE3.2...

have you? (After all, she says it's now faster than Gnome, which means that it wasn't before.)

Re:Heresy

[Ice_Balrog]

I don't care about how fast GNOME 'really' is, but on my machine (which is a pretty damn good box), QT/KDE apps feel much more responsive and load faster then similar GTK2/GNOME applications.

Ofcourse, GTK1 does beat both QT and GTK2, but it sucks as far as usability.

Amazing, I never thought I would actually agree with Eugenia about something...

Re:Heresy

[Trejkaz]

Well every time I've run GNOME it's been slower than KDE too. You're not the only one to notice it but it's either very hardware-dependent, or GNOME zeal-dependent.

Of course Fluxbox kicks the shit out of both of them.

Re:Heresy

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

What are the specs on your machine? I don't notice much difference except that Konqueror is MUCH faster than Nautilus and actually works as a file browser and web browser.

Re:Heresy

[molnarcs]

Look, I don't mean to start a flamefest, but GNOME on my system is only faster to start up - KDE is as responsive when it is started as GNOME... And I speak about KDE 3.1.4 ...

Given the fact that they promised optimalisation for 3.2 (when 3.1 was coming out, they said it would be a top priority only in 3.2), I can very well imagine 3.2 being faster than GNOME 2.4.x (don't know about 2.5). Oh, and there is no need to get that angry, after all its only a DE, not a religion (or am I wrong?)

System: AMD Duron 700, 256 SDRAM, TNT2 video.
Output of top while running KDE:

last pid: 860; load averages: 0.30, 0.16, 0.10 up 0+01:30:52 14:35:30 49 processes: 2 running, 47 sleeping
CPU states: 5.4% user, 0.0% nice, 4.7% system, 0.4% interrupt, 89.5% idle
Mem: 119M Active, 53M Inact, 47M Wired, 8600K Cache, 35M Buf, 15M Free
Swap: 491M Total, 491M Free

Re:Heresy

[mixmasta]

I think the opinions of normal people are important when analysing software. It is us mouth-breathers who will be using it.

Re:Heresy

[moderators_are_w*nke]

I agree with that. On my FreeBSD 5.2-RC1 box (yes, I know, BSD is dead) at least. I used to use GNOME 2, and on a whim I decided to give KDE 3.1.4 (or something like that) a go. It does seem a lot snappier in general use.

Having said that I still use a number of GTK apps (pan, gaim mostly) and they don't seem massively slower alongside the KDE ones. Maybe its just the desktop and the console that everyone keeps flaming.

Re:Heresy

[randomblast]

fluxbox is technically faster than KDE and GNOME, like GNOME is technically faster than KDE. but you have to take into account the speed boost you get with integration. ie, mozilla is faster under GNOME, konqueror is faster under KDE. GNOME is faster than KDE, but you're not going to get any use out of a desktop on it's own, unless you have some kinky wallpaper :p it feels a lot faster using konqueror with KDE than mozilla with GNOME. and besides, although GTK is GPLed, and Qt has a proprietary license, Qt is actually a better API. i do use GTK apps (gkrellm, gaim, openoffice) but one of them is going to be Qt native soon :) ( http://dot.kde.org/1071245692/ ) anyway, my point is, the GNOME desktop is faster, but KDE has faster applications

Re:Heresy

[Trejkaz]

That's probably the problem. Although I don't use Konqueror due to various CSS issues which make it unusable on certain sites, I do tend to use a lot of Qt apps just by choice. Even under Fluxbox I'm using KMail and Psi for all communications because I don't have a 'better' alternative for either.

Re:Heresy

[DShard]

Can't it be both a DE and a religion? But then we would probably need to include mozilla too.

Re:Heresy

[NamShubCMX]

While I agree with you, I just wanted to point out that you are wrong about the license issue.

GTK is LGPL
Qt is GPL on Linux (dual license, actually, one of which is proprietary)

Most people who complains about Qt license is because it's *too much* Free (cant write closed apps)

Re:Heresy

[adrianbaugh]

However, if you look at the screenshots she provides it's pretty obvious that she's carping with good reason. The extra spacing between gnome's menus, the soft lines between its toolbars DO make it easier to use. Now it's not a big thing but if it were fixed KDE would be better. Complexity of the configurator I don't care so much about, but again it does present a real problem for some users and ought to be improved.
There's very little point in a reviewer not mentioning flaws they find, unless they're being offered backhanders. Whether you think she's nitpicking or not, Loli does mention the good points too and seems pretty impartial. I'm sure at least the KDE developers will take her criticisms maturely and work towards making KDE3.3 even better.
Long live KDE!

Re:Heresy

[Solosoft]

Honestly KDE is somewhat faster then gnome. Im running a Pentium 166MMX with 128mb of RAM. GTK2 is HORRIBLE. It takes like 5 seconds to bring up a menu. KDE is still slow but not as slow as gnome. Although shutting off the anti-aliasing effects on GTK2 makes my gaim in windowmaker that much faster.

Re:Heresy

[AntiOrganic]

I am in the exact same situation. I'd been an XFce4/Gnome user ever since I switched to Linux full-time over the summer, up until a few weeks ago when I compiled the whole of KDE since I needed a good bit of it for K3B anyway.

KDE seems even more responsive than XFce4 on this machine, and it's the primary reason why Konqueror is now my new browser, KWord is now my new word processor and Quanta Plus is now my new HTML/PHP editor. I, like my sibling poster, still use a handful of GTK+ applications (Evolution, Gaim, Pan, Nicotine, The Gimp) but they certainly do feel noticeably slower than the Qt applications on my desktop right now. I'm running a performance-tuned prelinked Gentoo system, however, so I'm not 100% entitled to say how something would perform on a "normal" binary-based Linux installation.

Of course, this is entirely without taking into effect the excellent design of Qt's derived widgets, the elegance of KDE's kioslaves, customizability of toolbars, common widgets and file dialogs, and so on.

The only thing I can say KDE is deficient in is its user interface, but this is perfectly in line with Eric Raymond's Art of Unix Programming, separating policy from mechanism. Every interface issue in KDE can get sorted out in a single .1 version release. GNOME's going to have a much harder time catching up because they've spent all of their time concentrating on a consistent user interface that's lacking such common sense features as "undo" in a textbox or a usable file dialog.

Re:Heresy

[nutshell42]

If you read Eugenia's previous reviews you'll also notice that she's a rabid GNOME fangirl (at least on Linux, we all know that BeOS was the ultimate OS).

If she says KDE is faster it has to be so unbelievably clear that not even Pravda could deny it =P

Re:Heresy

[jcupitt65]

GTK2 is mostly slower because all text layout is now done with pango. Pango does a huge range of language typesetting, and AFAIK, Qt is still behind in this area.

Re:Heresy

[randomblast]

my mistake

Re:Heresy

[randomblast]

also, who says you can't, Opera is closed source and it's written with Qt (on linux anyway)

Re:Heresy

[nutshell42]

I didn't dispute that but perhaps I could have been clearer by calling her a incompetent rabid GNOME fangirl. =)

That said I really don't understand why her story still appear on /. I haven't read even one single article by her that wasn't simply wrong, to incomplete to retain any meaning or biased to the max.

Standardized clipboard daemon

[narsiman]

Will we get it in this release

KDE 3.2 is going to rock

[qed123]

I installed KDE 3.2 last week, and while it's just a beta I give it two thumbs up easily. The tabs in Konqueror are fixed to more like what I'm used to in Firebird, and theres some nifty new features in the file browser mode. Not to mention there seems like a lot of new configuration options and everything seems even more solid and snappier than 3.1.4. The new theme, Plastik, has really grown on me as well.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

With KDE and Gnome base libs installed alongside Windowmaker, why would I need either? I want a Windowmanager to do just that: manage windows.

Re:Well...

[tuggy]

if what you want is just manage windows, then look for a window manager. KDE/Gnome is not a window manager, is a full desktop environment. So why are you complaining anyway?

Re:Well...

[MarcQuadra]

But don't you want badly anti-aliased fonts applied to half the stuff on the screen, like the konsole? I would just die without my konsole, everything else makes the text go by too fast. Konsole slows it down to a reasonable pace for me.

Regarding the cluttered Kmenu

[suso]

Perhaps some kind of system that keeps track of how often you run certain programs and when you don't use one for X amount of time then it puts those programs into a submenu or something like that. I think that would be a good feature that Window currently doesn't have (at least as far as I know).

I guess on open source systems, the tendancy is to install most of the software that is available, so you wind up with a lot available to you, meaning that your games menu is full of things like KFoulEggs. ;-)

Re:Regarding the cluttered Kmenu

[Abcd1234]

Actually, ideas like this have been tossed around in UI literature for as long as the area has existed. The problem with these kinds of adaptive UIs is that they can be confusing to a user.

Example: Imagine, I'm Joe Sixpack and, three weeks ago, I fired up The GIMP. But now, I look in the menu, and it's missing... so I look around. Oooh, found it. So, he closes The GIMP. Oh, just one more thing... click on the menu. And it's moved again!

The point is that users rely a great deal on UI consistency in order to remember where things are and how they work. As a result, things like dynamic menus go a long way to making the UI *less* useable, rather than more, since you can no longer rely on your memory. Now, yes, careful design can minimize some of these problems, but the fundamental point is the same: the user expects the UI to behave in a deterministic manner.

Re:Regarding the cluttered Kmenu

[YetAnotherDave]

that sounds like the personalized menus in win2K, which are the first thing I turn off...

Re:Regarding the cluttered Kmenu

[Some Dumbass...]

Perhaps some kind of system that keeps track of how often you run certain programs and when you don't use one for X amount of time then it puts those programs into a submenu or something like that.

Try this in KDE 3.1:

Configure Panel -> Layout -> QuickStart Menu Items:

O Show the applications most recently used.
0 Show the applications most frequently used.
Maximum Number of Entries: 5

Re:Regarding the cluttered Kmenu

[Overly Critical Guy]

Hello? Personalized Menus in Windows. Also, XP's Start Menu has all your frequently used programs listed on the left.

Re:Mac compared to X

[aldoman]

I agree. Mac OSX is so damn good for working in. They have the context menus nailed right down - I never feel they are cluttered but they always have the option I'm looking for...

Wouldn't that be...

[pcgamez]

"...and some constructive suggestions on..."

konstructiive?

Kan't stand it

[Saeger]

Konqueror ... Kontact, KPDF, Plastik ... Kmenu ... kontrol center

If my brain was an eyeball it would be bleeding! Why do geeks think prefixing K (or G) to everything is witty? It's not; it's just annoying and confusing.

--

Re:Kan't stand it

[SeanTobin]

I always thought it was pretty Kool.

Re:Kan't stand it

[Tyir]

Acutally that sort of naming scheme excellent, it gives which DE it is built for, and then what it actually does. KPDF is much more intuitive than say, Acrobat.

Re:Kan't stand it

[Poeir]

Especially considering (konsidering?) that pressing the first letter of a menu option goes to that menu option, but when every one starts with the same letter, it makes the feature useless.

Re:Kan't stand it

[Abcd1234]

Bah. If you wanted clarity, you'd call it "KDE PDF Viewer". Moreover, reasonable tooltips in the menu make it very simple to understand what an application does (example, the menu item says "Acrobat" and the tooltip says "Adobe PDF Viewer").

No, these ridiculous naming schemes are due to 1) lack of creativity and 2) some twisted belief that they're cool.

Re:Kan't stand it

[Tyir]

But it is pretty obvious that KPDF mean KDE PDF viewer, and it is much easier to remember/type into a console kpdf than kdepdfviewer... Say I didn't use Windows, if someone was telling me they opened something in Acrobat, I would have no idea what they are talking about, but if it was called, say, winpdf (I know MS doesn't make it, it is Adobe, but you get the idea) I would know right away. So if a KDE program is called koffice, which I've never heard of, I could make a good guess as to what it does.

Re:Kan't stand it

[wobblie]

What don't you understand? Don't you understand this, properly, as a letter "k" and "g" conspriracy?

We have a choice, and it is either "K" or "G". In the furture everything will start with K or G. Get used to it, because you will be the letter "K" or "G"'s bitch, whether you like it or not.

At least it's not everything being appended with "32" or "Enterprise Pro Edition" right?

Re:Kan't stand it

[Minna Kirai]

The same problem has occured on Microsoft(tm) Windows(r) computers. Prehaps it's fixed by the XP/2003 versions, but recently you'd see a menu full of "Microsoft Word" "Microsoft Excel" Microsoft Powerpoint"...

That's actually much worse than how KDE does it, because instead of one meaningless extra letter there are 10 characters to read past before the name is disambiguated. (It looks horrible on the taskbar too)

Re:Kan't stand it

[Keck]

Yes, but if you are using a shell with tab completion (i.e., just about any of them) you can quickly scan through all the k apps and the g apps...

Re:Kan't stand it

[Abcd1234]

it is much easier to remember/type into a console kpdf than kdepdfviewer

And who said anything about the menu and the executable sharing the same name? In my menu, I have an item called "Calendar". It corresponds to an application with the file name "gnomecal". So, in the menu, call it "KDE PDF Viewer" and on the command line, call it "kpdf".

My only point is that the KDE naming scheme for their *Menu* items has *nothing* to do with useability and everything to do with the "coolness" factor.

BTW, if the naming scheme is so great for identifying apps, please, tell me, what does Konqueror do?

Re:Kan't stand it

[vadim_t]

Weird, we have WinRAR, WinZIP, Winamp, WinMX, winhelp, winchat, winfax, winmine, winoldap, winsock, winspool, and nobody seems to complain much.

Re:Kan't stand it

[Mr.Ned]

I'd think the KDE team's time is better spent on koding than naming.

Re:Kan't stand it

[RedWizzard]

WinRAR, WinZIP, Winamp, WinMX, winhelp, winchat, winfax, winmine, winoldap, winsock, winspool

Of those I use WinZip and WinAmp (winsock is basically invisible to the user). They are the only two win- prefixed programs of the dozens I use on Windows. It's nowhere near as bad.

The "K" thing really annoys me because it reminds me of script-kiddy language. It is actually a major reason why I haven't seriously used KDE in a long time.

Re:Kan't stand it

[pantherace]

What does Navigator do? What does Explorer do?

Acrobat? Blender? Word? Outlook? Kopete? Trillian? Xine? XMMS? Noatun

Naming schemes in general have little to do with the function. The only one of the above which seems to go with it's function is Word, and word was used for a heck of a lot of word processors (WORDperfect, WORDstar, etc)

Admittedly there are some good examples of the opposite: kmail, Aol Instant Messenger, yahoo messenger, Windows Media Player, mplayer, realplayer, again among others. Konqueror is a play off of: 1st you navigate it, then you explore it, then you konquer it. :) Makes as much sense as most other program names.

Re:Kan't stand it

[MikeXpop]

iDunno, but iAgree. iThink it's iStupid.

Re:Kan't stand it

[scottblascocomposer]

Not to mention iMac, iBook, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iLife, iMic... In one way it's nice, because it is easy to recognize all of the above as being somehow related. I've thought before that KDE seems to be trying to sell itself as an operating system more than a DE. It's like so many people I've talked to who think that RedHat is its own operating system, rather than one distribution of a much larger OS community. It's all in the name of branding, I suppose...

And I should add, of course, that you're assuming people around here know what that "win" prefix is. Never heard of it, myself. :)

Re:Kan't stand it

[Abcd1234]

Umm, read the post that started this off. The poster was claiming that KDE's naming scheme was useful because it made it obvious what the application did. My posts were intended to debunk that idea, and also provide counter-examples which show that this isn't the case, and that, clearly, some other reason exists for this ridiculous naming convention (IMHO, the "cool" factor).

Re:Kan't stand it

[vadim_t]

You know, you can probably get rid of it yourself.

Simply take kbabel, and make language files for a k-less system. If it bothers people that much they could have perfectly done that a long time ago.

Re:Kan't stand it

[/dev/trash]

Why do I need to know what DE an app was built for?

Re:Kan't stand it

[JBv]

It's shorthand for:
KDE-Desktop-Conqueror-browser
KDE-Desktop-C ontacts-manager
KDE-Desktop-PDF-viewer
KDE-Deskt op-Menu-Configuration
KDE-Desktop-Control-center

etc... :o)

Actully it's a handy way to sort the packages in a listing. The only odd packages that you need to remember are arts and qt.

Re:Kan't stand it

[AvitarX]

wouldn't that be k-kool?

Re:Kan't stand it

[RedWizzard]

Yeah, I'll probably do that one day (or change the language setup as the other guy suggested). I'm not saying it's rational, just that it annoys the hell out of me.

Re:Kan't stand it

[pantherace]

My point was that KDE may do it by a variety of methods (adding k to the front, c->k, having a word with a k in it), but generally it is no less consistant than any other naming scheme in use, and may in fact be better at refering to the purpose. GNOME does it, (g)toaster as an example, Apple does it (i)Mac, Compaq (i)paq, (win)zip, rar, IBM (z,i,e)-series. An extra letter is common to designate something, in this case KDE, as opposed to i(nternet) or e(lectronic)- e(mail) e(business)

KDE is no more inconsistant by adding a K, they are just slightly innovative by changing a C to a K or chosing names that start with a K. (Microsoft must be right, innovators get dumped on... :) )

Does it really matter? I am just waiting before someone starts a really stupid suit for gimp, lame being derogatory, or some such. Let the people who write it pick the name, and if someone is so focused on the name that it overwhelms their desire to use it, then I find that to be immature, but if they don't want to they don't have to.

Re:Kan't stand it

[sicking]

If my brain was an eyeball it would be bleeding! Why do geeks think prefixing K (or G) to everything is witty? It's not; it's just annoying and confusing.

You mean Konfusing?

Re:Kan't stand it

[Some Dumbass...]

Especially considering (konsidering?) that pressing the first letter of a menu option goes to that menu option, but when every one starts with the same letter, it makes the feature useless.

Of course, you can always set up the menu in "Description (Name)" order, e.g. "CD Player (kscd)".

Re:Kan't stand it

[adrianbaugh]

I guess it klarifies the gnamespace a bit. After all, you know danmned well that gnipple isn't going to be a porn app for KDE! :-)

Re:Kan't stand it

[antiMStroll]

It's the branding Slashdot Marketing Wizards keep asserting Linux needs to succeed.

Re:Kan't stand it

[Hooded One]

Heh, I didn't realize it before reading through the comments here, but "conqueror" just looks completely wrong to me as well. I hang my head in shame.

Re:Kan't stand it

[Hooded One]

Actually, it's not Kontrol Center. You can see in this screenshot that it's just Control Center. The binary file is kcontrolcenter. The author just got carried away.

As others have pointed out, there are countless iApps and WinApps for their respective platforms. It's a name recognition thing.

Re:Kan't stand it

[Grizzlysmit]

Konqueror ... Kontact, KPDF, Plastik ... Kmenu ... kontrol center

If my brain was an eyeball it would be bleeding! Why do geeks think prefixing K (or G) to everything is witty? It's not; it's just annoying and confusing.

It's not a question of being witty, it's called name spacing, if your paths all start with a string alpha, then you only need to avoid name collision, with other paths which match the pattern alpha* or /path/alpha/*.

Ok now that I've explained that, can we retire this as a mandatory comment; it's so boring.

Re:Kan't stand it

[Nailer]

Why should a user care what DE it is 'built for'? Shouldn't it just work with whatever the current FDO standards are, rather than being handicapped if its run on the 'wrong' DE?

Re:Kan't stand it

[Wolfier]

It's fundamentally different. The "K" apps are annoying because they *CHANGE* a legitimate English word, as opposed to, for example, "Winhelp", "WinAmp", which merely appends "win" in front of an intact English word.

If WinAmp were "Wmp", Winhelp were "Welp", Winmine were "Wine", Winsock were "Wock", Winspool were "Wpool" then you might have a point.

Re:Kan't stand it

[Wolfier]

If they merely appends a "k" in front of an app I don't think anyone would complain.

i.e. kConqueror is less annoying than Konqueror, kControl Center is less annoying than Kontrol Center, kContact is less annoying than Kontact.

A small "k" would be less annoying than a big "K" too. So, KDevelop is inferior to kDevelop.

It's the secret behind why so many people can live with "iPhoto", "iBook", "iMac" and "iTune".

Re:Kan't stand it

[Eloyse]

I think it's a good way of knowing the dependencies without clicking for details. I hate Java so when a see that capital J I just don't bother checking it out

Re:Kan't stand it

[10Ghz]

kControl Center is less annoying than Kontrol Center

It's not called "Kontrol Center". It's just "Control Center"

Re:Kan't stand it

[AsparagusChallenge]

Nah, they're due to 0) Identity. When trolls like you complain about it they are just denying an identity to the project, which is as far as I know a bad thing, because it's just a bit short of expecting its destruction.

Re:Kan't stand it

[leomekenkamp]

That should of course be:

Karma: SELEKT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;

Re:Kan't stand it

[sLaSh_N_bUrN_(.Y.)]

I need to stop reading /. I just now noticed that all you words started with "i". At first it looked normal. Thats just sad.

I "emerged" it over the weekened.

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the look, and it appears stable with Gentoo on the 2.6.0-test11 kernel. The only problem I've found (and it appears to be a known issue) is that "Find" just sits there and doesn't continue.

All in all, I think it's a good upgrade.

KDE Control Center

[pantherace]

Can Eugenia get it right? Dispite KDE apps' habit of C->K... it is not Kontrol Center.

Not to mention... Kommander's Editor (kmdr-editor) is by no means a bloddy text editor.

As someone on dot.kde.org pointed out (and I fully agree with) the ability to customize thing SHOULD not be messed with, because otherwise you go the GNOME/Windows way. KDE can act like almost any other DE if people want it to, and set it to do so.

Eugenia has in my experence not done very good review, and assumes that less choice = better, which I find fundamentally flawed.

Having used KDE since 1.x (and others for a long time) and currently KDE cvs (built every couple of days), KDE has been for some time in my opinion the best DE of all (including MacOS, CDE, Windows, and GNOME) And the 3.2 just got a big speed boost. (on a cable connection (~300KB/sec max) slashdot load in under 3 seconds, as does just about any webpage except /.ed ones, and el reg (that is throughout the cable company, so something is messed up there, and it has gotten better, so even that is .) Koffice is much better since the last time I used it, and it is faster than openoffice, and quite stable. Juk is just great. Kontact should import kopete as well if it wants to be complete, and the talked about kopete-address book integration... if that's what Eugenia calls integration (essentially a link) then no wonder everyone thinks windows and gnome are decent. (Kopete-address book integration is at this point substandard for KDE.) kgpg is also included.

Re:KDE Control Center

[pyros]

As someone on dot.kde.org pointed out (and I fully agree with) the ability to customize thing SHOULD not be messed with, because otherwise you go the GNOME/Windows way. KDE can act like almost any other DE if people want it to, and set it to do so.

The configuration options don't need to be removed, just slightly hideen. You could have each Control Center applet have an advanced tab with 50K extra options that 90% of the users don't mess with. Then the options are still there, very accessible, and out of the way so as not to intimidate the new users. And it does intimidate the new users. I'm a seasoned user and I find it's mostly just clutter. They could even have that first-run config wizard ask 'would you like to see advanced options in Control Center applets?' and leave them all mixed in. One of the things I think Red Hat did that made a large step in useability was adding the "More Applications" menu on each menu group. You see a small set of the defaults, and have like 5 alternatives in the submenu.

Re:KDE Control Center

[pyros]

And of course the menus wer locked down!

No they weren't. The "applications:" menu editing in Nautilus was disabled because it didn't work. But it was pretty simple to edit the menu with a text editor in /usr/share/applications.

scoff about RedHat's first suggestions like Gaim, OO.o, and other rubbish. Idiots!

Well that's a matter of opinion. Something has to be the default application. Red Hat decided to make a consistent desktop not only in terms of look and feel but in default applications. And they took hell for it. The default applications selected for both environments were the GNOME ones, obviously becase GNOME is the default DE.

Re:Site already slow... full text

[JoeBaldwin]

Ha ha! You replaced all the Cs with Ks! HAHAHA! LOLOLOLZORZ! You are teh l33t! Haw haw!

Fool.

Contol Center?

[Ice_Balrog]

What is her problem? They go and actually HIDE SOME OF THE PREFERENCES FOR NEWBIES, and she still bitches about it being too 'confusing'! Can't she just understand that:
a) Many of the preferences are hidden for newbies, so too 'confusing' isn't a problem. Unless they decide they WANT to see all the preferences and tell it to show them
b) The rest of us like to have contorl of our systems, and think that Control Center is perfectly OK, because although there are many preferences, for the most part they are organised very nicely.

Re:Contol Center?

[adrianbaugh]

It could still be better arranged. Remember, you're competing with drool-proof apples and Microsoft's sugar-coated control center.
I actually think something like XP's control center would be a good thing for KDE. You get a "context view" which takes novices straight to the 7 most useful things (Administer Printers, Personalise Desktop, Automagic Network Sorter-Outer etc.) and a small, unassuming link saying "Further Options" (a suitably boring name that won't encourage the insufficiently-skilled to click on it) which brings up the full configurable glory.
That way it's easier for newbies to make little changes quickly without ploughing through acres of submenus, and everyone else still has access to the whole thing.

The idea isn't to take anything away, just to arrange it better.

Re:Contol Center?

[Sam Gibson]

Let me ask you something then. Why is there a "Themes" applet and a "Style" applet? This is just an example of the bone-headed-ness of the organization.

Re:Contol Center?

[Ice_Balrog]

Simple. Themes are complete changes of look. They change everything form desktop background to widget style. Syles, on the other hand, merely change that appearance of widgets. They don't even change the color of widgets, just how they look.

Re:Contol Center?

[unborn]

Themes have been removed as nobody used them.

Java App.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do geeks think prefixing K (or G) to everything is witty? It's not; it's just annoying and confusing.

I wrote an app in Java to change all the names because I hate that annoying style too. It's called Jrenamer.

Re:Java App.

[LarsWestergren]

I wrote an app in Java to change all the names because I hate that annoying style too. It's called Jrenamer.

I was working on an project some years ago where the suggested project name was Janus, after the Roman double-faced God of beginnings. We did it in Java, and then someone realised that, no, perhaps it wasn't such a good name for the project after all.

No more Keramik!

[3Suns]

Good riddance! Keramik was KDE's idea of "eye kandy" for 3.1, and looked like someone's poor first attempt at a GUI theme. About as streamlined as a yak. In a word: fugly!

Now they've gone with an off-color ripoff of the Windows XP window decorations (just like Ximian's Industrial), and a QT theme that looks like one of the GTK Smooth variations. Certainly an improvement over Keramik, but not exactly an original look. It seems like they were really sick of people complaining how Gnome is prettier.

Re:No more Keramik!

[jrockway]

How in the world is Industrial a rip off of XP? Where are the similarities!?

Re:No more Keramik!

[bash-2.02$]

In a word: fugly!

in the hot rod world, this means Fast but Ugly (my mantra with my ride). isnt that what linux is all about?

perhaps what you wanted is a very similar word, just "ugly."

Re:No more Keramik!

[3Suns]

It's not as much of a ripoff as the new KDE theme, but the window buttons are shaped exactly the same.

Re:No more Keramik!

[damiam]

This is not the hot rod world. Fugly has a different, more appropriate meaning

Re:No more Keramik!

[3Suns]

Are we talking about the same Keramik? The one with window decorations that are twice as big as they should be, piss-colored widget highlights that don't match the window decorations, "3D Effects" that appear to have been done by a 13-year old who just discovered photoshop?

Re:No more Keramik!

[pyros]

in the hot rod world, this means Fast but Ugly

in most other worlds, it means fucking ugly.

Re:No more Keramik!

[sloanster]

Someone said "Now they've gone with an off-color ripoff of the Windows XP window decorations"

oh please, windoze xp widgets look exactly like a certain icewm theme I used to run back in 1999 or so. Don't assume because you see a resemblance, that you know what was copied from where...

Re:No more Keramik!

[bash-2.02$]

so, what you mean is that it means exactly the same thing as ugly and is therefore superfluous.

its different, sure. how is it more appropriate? its the best definition because its what you need it to mean?

Re:No more Keramik!

[ortcutt]

I became a GNOME user because KDE was so fugly in the past. I might consider trying it out now that there is a decent installed theme. I could never figure out how a DE with so many European users could be so styleless.

Re:No more Keramik!

[Qbertino]

You seem to be a really good artist who knows what he's talking about. Your arguments are so very well grounded. Any examples?

Re:No more Keramik!

[Nodatadj]

Since when do you need to be able to draw to say whether something is ugly?

Re:No more Keramik!

[Joe Tie.]

It seems like they were really sick of people complaining how Gnome is prettier.

In my experience there's two big prefrences in style, those who like brighter keramik styles and those who like more subdued shades. As much as I place myself in the first catagory, I'm not about to say that everyone in the second is wrong. It's art, people have different prefrences. For every person who thinks it's an absolute fact that Gnome is prettier, there's going to be another that prefers Keramik. I find it really hard to believe there's enough of a majority on either side to have much of an influence on the developers.

Re:No more Keramik!

[loucura!]

What you mean square?

Re:No more Keramik!

[siskbc]

I became a GNOME user because KDE was so fugly in the past. I might consider trying it out now that there is a decent installed theme. I could never figure out how a DE with so many European users could be so styleless.

I think you just answered your own question.

Re:No more Keramik!

[Hard_Code]

They are not square - from what I can tell of the screenshots, they are slightly rounded and have a sort of drop shadow, exactly how XP looks. Which is not to say it is such a bad thing. Why do people think that a desktop has to have an "innovative" color/widget scheme? I don't stare at my widgets all day to appreciate their aesthetics, I USE them. So I want them to be as nice as they can look while still being as functional as possible. And if it looks like another popular desktop environment SO WHAT, it means I can recapture some investment in spatial/shape/color recognition. Why is that such a damned bad thing. I swear, if Microsoft started selling air everybody on Slashdot would immediately declare they are going to hold their breaths forever.

Re:No more Keramik!

[unborn]

Hate to disappoint you but they decided not to replace Keramik as default in a non 4.0 version.

Linux on the desktop

[martinde]

I have to say that if Linux isn't ready for the Desktop, that it is VERY close with KDE 3.x and OpenOffice. I can't speak for Gnome, I haven't used it in a long time.

For office environments, I think Linux is pretty much there. The only real missing thing IMHO is the expectation that you can plug in random USB things and that they'll work. This is probably a problem for grandma and grandpa, but I don't think it's a problem for your average corporate secretary.

I suppose Outlook calendars are another issue...

Re:Linux on the desktop

[martinde]

> Dont you just love it when someone says a general concluding statement and dosnt even try half of the offering?

Almost as much as AC replies to my posts!

> Here is where that other half comes in. Ever try Evolution?

Nope, not really. I don't use Outlook either, so I wouldn't be able to determine if Evolution was equivalent or not. Does Evolution integrate well with Exchange?

> on my RH8(!!) it works without any problems for 99% of the devices. usb sticks, memory card readers, webcams, all seem to work great.

I've had mixed experiences here. I've had some devices (mice, printers) work fine out of the box. Others (webcams, scanners) have taken some effort but eventually I was able to make them work - usually after compiling beta drivers or whatever. I've got one digital camera that I have yet to see work in linux, but it's been a year or so since I've tried.

Former KDE user

[Apreche]

I used KDE for many many years. It was my desktop of choice. It was the only environment which had all the features I wanted. I didn't even use konqueror or anything. I liked the KDE panel most of all, but I also really really like kwrite, kmail and the konsole. I still really like kmail and kwrite.

Recently I got a new pc. I replace my Pentium 3 450 with my Athlon-XP 2500+. Now I knew that KDE was bloated, but I wanted the features and the programs that came in it. I did an XP/Gentoo dual boot on my new boxen and emerged kde. It worked, much faster than previous. But the response on a lot of things was still slow. Keep in mind this was whatever kde version was out a month or two ago.

Every time I remember KDE getting updated they made major changes that were always for the better. The dramatic difference between KDE1 and 2 was outstanding. In the days of 2 I couldn't imagine better, but KDE3 lived up to everything it promised and 2 couldn't even compare. I'm sure KDE 3.2 will do just the same.

Eventually though, the bloat got to me. I was running an optimized gentoo install and my desktop environment was slowing me down. And it was only because I wanted to use the mail client, panel and text editor that came with it. That's when I discovered XFCE-4. It didn't have all the features I needed, but XFCE4 works perfectly with all kinds of software. If I want screensavers I just emerge xscreensavers. If I want keybindings I emerge xbindkeys. If I want cpu monitoring I can get xfce-extras or gkrellm and bubblefishymon.

What really sealed the deal was the fact that I replaced Kmail with thunderbird, konsole with xterm, and kwrite... I still haven't replaced that. But I sure as heck wasn't going to keep using the big slow desktop just for the text editor. If you absolutely need to get all the stuff KDE has to offer, stick with it. If you actually use all of that stuff then it is so worth it and nobody does it better. If you want to trim down and increase the performance, try out XFCE4. I see it becoming a serious competitor with Gnome and KDE in the near future.

Re:Former KDE user

[mickwd]

From a PIII 450 to an Athlon-XP 2500+ is a 4-5 fold increase in processor speed. Probably a 3-4 fold increase in memory speed (and more of it, too). Disk access maybe twice the speed.

So KDE (your previous desktop of choice) was, say, 3-4 times as fast as before, but this wasn't good enough ?

Oh, and I was forgetting the Gentoo install, so that might speed it up a bit further. If Gentoo optimises things, that includes KDE.

Not to mention that KDE itself has been getting faster and faster since 3.0.

Now you may genuinely prefer XFCE4 - I'm sure some people do, and that's fine.

But I don't believe all that crap about KDE.

Please, if you prefer XFCE4, by all means tell people about it - but let it stand on its own merits.

Re:Former KDE user

[adrianbaugh]

Did you prelink kde? It helps a bit. For what it's worth I only find it a bit slow when logging in, but my main machine is generally logged in all the time. I'd think twice about putting it on a laptop though..

Re:Former KDE user

[Apreche]

yeah, but you still have to emerge kde to get them.

Re:Former KDE user

[CAIMLAS]

Erm. You must have been using a different KDE than I have been.

I'm running KDE 3.1.4 on Debian sid. I have been for quite a while - basically since 3.0 came out.

Prior to 3.0, (both KDE 1 and KDE 2 releases), I had KDE installed - but I didn't use it. Why? Several reasons. The main reason was it was much, much too slow. It would lag the system up something horrid. Additionally, version 1 was quite unstable, and version 2 was only marginally better in most respects. KDE has done nothing but improve in everything but memory footprint, and that's a negligible concern.

I might also want to mention that I'm using the same hardware now that I used when KDE 1 and KDE 2 were available. At the time, I used Enlightenment because it was faster. I'm back on KDE 3+ until I find something better.

Re:Former KDE user

[d_i_r_t_y]

all i can say is that you must be pretty picky on speed (or that there's something else slowing your system down)... i have an athlon xp2000+ and kde is in all ways comparable to winXP (except for windows redraw, but that's a small price to pay for the stability of a user-space windowing system).

all things considered, kde is an amazing work - the apps, the pace and consistency of development, and the techo-coolness simmering beneath the pretty surface...

i have been using a linux desktop full-time for work and home for 5 years now, and if games were as readily available for linux as for win32, i wouldn't even bother with dual-booting.

kde is teh shit.

Browser integration

[Karamchand]

Just before we read that browser integration is bad (like MSIE into MS Windows) but now this article reports that KDE's Konqueror is integrated better into KDE. That seems strange to me.
Admittedly KDE isn't an operating system as MS Windows is. But still it's a "system near" piece of software. So where to draw the border?

Re:Browser integration

[Ice_Balrog]

Konqueror can be removed. Easily.

Can you do that with IE?

Re:Browser integration

[vadim_t]

Well, several points:

I remember hearing that Konqueror allows using Gecko instead of KHTML. If that functionality is already in place then there can be a third rendering engine should anybody want it.

Konqueror, AFAIK, is a container for plugins. KHTML is open, there shouldn't be any problem with creating a compatible replacement for it. Nothing is really stopping you from rewriting the file manager and all the other plugins Konqueror uses.

It's Open Source. If you really want to rip Konqueror off KDE, you're perfectly free to do so.

You can also go for the less drastic route, and submit patches to the KDE team if you think it should be more replaceable.

AFAIK, KDE has no apps that hijack your file associations. If you change something is should stay that way.

Re:Browser integration

[pantherace]

It can, and many distributions seem to package it (if they do) as kdebindings-mozilla.

Running 3.2, Konqueror is much faster than firebird (or any other browser I have used for that matter)

Re:Browser integration

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

The ignorance on Slashdot is astounding.

showdocvw.dll, along with many other libraries, make up the Microsoft HTML rendering engine. This engine is used by, among other things, Internet Explorer, Windows Explorer, and the HTML help engine.

Windows doesn't work without showdocvw.dll because so many applications depend on it.

Internet Explorer:
- Runs in user space
- Is an application that references the Microsoft HTML engine (also running in user space)
- Cannot override file permissions or other settings, or otherwise do more damage than any other application (excluding a flaw in the kernel or a service running with more permissions).

Note that in Windows, file permissions apply to *everything*. Even the OS obeys its own permissions (try changing permissions to deny everyone on some critical DLLs and see if your system will still boot)

Re:Browser integration

[spitzak]

I'm using KDE right now, and I have to say that, if I think about it, I really do NOT use the "integration" at all.

I like the fact that the file browser will show an html page when I double-click on an html file. However this could come up in it's own window like non-integrated file choosers do.

Otherwise, if I want to look at files, I click the "home" icon on the desktop and start looking at files. If I want to look at web pages, I click the "konq" gear-world icon and start looking at web pages. I typically never change the viewing from one system to another.

So even though the integration sounds very logical and makes technical sense, it does seem it may not correspond with how people think.

Re:Browser integration

[be-fan]

That's just the tip of the iceberg. What about being able to use KIO in every app? What about having all contacts stored in one place and used by every app? What about all apps using the same very high-level framework, so they look and act the same without any extra effort? What about having only one good HTML renderer throughout the whole system? What about KWallet (its new in 3.2) handling password-management for the whole system? What about being able to DCOP script pretty much everything? What about having KHotkeys automatically allowing mouse gestures in every app? (also new in 3.2) Even if you never embed something in something else, you reap the benefits of KDE's integration every time you use it.

Re:Browser integration

[spitzak]

Sorry, I was only talking about "use the same program to look at your files as you use to look at web pages". Not the general integration of KDE. A seperate file browser and html viewer would certainly talk to each other using the mechanisms you mention.

fewer features or saner defaults

[molnarcs]

There is one constant in the universe: Eugenia "I'm an UI expert" Loli-Queru" beating the same old "too many features" drum.

Yes, she might be right on certain points (Cervisia in context menus by default?), but saying the KDE has no HIG and GNOME has one is just plain BS. Of course, we were witness to her flamefest fith mosfet over UI issues a while back... Anyhow, I just finished reading the comments when I saw the review posted on /. I was surprised to see how many people hated konqueror (well, all GNOME users of course) - IMHO konqi is the pinnacle of UI design and consistency. An application flamework, that comes as close to the power of CLI as gui-wise is possible. You can mold Konqueror into anything - and this seems to impress even OS X users: check out this review.

Anyhow, I don't expect osnews to change its bias towards (but I was surprised at the review, it was more level headed than usually it is) - and I'm not going to point out every flaw in the criticism (well, I shall point out only two: 1) its the same old argument on part of eugenia 2) check out the screenshots - and tell me: how many of the applications in the menus were KDE specific? ... talking about clutter...) but I want to say this: Keep up the good work KDE developers! And listen to your users (as I know you do) not these so called UI "experts" who think GNOME (don't take me wrong, I like some aspects of GNOME) has the leading edge in usability, despite overwhelming odds (if it is more usable, why do more newbies stay with KDE???)

Re:fewer features or saner defaults

[vurian]

Well, if she installs the kdesdk package she should expect that some development tools worm their way into her system. No kdesdk, no cervisia...

Re:fewer features or saner defaults

[phoxix]

I like Konq because it shows you don't need hundreds of developers, millions of dollars, and AOL's backing to do something amazing
br Also, a big win for Konq is Apple's acceptance of it over,Moz.

Re:fewer features or saner defaults

[Anonymous Coward]

> if it is more usable, why do more newbies stay with KDE???

Can you show me your statistics? And dont say online polls since that is the biggest load of BS I have ever seen. Here is one newbie that changed from KDE and hasn't been happier!

1:0, meanwhile gnome seems to be ahead ;)

Re:fewer features or saner defaults

[dna42]

agreed.

konqueror is a great browser. and actually the most impressive feature it has to offer is the kparts system, which integrates virtually everything which (you decide) is useful. for instance if you choose to open a pdf directly in your browser, konqueror does so (and way better than adobes crappy plugin -- well except for rendering of pdfs, which isn't exactly kde's fault, but originates in pdfs semi-open nature). same is true for a variety of other filetypes, which i personally like to see in one of my browsers tabs.

and while i don't use kde as a desktop environment, there are numerous kde/qt apps i wouldn't want to live without. i have to say, i'm pretty impressed with the upcoming version 3.2.

of course many ideas are borrowed (or stolen, if you prefer) from other desktop environments / operating systems, that's a good thing (as has been mentioned a thousand times before).

finally i want to comment about the toolkit itself, which has matured quite a bit itself. almost every modern toolkit (well, that is gtk and qt) offers the same features. among them are good internationalisation, decent fonts, etc. qt however handles expose events and redrawing in general a thousand times faster than gtk2. gtk on the other hand offers a greater variety of language bindings.

seems like it's a matter of preference, but i'm satisfied.

keep up the great work.

Re:fewer features or saner defaults

[adrianbaugh]

You don't expect osnews to change its bias towards what? KDE? Did you miss the bit where she basically said KDE was the best DE on the (unix) planet and she loved it, but there were just a few tweaks that could make it even better?

Re:fewer features or saner defaults

[CoolMoDee]

> if it is more usable, why do more newbies stay with KDE???

um because its more like windows than Gnome is? The menu is at the bottom in kde by default, and it isn't in gnome. Another reason is because a lot of distros use kde by default, so they use it, are are too lazy/dont know of others/possibly like it so they keep it.

Re:fewer features or saner defaults

[fracex]

Also, a big win for Konq is Apple's acceptance of it over,Moz.

Apple didn't accept Konqueror, they accepted Khtml... only a part of konqueror.

Re:fewer features or saner defaults

[quantum bit]

Can you show me your statistics? And dont say online polls since that is the biggest load of BS I have ever seen. Here is one newbie that changed from KDE and hasn't been happier!

1:0, meanwhile gnome seems to be ahead ;)

That's really funny. I used to be a die-hard GNOME user. Then they released 2.0 and I hated it. I installed KDE 3.1 and was really impressed by how much it had improved since KDE 2.x. Haven't looked back. ;)

Re:fewer features or saner defaults

[Feztaa]

You think Mozilla needed AOL's backing just to get anything done? Yeah right!

First of all, Moz had a great product long before AOL bought them. Secondly, AOL has been doing more harm than good; AOL has blown off all the Moz developers, destroyed Netscape, and is now trying to milk the last drops out of the Netscape brand for their latest ISP offering, which uses Internet Explorer.

It looks to me more like AOL's goal was to destroy Mozilla, not to support it and allow it to bloom.

Re:fewer features or saner defaults

[fault0]

> First of all, Moz had a great product long before AOL bought them.

uhhhm, really? AOL bought Netscape in late 1998. Mozilla, at that time, was at Milestone 3. I *clearly* remember Milestone 3, both on my Mac on Linux. It consisted of a app called ViewerApp and a large amount of shared libraries. ViewerApp, which barely had http support, took about three mins to launch on my PowerMac 604e.

RH 5.2 included M3, but NS 4.5 was default, which itself was *much worse* than IE 5.0 was. I don' t think anybody in their right mind would use Mozilla at that point. It took nearly AOL millions of dollars and a seventy person strong Netscape Division to bring Mozilla where it is today.

Re:fewer features or saner defaults

[Anonymous Coward]

> And dont say online polls since that is the biggest load of BS I have ever seen.

Perhaps, but I've *never* seen GNOME defeat KDE in *any* sort of poll, and in most cases KDE defeats GNOME handily-- many times by nearly a two to one margin.

Re:fewer features or saner defaults

[Anonymous Coward]

Konqueror is technically very impressive. Its design is extremely powerful, and it's a model for apps of its kind. However, I don't use it, at all, even though I use KDE. Because it's such a bloated pig. Not that it's slow, but rather visually bloated. Overly long menu's and toolbars, ui elements that are crammed together, overly complicated configuration mechanisms (the configuration changes depending on what type of view konqueror is in, which is really confusing), and so on... It might be the most powerful browser and file manager in the world, but power isn't everything. Make it usable, and then I'll use it. Less IS more.

I don't like Eugenia's reviews, since she often refuses to do things in documented ways, even if she is aware of them (a bit too much of a free spirit), so she tends to break things in ways she shouldn't be trying, and then uses that to declare the entire reviewed product as crap. However, she's dead on that KDE needs major UI redesign, even in 3.2. It's WAY too complicated, even for me, and I study computer science.

I think more newbies stay with KDE, because all the newbie distro's use KDE as default, and newbies aren't aware they could be using GNOME. The reason for the distro's to use KDE is obvious, its flexibility allows a distro maker to finetune it a lot better than GNOME to the distro's specific needs.

So why do I use KDE and not GNOME? As pretty and clean as GNOME is, it's just not powerful enough, and a lot slower to boot. Besides, except for firebird and openoffice every app I use is a KDE app.

Re:fewer features or saner defaults

[teprrr]

the most impressive feature it has to offer is the kparts system, which integrates virtually everything which (you decide) is useful.

Yeah, it's pretty cool that you can even watch those trailers from http://www.apple.com/trailers/ in Konqueror. Anyways the app I'm using (kdeextragear-2/kmplayer) isn't included in release, but maybe in the future.

Well, here's a shot using the kpart ;)

Re:The State Of KDE -- new, improved.

[Archie Steel]

Yeah, but I like KDE better. Should I switch to GNOME because it's got more companies behind it? Following your advocacy, shouldn't I then just switch to Windows?

FYI, Mandrake primarily supports KDE, so does Lindows, and now it seems that Debian and KDE are doing their own Desktop thingy.

There's room enough for both DEs. Enough with the flamewars already...

Well

[Trejkaz]

Well, we'd all better be sure to let this 'business' use affect the rest of us.

Re:Kan't stand it : +1 Insightful

[Abcd1234]

That's an *excellent* point.

I think you hit the head on the nail

[djeaux]

How much of the MSIE integration into Windows goes deeper than the user interface? Methinks it may not be as much as we are led to believe. Remember "shelling" out to the MS-DOS prompt? The whole GUI used to be 100% dispensable.

Yes, KDE is 'system near' but it's not the OS. We really have no idea about Windows, because they ain't telling.

(My bet is that the majority of Micro$oft employees no longer know what is really necessary in the Windows codebase & what isn't... ;-)

Re:I think you hit the head on the nail

[gl4ss]

**Yes, KDE is 'system near' but it's not the OS. We really have no idea about Windows, because they ain't telling.**

considering that it(ie) can be pulled out without it affecting any major programs(beyond which use it directly) it's not that tightly integrated at all in windows.

konqueror isn't integrated to the OS, but just to the desktop environment(and so is ie, but even less, but ms's official position is of course that it would explode were it pulled out which simply isn't true).

Re:I think you hit the head on the nail

[Erik Hensema]

MSIE is very much intergrated with the operating system. And that intergration is good. From a technical point of view anyway. Not from a competative point of view :-)

Anyway, MSIE consists of a great number of libraries which are used by many applications, including msie-the-app.

msie-the-lib consists of an http library, an html rendering engine, mime handlers, etc, etc. That library is being used by Outlook (Express) for example. Also the reason why that app is so very insecure.

I don't know the exact state of intergration of msie-the-lib into the core ms windows application, but I can imagine is extensive.

In KDE the intergration is a little more visible. Konqueror is little more than a framework in which kparts can run. One of these kparts is khtml, the html renderer. khtml is to kde what msie-the-lib is to windows.

When you'd attempt to remove msie from windows, you'd probably could uninstall msie-the-app with little trouble.

Re:I think you hit the head on the nail

[pyros]

considering that it(ie) can be pulled out without it affecting any major programs(beyond which use it directly) it's not that tightly integrated at all in windows.

No it can't. You can get the big blue 'e' off the desktop, but the rendering engine, and other components are contained in essential OS DLLs. The file browser is actually just another shell on top of the core IE. If you were to truly remove all IE code, you would have a non-funcitonal Windows system.

Re:I think you hit the head on the nail

[gl4ss]

you can do it further than just pull the big e.

with programs such as http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html that remove the windows protections on the files so that they can be removed you can pull them as fully off ass possible, enough to criple several programs dependant on them.

Re:I think you hit the head on the nail

[Hatta]

The file browser is actually just another shell on top of the core IE. If you were to truly remove all IE code, you would have a non-funcitonal Windows system.*

But how much of this functionality could be replaced by user programs? I just use cygwin anyway whenever I'm in windows, so what do I care if the file browser doesn't work. I suppose there are other programs that would rely on the windows api for html presentation, but could one port gecko so it takes care of this?

* Jokes are left as an exercise to the reader.

Re:I think you hit the head on the nail

[pyros]

I suppose there are other programs that would rely on the windows api for html presentation, but could one port gecko so it takes care of this?

Nope, because the APIs were not published, which is a big part of what landed them in court. That's also the key difference that Windows apologists miss when they point out how many different browsers are included with a Linux distribution, or that Mac OS X ships with a browser. The browsers aren't truly interchangeable on Windows.

Just wait till some developers get pissed...

[jared_hanson]

and you will end up with names like:

OpenKonqueror
FreeKontact
GNUKPDF
FreePlastik
etc.

The only thing worse than an overused prefix is two overused prefixes.

Re:Just wait till some developers get pissed...

[the_real_tigga]

> The only thing worse than an overused prefix is two overused prefixes.

You sure? How about

OpenKonqueror.mono
FreeKontact.gnu
etc.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

That's the way to go IMHO...

[Ploum]

I'm really a Gnome fan.
I was thinking that KDE was a bit bloated, a bit ofuscated..
I explain my choice in this Perfect Desktop text

But I must agree that KDE 3.2 seems to be really on the good way and I think I will try it the day of the release. Good Job KDE people. I really like the plastic theme. IMHO, keramik was "fat".

Well, I find this screenshot really interesting.
Don't you think that Gnumeric is more "easy " than Kspread ? There's two rows of icons in Gnumeric : File icons and actions icons.
In Kspread is not so easy, you have icons anywhere.. that's really the bad point of KDE for me and why I prefer Gnome for beginners. Think about it.

Anyway.. Good job guys !

PS : anyway, gnome and KDE aren't anything ! I can't live without FVWM .

Re:That's the way to go IMHO...

[Ice_Balrog]

Well, I find this screenshot really interesting. Don't you think that Gnumeric is more "easy " than Kspread ? There's two rows of icons in Gnumeric : File icons and actions icons. In Kspread is not so easy, you have icons anywhere.. that's really the bad point of KDE for me and why I prefer Gnome for beginners. Think about it.

Um, I see about 45 icons in Kspread and 48 in Gnumeric. I also see a nice seperator between the different toolbars. And I see icons in more seperate places in Gnumeric than in Kspread.

Re:That's the way to go IMHO...

[sploxx]

Maybe that's a flamebait, but IMHO the gnome masters got a bit arrogant lately. I still use gnome, and I'll stick to it if it doesn't get worse. We'll see.

They removed the "cancel" button from all of the setting dialogs.

They removed many configurations options, no possibility to enable the "expert" mode somewhere. There is no such thing.

Metacity (the new and for me only working windowmanager) lacks even an "always-on-top" option for windows. You've to patch that in by some obscure patch in the bugzilla of metacity. To not confuse the average joe with an X without a WM, they made it even quite an aggressive application. There's this well-known command line "killall metacity ; killall metacity ; killall metacity ; sawfish&" to force a replace with another window-manager.

Quite annoying. Both, GNOME and influenced by that also GTK will lose the more experienced users, that probably includes many good OSS developers if they do not listen to feedback. I'm already thinking about switching back to KDE (where I was a few years ago).

Re:That's the way to go IMHO...

[Homburg]

I don't think GNOME will lose experienced users. I've been using Linux since before 1.0, and I much prefer GNOME to KDE, because the GNOME designers take the time to figure out the right UI, rather than assume that providing a myriad of options will allow a good UI to emerge from users choices.

This Slashdot mantra that customisation is good is wrong for two reasons - first, because the more customisation there is available, the more effort is required to get something working right (I'm perfectly capable of editing the source of programs to customise their GUIs. I don't because I have better things to do - I want the source code to _do the right thing_). Second, because most users _don't make the right UI choices_. I know it's hard for most Slashdot users to accept, but a UI that has been carefully designed by someone else is likely to be _easier to use_ than the UI that results from an hour of random option tweeking. Epiphany and Rhythmbox are two great examples - every GUI element is scrutinised before being implemented, and there are very few options. Both applications are a joy to use.

I switched to GNOME around KDE 1.1, because it was too cluttered. I periodically try KDE again, and it makes my brain hurt - I spend all my time keeping track of the UI, whereas with GNOME, the developers have already anticipated how I'll use the application, and made sure that the interface is obvious to that use.

I don't want to bash KDE entirely. If it wants to be a geeks paradise of customisation, that's fine, it's good to have a DE for that market share. But it's not about experienced vs. inexperienced users - it's about those who want to tweak there environment, and those who just want to use it. Some experienced users may be fed up of having to do their own UI design, in the name of flexibility. I certainly do, and that's why I use GNOME.

Modularized!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's what I hated about windows, and why I came to linux. Windows installed a bunch of things I _never_ needed, I never launched, I never used. KDE is doing the same. There should be some way to choose what you want to install. It's really rediculous IMHO

Re:Modularized!

[10Ghz]

What does KDE install that you don't want to install? And besides, that's a matter of distro as well. In Debian for example (if my memory server me correctly), you can choose what KDE-apps you want to install, instead of the whole shebang. And if KDE does install stuff you don't need, what's there stopping you from removing them afterwards?

Re:Modularized!

[teprrr]

Have you ever heard about DO_NOT_COMPILE, not-to-download or not-to-install the packages you don't need? If your distro packs the kde ugly way (like gentoo does, btw) don't blame the KDE about it, blame your distro.

Fact.

[Inoshiro]

Gnome was faster. Then they released GTK+ v2, which is a lot slower. Have you ever run Konsole from KDE 3.1 side-by-side with GnomeTerminal from Gnome 2.4? I have. One is fast, the other is Gnometerminal. I have an Athlon 1700+ with 768mb of DDR RAM and a Radeon 8500, why can I type faster than Gnome 2.4 can draw on my screen? KDE can't.

No, I'm not a retard who can't find his own ass with both his hands. I'm using the Slackware distribution (versions 9 and 9.1 have Gnome 2.x, the slow Gnome, in them).

Re:Fact.

[damiam]

I have an Athlon 1700+ with 768mb of DDR RAM and a Radeon 8500, why can I type faster than Gnome 2.4 can draw on my screen?

Are you sure X is set up properly and you're not using VESA or something? My ancient 500Mhz K6-2 w/ Voodoo3 can easily keep up with my (reasonably fast) typing in GNOME or KDE.

Re:Fact.

[Anonymous Coward]

One is fast, the other is Gnometerminal

GNOME terminal is a disgrace, IMO... but it is not a GNOME/GTK issue. It's the new terminal widget introduced in the 2.x series that some bright spark said was needed for accessiblity (vital) reasons... it fucking sucks. Compile GNOME terminal with the old widget and it flies. Whoever is responsible (Havoc Pennington) wants killing for that screw up. The rest of GNOME is faster, FACT.

Re:Fact.

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

That's funny.

I have a Pentium III 500 notebook with PC100 256M memory, a piss-ass slow disk, and an unaccelerated Xserver, and the GNOME terminal (Dropline GNOME 2.4, Slackware 9.1) is *still* way faster than I can type.

Re:Fact.

[quantum bit]

Have you ever run Konsole from KDE 3.1 side-by-side with GnomeTerminal from Gnome 2.4?

And then run xterm side-by-side with both of them? :-P

Re:Fact.

[martinde]

> And then run xterm side-by-side with both of them? :-P

Have you tried KDE 3.1.x? Even with 3.0, I could not switch from xterm to konsole, partially because it felt too slow. But with 3.1.x, I'm a konsole user now... (I had been using xterm since 1990 or so prior to that.)

Re:Fact.

[quantum bit]

Have you tried KDE 3.1.x?

Yes, I'm running 3.1.4. While konsole has definitely improved (it's actually usable now), it just doesn't feel as blindingly fast as an xterm. It's especially noticable when something is producing output that scrolls by really fast. This is on a moderately speedy (1.8ghz) box.

Because it's Kool!

[vlad_petric]

:)

One of KDE's goals is to provide an integrated framework. You can embed a KDE spreadsheet into a kword document with standard kparts, but you can't do it into abiword (well, you can convert it to a common format, import, etc, but that's not integration). What I'm trying to say is that KDE apps will (in most cases) work better with KDE apps than with Gnome apps.

As a KDE user, I will choose, when possible, a kde app over an equivalent gnome one; the letter k speeds up the process :)

Re:Because it's Kool!

[be-fan]

While its debatable that embedding a spreadsheet into a wordprocessor is useful, you have to realize that the same technology is used for unarguably useful things like embedding KHTML into KMail.

It's no where "system near"

[Inoshiro]

If I take my Slackware 9 CD and install it onto a box, I can install without Konquerer. If I take a Windows XP CD and install it onto a box, I can't choose to not install IE. It's welded in. Konquerer is only integrated into KDE. Windows has so such separation of window manager/session management/library environment and kernel/base install that Linux has.

Plus, I have absolutely no problem using Thunderbird and Firebird for email and web stuff in Konquerer. It (KDE) respects my choice to use those applications as default, rather than forcing me to use KMail or Konquerer. I've yet to see such respect in Windows.

Re:It's no where "system near"

[Karamchand]

The installation procedure (and what question it asks you) is not the point. That doesn't mean it's welded in. (Comparison: You're installing Winamp. You can't chose not to install whatsnew.txt - does that mean whatsnew.txt is welded in into Winamp? Not really. Ok, Winamp searches for whatsnew.txt to display it in the what's new about box. but it certainly isn't needed.)

Re:It's no where "system near"

[freeweed]

You can easily delete the "whatsnew.txt" from your Winamp directory, and Winamp will run just like it did before. You might lose some functionality specific to Winamp and how it talks with its "whatsnew.txt" file, but it will still run.

Try deleting parts of IE from Windows. Go ahead, I dare ya :) You'll rapidly find the operating system no longer works.

The argument way back when (a bit of a red herring IMHO, but nobody asked) was that Microsoft needlessly, and anti-competitively bound IE into Windows, in order to kill off Netscape. It's a little hard to get po'd at an OSS product, even if they *are* trying to kill off the competiton. It's not like it's hurting anyone's bottom line. And besides, KDE plays nicely with other browsers.

Your "bloat" are my features

[jopet]

It seems that accusing a software to be "bloated" is the best way to discredit it amont the /. crowd. But there are many out there, including me, that like the choice and freedom offered by KDE. I have used many other DMs/WMs (from TWM, Sun's CDE, MSWindwos, IceWM to KDE and Gnome) and I gradually ended up using KDE most of the time, because it lets me best do my work.

What I really do not understand: why are so many people bitching about how terrible KDE is when they have a wonderful *choice* of alternatives? Most of them free? If you think KDE is bloated and Gnome is not, fine, use Gnome. Or use TWM. Whatever.

Re:Your "bloat" are my features

[Telex4]

I have to agree. One of the most ludicrous things mentioned in the article is this:

I don't need four text editors in the same submenu (Kate, KWrite, Kedit and Kommander-something), I need one. While each one of the four have a bit different specialty (e.g. Kate is a good programmer's text editor) the fact remains, there should be one solution offered. KDevelop should do the rest of the job for the programmers.

So each editor is different, and serves a different purpose, but you want KDE to dump them all and only offer you one? I use Kate for coding projects, Kwrite for coding with only one file open, my girlfriend uses KEdit for plain text files and I know plenty of people use KDevelop for complicated projects. So they're all useful, and providing the option of them all, at the expense of a few MB, is a great thing.

All the rambling about kparts and context menus is also nonsense. The root level of most context menus is very minimal, with things like zip, cervisia, write to CD and other more odd options that people do use (and so should be present) all hidden in submenus like "actions". Konqueror is becoming one very elegant and powerful app that realy has no equivalent.

The difficulty that now faces KDE, IMO, is to make it more clear to users why each app is different, and to keep working on consistency. But then if Eugenia subscribed to the kde-usability mailing list, tracked the KDE community pages like the CVS digest, KDE mailing list traffic and dot.kde.org she'd know that these are being tackled.

Other points were well made, but the egotism of moaning that her grumbles hadn't been sufficiently address, combined with the really irrational points like that one highlighted above, just make this review little more than a troll checking out some software.

Re:Your "bloat" are my features

[realnowhereman]

I think you're right; in fact further I think the meaning of "bloat" has been warped to mean "big". The two are not the same thing. MS Office is bloated - it's got bigger and bigger with each release for a relatively small increase in the number of features.

Even if we agreed that KDE was bloated; it would not become less bloated just by halving the number of applications.

OpenOffice on the other hand, while still bloated overall, I feel has reduced the bloat and yet added more features. KDE is the same. The developers have definitely trimmed the fat off it even within the 3.1 series of realeases.

Maybe we need some sort of metric for bloat: Lines of code per feature; Megabytes per menu; shared libraries per eye candy...

Oblig Office Space

[nnnneedles]

om Smykowski: You know I had an idea like that once, a long time ago. It was a jump to conclusions mat. You see it would be this mat that you would put on the floor and it would have different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP to.

Michael Bolton: That is the worst idea I have ever heard in my life Tom.

Samir: Yes, this is horrible this idea.

Re:Mac compared to X

[WasterDave]

They have the context menus nailed right down

They do not. In 10.3 open the finder, right click on any of the items on the left hand side. Open an email and right click on it.

Apple need to get over the whole "we didn't invent right click" thing, and the sooner the better.

Dave

Minor correction

[iangoldby]

You don't have to wait for 3.2 to get service menus. They have been available for a while, though perhaps not very well advertised.

e.g. save this as ~/.kde3/share/apps/konqueror/servicemenus/rotatejp g.desktop for a right-click menu to losslessly rotate jpegs from your digital camera:

[Desktop Entry]
ServiceTypes=image/jpeg
Actions=rotateLef t

[Desktop Action rotateLeft]
Name=Rotate left
Icon=rotate_ccw
Exec=/bin/sh -c "mv %f %f~; jpegtran -optimise -rotate 270 -trim -copy all -outfile %f %f~"

The space in "rotateLef t" is a slashcodism - it shouldn't be there.
(Or put it in /usr/kde/3/share/apps/konqueror/servicemenus to make it available to all users.)

Fedora RPMs

[Synn]

Is there any way to point yum at the Fedora RPMs so you don't have to manually download and install each RPM file?

Konq Bomb?

[saudadelinux]

This is not a troll.

Is it me, or does Konqueror blow up at any opportunity? I really like KDE, but I prefer Nautilus for GUI-style file management.

When I'm looking at a CD or DVD with Konqueror (say, my install disc), Konqueror chokes and won't die, or be killed. If there are a lot of things in that directory, it hangs, won't fully read the disc, it won't redraw itself, and despite multiple kill commands from the TaskGuard, just sits there for about 5 minutes before dying. Heck, even looking at a directory with 10 files in it can do it.

On the Web, asking Konq to do two things at once - download a file while browsing with another window - and it craters hard.

Does anyone else have these problems with it?

Re:Konq Bomb?

[rco3]

Nope. Doesn't happen to me. It certainly sounds like a misconfiguration somewhere, or perhaps an earlier (less stable ) version of Konqueror.

Here's how to check: try copying a file. If it takes 20 minutes, then Konqueror is broken. (it's funny; laugh)

Err... what version of Konqueror are you using? What distro?

Re:Konq Bomb?

[gregfortune]

sometimes old config files can cause problems. Move our entire .kde directory to a backup location and start KDE again. It will start out with new settings. If that doesn't help, just remove the new .kde directory and move your old one back.

This is a horrible review

[brunes69]

...And I don't mean horrible for KDE, I mean it is horribly done and poorly researched.

For the mistakes under "The KDE Solution":

- KDialog and Service Menus have been in KDE since 3.0, they are nowhere near a new feature. KRDC for connecting to windows machines has been around for a long time as well, since 3.1.

Under "The KDE Problem"

- She says "Konqueror's context menu is a mess, why would I want to zip a web page or use Cervicia with it, is beyond me". She obviously does not grasp that KDE is totally network transparent, and that indeed all these options can be used with any media on any device. There is no need to restrict their ability while browsing a web site (in fact who is to say that you wouldnt* ever want to, say, right click on a .doc link and zip and email it?)

- She then goes on about how the KDE menu is too bloated, and posts a screenshot as an example. However, in the screenshot, which contains 32 applications, only 7 are KDE applications! You can't claim the KDE menu is too blated because of all the other junk on the system.

- She then advocates putting all the "Configure" options under one menu entry under "Edit" instead of "Settings". Not onnly would this violate the KDE Style Guide which has been agreed upon by usability experts, it just seems foolish. In no OS does "Edit" imply "Settings". Edit is for Editing the active document.

Namely this is one of the poorer reviews I have read on OSNews, and that is saying ALOT since they are normally quite bad.

Re:This is a horrible review

[Blakey Rat]

Classic MacOS put the settings for a program under Edit, but it was named Preferences. So the user's train of thought was "Edit Preferences," which I think made perfect sense.

Re:This is a horrible review

[kilgortrout]

Mozilla>Edit>Preferences. And yes, the first time I used mozilla I couldn't find the Preferences either because they stuck it under the Edit menu. So I guess your right; it's a lousy place to stick Configure/Settings stuff.

Re:This is a horrible review

[zeroduck]

I'm a Gnome user--so I might be a bit biased.

I can see what she says when she says the menu is cluttered. Why is there a "Utilities", "System", and "Settings" menu? That seems like somthing that really should be together. KDE also ships with a myriad of programs--it'd be nice to see most of them not installed by default. For instance, I'm on a broadband connection, and dont have a dialup modem, so what use is kPPP?

I don't have Konqueror, so I couldn't comment on the context menus, but wouldn't having "Save as zip" under a save as dialog and "Use in Cervicia" under export be a better solution?

To me KDE has always seemed a bit more cluttered, and Gnome more minimialistic. If the overall feeling of KDE wasn't so busy, I think I'd like it more because I like shiny things as much as the next guy.

Re:This is a horrible review

[smeat]

For instance, I'm on a broadband connection, and dont have a dialup modem, so what use is kPPP?

This depends on your distribution really. I know that in Mandrake 9.2 they seperated out all the kde programs so that you only install the applications that you want. So no kppp on my cable internet connected only machine.
Like so:

kdenetwork-common-3.1.3-37mdk
kdenetwork-kdict-3.1.3-37mdk
kdenetwork-kget-3.1.3-37mdk
kdenetwork-kmail-3.1.3-37mdk
kdenetwork-knode-3.1.3-37mdk
kdenetwork-krfb-3.1.3-37mdk
kdenetwork-ksirc-3.1.3-37mdk

To me KDE has always seemed a bit more cluttered, and Gnome more minimialistic.

Dunno what you mean by this, my desktop is not cluttered.
Does look wierd as a screenshot though. (Xinerama).


smeat!

Re:This is a horrible review

[be-fan]

I've got broadband and Windows still has a DUN client, what's your point?

Re:This is a horrible review

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

I agree completely. Apple's interface guidelines made it much simpler to edit an application's preferences. The edit menu always appeared in the same place on the screen (upper left). Regardless of which application you were using, you could find the preferences; you never had to even look at the menus over on the right.

In OS X, as well, you go to the exact same place to edit any application's preferences, right under the application menu in the upper left. This makes sense if you plan on using several applications or if you get any new applications. It is also much easier to handle, especially for anyone who is new to computers.

Re:This is a horrible review

[MechaStreisand]

There is no need to restrict their ability while browsing a web site...

Yes there goddamn is. If you had every possible action in a context menu, there'd be 20 or so items there and it'd be hard to find the ones that you DO use.

It's something I've always hated about Windows: there are always a whole ton of items in the context menu when I only ever use two or three items. Right-clicking in IE right now reveals 16 items, some of which are actually WORSE than useless: Set as Background, for instance, which kills my current background with whatever I'm right-clicking on. Pretty easy to accidentally hit it when I'm trying to save an image...

The point here is: don't place every possible action into a menu! KDE's menus are bloated! As for this:

However, in the screenshot, which contains 32 applications, only 7 are KDE applications! You can't claim the KDE menu is too blated because of all the other junk on the system...

Do you think she put those applications into the menu HERSELF? If not, how did they get there? She said she just installed the Fedora RPMs. Regardless of whether or not the included apps are strictly a part of KDE or not, they were there in what she had to work with, and a stupidly bloated menu was the result. Nothing unfair in pointing out that it's bad thing in a review of an desktop environment.

Besides, even the K menu is itself too bloated, and there's no way you can say that it's not a part of KDE. My Windows Start Menu has 9 items, 7 of which are useful to me. They all have big target areas and it's easy to get the one I want right away. KDE's K menu has 24 - all of them put there by KDE. It's such a pain that it turned me off KDE when I tried it out. Gnome was a significantly better desktop as far as I was concerned (with the exception of their whole "take effect immediately" guideline - I absolutely loathe it).

Namely this is one of the poorer reviews I have read on OSNews, and that is saying ALOT since they are normally quite bad.

I find it funny how she says "KDE is great" right in the conclusion of her review, and still you find faults with her most sensible objections. I think you'd find fault with ANYTHING bad that anyone said about KDE.

Re:This is a horrible review

[10Ghz]

Do you think she put those applications into the menu HERSELF? If not, how did they get there? She said she just installed the Fedora RPMs. Regardless of whether or not the included apps are strictly a part of KDE or not, they were there in what she had to work with, and a stupidly bloated menu was the result. Nothing unfair in pointing out that it's bad thing in a review of an desktop environment.

In the past those apps wouldn't have appeared in the menu. And people complained that "I use these apps and they are not in the menu! I have to add them there manually! This sucks!". Now that the process has been automated, people still complain! This only proves that you can't please everyone. But, luckily you can remove those entries from the menu, so I really fail to see the problem here.

Re:This is a horrible review

[Knetzar]

This only proves that you can't please everyone.

No you can't, that's why we have multiple OS's, and multiple Linux distros and multiple windowing enviorments. Personally I'd rather have everything start in the menu system and have an easy way to modify the menu's (I create a RarelyUsed submenu), but that's just me.

Re:This is a horrible review

[brunes69]

In KDE as well you go to the *exact same* place to edit an applications preferences, under settings. There are never, ever any preferences anywhere else. You also get the *exact same* style of settings dialog in all core KDE applications.

KDE is very very consistant from application to application, much more so than Gnome or Windows. True it is not always consistant with Windows or Gnome, but it really has no desire to be since both these GUI environments also have their own flaws.

http://developer.kde.org/documentation/standards /k de/style/menus/settings.html

Re:This is a horrible review

[brunes69]

It's something I've always hated about Windows: there are always a whole ton of items in the context menu when I only ever use two or three items. Right-clicking in IE right now reveals 16 items, some of which are actually WORSE than useless: Set as Background, for instance, which kills my current background with whatever I'm right-clicking on. Pretty easy to accidentally hit it when I'm trying to save an image...

For one, the menu is now quite short since it is divided up into task-oriented sub menus where appropriate. For another, the situation you described would never happen in KDE because the usability guidelines specifically specify that destructive actions in context menus have to be below non-destructive actions and seperated, so "Save" would never be beside "Set Background"

Do you think she put those applications into the menu HERSELF? If not, how did they get there? She said she just installed the Fedora RPMs. Regardless of whether or not the included apps are strictly a part of KDE or not, they were there in what she had to work with, and a stupidly bloated menu was the result.

This is ludicrous. You can't blame KDE for the menu layout that Fedora comes up with. If you install KDE by itself from source, it doesn't put any non-kde applications into the menu by default. You have to run the app import generator and approve the layout yourself. If you don't like the way the K Menu is sorted out contact the Fedora team.

Re:This is a horrible review

[arafel]

>Do you think she put those applications into the
>menu HERSELF? If not, how did they get there? She
>said she just installed the Fedora RPMs.

Er... wouldn't that make Fedora responsible for the excess stuff, rather than KDE?

Re:This is a horrible review

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

That's not nearly the same thing. By "exact same place", I don't mean "exact same area". I mean exact same place.

Here's how to get to Preferences in Mac OS:

1. In Mac OS 9: Click about a horizontal inch from the upper-left corner of the screen, and after the menu opens, click on the bottom item in that menu.
2. In Mac OS X: Click about a horizontal inch from the upper left corner of the screen, and after the menu opens, click about 1/2 to 3/4 an inch from the top of that menu.

On KDE, "Settings" is one of the last menus in the menu bar, and depending on the number of menus at the top of the window, it may be close to the middle of the window or near the edge. By default, since the menus are inside the window, moving a window down on the screen means menus move down with it. Depending on the current location of your window, "Options" could be located just about anywhere in relation to the edges of your screen, from the upper right corner to the lower middle to halfway up the left side.

In KDE, "Options" definitely does not always appear in the exact same place.

Re:This is a horrible review

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

"Settings", not "Options".

Re:This is a horrible review

[brunes69]

Well if you like the "Always on top" Mac style bar you can turn that on in KDE, and all your applications menus are at the top of the screen like in Mac OS.

Personally though I *HATE* this whole scheme, and so do many others (especially people used to Windows), because no matter what Fritz's law implies it just simply *does* take longer to have to dart your mouse all the way up the screen just to hit a menu. Especially with modern screens getting larger and larger, the distance you have to move your mouse is rapidly overriding the "inifinite target size" factor of having the menu at the screen edge.

Regardless, you *can* enable this so you don't really have much of a valid complaint here.

Re:This is a horrible review

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

My point is not just that the Mac's Preferences always appear at the top of the screen. My point is that they always appear in the exact same place.

I mentioned this in a previous post, but I *have* used KDE before, and do know that KDE can put the menu bar on top of the screen. However, that does not mean that settings will always be in the same place. Settings will always be *at the top*, but they will always be *at the top* and "somewhere over on the right". No matter how fast you may believe you can point a mouse, I can always move my mouse to the upper left corner and get to Preferences on a Mac in the time it would take to read the names of the menus on the right looking for "Settings". I have the mouse motion "memorized". I know exactly where my mouse needs to go, and I can do it with my eyes closed.

You may hate that behavior, but it is easier to memorize. If you're having trouble moving your mouse up quickly enough, you can change the tracking speed(That is, if you can find the preferences).

Re:This is a horrible review

[brunes69]

Sure, and with this increased tracking speed it is now more difficult to aquire targets *EVERYWHERE* on the screen but the screen edge, thus markedly decreasing the usability of the whole OS.

I seriously think that soon, as 19" monitors start becoming standard, this whole "screen edge is ideal for targets" thing will be re-thought. At 1600x1200, with any kind of reasonable tracking speed it just takes too damn long.

Aside from the fact that I don't even believe the statement that you could click your preferences button any faster than I could click settings.
My brain can read 5 words much faster than you can move your hand 2 inches.

Re:This is a horrible review

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

Because of mouse acceleration, the mouse tracks at a faster speed if being moved over long distances. This makes it very simple to move my mouse up to the corner very quickly, and my tracking speed is set to less than 1/2 of the maximum. If I'm moving my mouse a short distance, I can have all of the accuracy I need, but if I'm moving the mouse a long distance, the mouse movement speeds up. Your brain may be able to read 5 words faster than I can move my hand two inches, but I seriously doubt that you can locate the menubar, read 5 words and then move your hand an inch to the last one before I can move my hand 2 inches, repeating a simple movement I can do with my eyes closed.

Agreed

[Chazmati]

When I see that type of phoentic misspelling, I infer stupitity. Maybe it's the bad haircut I got at Kathy's Kuts when I was a kid, but I find that sort of naming repulsive.

Maybe that's why I've always gravitated towards GNOME. I used to think I just preferred the GNOME artwork, but over time I realized it's the KDE naming. And I know, GNOME does it too, but not to such a degree. Yeah, there's Gnumeric, but Nautilus could have easily been Gnautilus. The GNOME apps don't seem to have this compulsive desire to integrating the 'G' sound into the word, maybe that's the difference.

Here's a question: does xterm, xclock, xpdf, xsane, etc bother you as much? Me neither.

Why the focus on KDE, Gnome has garnerd all suppor

[Bruha]

Novell(Suse), UserLinux, RedHat, and god knows who else have all voiced their support for Gnome. I may like KDE but they've done nothing to become accepted in the standard and of course they have something about royalties which companies will not pay. Explains why most if not all have gone with Gnome.

You're kidding, right?

[freeweed]

Windows has been using "personalized" menus for years now, since Windows 2000 and Office 2000 at least (possibly Office 97, I can't remember offhand). Any menu option you don't frequently use disappears after a while. To make it more fun, a fresh install hides quite a few options, so you may never even know they're there. And KDE or Gnome used to do this on RedHat 8 and/or 9 at least. Where you had your utils/apps/whatever in the main K/foot menu, PLUS another entry called "extras", which then cascaded into more utils/apps/whatever.

I gotta tell you, both systems irritated the piss out of me. Every time I'd not use something for a month, I'd forget where the hell it went, and have to go hunting around trying to find it. Grrrrr :)

A better designed heirarchy works wonders. I usually spend a fair bit of time re-organizing my start/K/foot menus, but once they're set up, wow, is it ever easy to find stuff. The problem with this, of course, is that no two people will want the same organization. I agree with another poster here, perhaps a beginner(only the main things) vs. expert (every damn item) mode is in order?

Re:You're kidding, right?

[pyros]

And KDE or Gnome used to do this on RedHat 8 and/or 9 at least. Where you had your utils/apps/whatever in the main K/foot menu, PLUS another entry called "extras", which then cascaded into more utils/apps/whatever.

the infamous Extras menu of RH 8. It was static, so applications were either in their logical program group if they were default RH apps (or if you put them there intentionally), or they were in their logical program group in Extras. but it did suck. In RH 9 they fanned it out to having a sub menu on each program group. So you look at the Internet program group in the menu, and have "More Internet Apps", "Web Browser", "Email", and "Instant Messaging". So to find Internet applications you went Applications->Internet[->More]. Still a static system, apps didn't migrate in and out of More unless you explicitly moved them. Reduced clutter while retaining a logical layout.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[shfted!]

Give Mandrake a shot. Their menu organisation for all desktops is beautiful. I've had linux newbs just site down and use it, yet it fit me, a rather advanced user, just fine too.

About the only problem I have is that web designing tools are with the web browsers, not under development or editors, but the associate they used makes sense.

And lastly, I whole-heartedly agree that "personalised" menu are horrible. I can't stand them!!! I want things in the same place every time so that I don't have to search for them.

Re:The State Of KDE -- new, improved.

[Archie Steel]

Oh, I'm a zealot, really? Why, I never...I mean, you're the one foaming at the mouth, while I express a personal preference, therefore I'm the zealot. Makes sense.

Rrrrright!

As far as I'm concerned, the "business users" have chosen neither GNOME nor KDE, but Windows. Some business users have chosen GNOME, others (like the folks at WETA digital) have chosen KDE. More importantly, GNOME and KDE, through the efforts of freedesktop.org, are coming together on common standards.

So, to sum it up: I am a real user who supports both KDE and GNOME and their effort to better integrate (while keeping a personal preference for KDE), and you are a zealot, who makes this KDE vs. GNOME thing into your own personal war. You're like a kid arguing that "the Xbox is waay cooler than the PS2" or vice-versa.

The truth is that KDE, IMO, has more feature, is better integrated and more customizeable - not to mention that QT as a development environment is a thing of beauty (or so my programming friends tell me - all I've done is a QTDesigner tutorial, and found it to be very user-friendly).

Also, K3B 0wnz any GNOME CD- or DVD-burning app, suXorz!!! :-)

Re:Gnome Zealot Translate-o-matic.

[renelicious]

Don't get pissed off at me, but I just wanted to say something about this:

Translation : GPL is freerer than LGPL. LGPL allows corporations like Novell
and Sun to have propeitry forks and lock away their changes from the user. Now
that Novell has taken over Ximian you can expect Gnome to get put under
corpirate lock. With KDE you have the choice, you either PAY UP or pay with
your source code.

I think this is THE one issue that will end up screwing KDE. I think its sad, but its too late to change it. Here's the deal, you can write closed code for both Gnome and KDE, however you can't write free (as in it doesn't cost a company any money to do so) code for KDE. I'm not saying this is good, but just think about it. If you were a big corporation and you could port your code to Linux and pay "not very much" to use QT, or nothing to use GTK, which are you going to pick?

I wish just as much as you do that companies would say, "Hey its not that much money and its a better development environment for our coders, let's spend the extra cash". But that's a dream world. They'll say "Use the free GK++T thingy...its free right?..yeah use that".

I'm not trying to stir up a flamewar, just think its sad that in the long run thats what will probalby make the most difference.

All together now:MVC.

[Doc Ruby]

Can't these desktops, like KDE and GNOME, stick to the Model-View-Controller (MVC) 3 tier architecture? Keep the application & system data represented in the desktop in the model tier. Keep the interaction features in the controller tier. And skins in the Controller layer. Then we can more easily have GNOME and KDE (and others) running "under the hood" together. We have to choose the presentation that actually gets rendered to the display (omitting the others), until someone comes up with some "meta" layer that allows picking and choosing presentation features in desktops. So I want to choose on only cosmetic criteria, leaving actual functions, and application dependencies, all in the pool together, regardless of presentation.

Re:Site already slow... full text

[chavo valdez]

Damn, that's funny wish I had some mod points.

KDE save dialog

[curious.corn]

KDE may have many defects and it's settings/variety loghorrea is one of them, like google under some blogger coalition attack ;-) OH, but there's one precious little thing... it's the file Open/Save dialog... bliss. Unfortunately programmers jargonise the UI but it's not their fault; how can they imagine that to the rest of the world RandR control panel setting means nothing? I feel that some GNOME-ification to good 'ol KDE wouldn't be that bad after all but overall I think both systems make a hell of a good show.

monopoly analogy

[mozkill]

ya see, Apple was like the first speed dealer on the street and Microsoft saw that, learned from it and improved it, and started importing crack to take market share from the Linux dopers who are too slow to adjust. If only it didn't take so long to get stoned. Those Microsoft coke-heads save time because it only takes a second to whiff it up, and thats why they are the leader on the street. Its too bad about the BSD browners because once they start you never hear from them again.

Re:Gnome Zealot Translate-o-matic.

[Dionysus]

Code against QT, and you can get it running on Windows, Mac...

Re:KDE 3.2 == Mac OS 8

[Scholasticus]

That will be around the time I become senile enough to want a toaster for a computer, or maybe a big gumdrop.

Oh, and by the way, didn't OS X take a little something from Open Source Software?

MOD UP!

[scosol]

Yeah it's likely Flamebait but these are hard facts... and I see it this same way as well.
SUSE was a big part of why KDE was still around-

Relax, a unified common desktop is a good thing(tm)

Re:MOD UP!

[taniwha]

I disagree - KDE is 'still around' because it has a dedicated bunch of people who work on it.

Re:MOD UP!

[scosol]

Right- I mean more "a dominant desktop"-

It just kills me how so much effort has been put in to these 2 desktop/application frameworks... when they essentially do the exact same things to the same levels of competency... I wonder where we would be today if they simply had cooperated..

Re:MOD UP!

[be-fan]

Except they don't. GNOME excels at having a polished, user-friendly interface, while KDE has killer technology under the hood. They're completely different, at least to people who actually use them, rather than report on them from afar.

Re:MOD UP!

[scosol]

Don't give me that crap- I've extensively used both-

I don't think anything is particularly "killer" under KDE's hood contrasted to GNOME- and "default look" is a pretty weak measure of each package as a whole.

And I don't see how you can say they're "completely different"- each of them has a "default layout"- and each can be customized to act roughly equivalent to each other's default layouts-
In my mind they're roughly equivalent in all areas, sure, KDE might do this and that better, and GNOME might do this and that better, but its all details.

My point is just that a HELL of a lot of effort has been put in to both, while I think that effort combined could have made something even better.

Re:MOD UP!

[be-fan]

Don't give me that crap- I've extensively used both-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Keyword: "extensively." I use Linux as my only desktop OS. While KDE is my primary desktop, I try the latest GNOME every time a new one is released.

I don't think anything is particularly "killer" under KDE's hood contrasted to GNOME-
>>>>>>>>
KIO, DCOP, KParts, KConfig, XML-GUI, etc. While there are counterparts to most of those in GNOME, they're not really leveraged across the desktop. Its hard to find apps, for example, that really use Bonobo. Abiword-GNOME apparently doesn't use Gnome-VFS. Not many apps use GConf yet, etc. On top of that, the KDE framework libraries are tightly integrated and very powerful. The reason so many KDE apps have advanced features built-in is because it either comes free via the framework (KIO, XML-GUI), or is ridiculously easy to use (KParts, DCOP). Try developing on both systems and see what I mean.

and "default look" is a pretty weak measure of each package as a whole.
>>>>>>>>>>>
You just can't get KDE to look like GNOME. Take something simple like "text next to icons." KDE has an option for it, but KDE apps have so many icons that it makes the toolbar enormous. Same thing for context menus. Much longer in KDE than in GNOME. I mean, you could go and edit all the toolbars and context menus in every KDE app (because configurable KAction holders are built into the framework), but that'd be a development project in and of itself.

And I don't see how you can say they're "completely different"- each of them has a "default layout"- and each can be customized to act roughly equivalent to each other's default layouts-
>>>>>>>>>>
No they can't. Unless you whip up a ton of code and add-back all the features they removed in GNOME 2.x, or heavily refactor all the panel, toolbar, and menu layouts in KDE, they can't.

In my mind they're roughly equivalent in all areas, sure, KDE might do this and that better, and GNOME might do this and that better, but its all details.
>>>>>>>>>>
Let me guess --- you don't use either on a regular basis, right?

Re:MOD UP!

[scosol]

I don't understand- do you not believe me or something?
At work I use both a Win2k and a FreeBSD machine- at home I run Linux on the laptop I'm typing this on right now. It's a Fujitsu P2040 with a Crusoe, so it's severely underpowered in some ways- as such Fluxbox is my "main" window manager. I stay current on both KDE and GNOME and switch between them routinely.

Admittedly I've never developed heavily under either platform, so my comments come more from a user-side. (tho I *am* pretty familiar with what the various structures in the framework are)

I dunno man- addressing your comments directly, AFAIK *nothing* uses GNOME-VFS yet (and I suspect it may die a horrid sudden death). And yeah, nothing uses GConf either (registry)- but really- those ideas are ahead of their time. Those things make sense in *huge* integrated environments- sure they seem unwieldy and unneeded now, but the principles they implement make sense. As for bonobo, I don't know what you're talking about.

KDE has some of the same structures, (of those specifically, DCOP acting like Bonobo), but it just all *seems* more hacked together in a mishmash sort of way-
Like I said- I don't really see any *major* differences under the hood- the GNOME components just mentioned are (again) ahead of their time, and dont really contribute much at the moment- so things are basically in the same spot.

In reference to the customization of each- I'm not talking about minor stuff like text next to icons, or menu items- I'm talking about the entire way the desktop works- Menu at bottom, taskbar at bottom, quicklauch at top etc etc.
IE: both Desktop Environments can be set up in the same logical working order, they're both flexible enough.

Anyway- I'm not trying to start desktop enviroment war I just hink that KDE is on its way out because of the Novell+Ximian+SUSE thing, and that it's a *good* thing- because those things that are *good* about KDE will now get put in to GNOME and the "Unified U*IX Desktop" will become a feasible reality :)

Re:MOD UP!

[Lozzer]

Tight Integration bad, loose integration good, mkay.

Re:MOD UP!

[spuk]

I dunno man- addressing your comments directly, AFAIK *nothing* uses GNOME-VFS yet (and I suspect it may die a horrid sudden death). And yeah, nothing uses GConf either (registry)- but really- those ideas are ahead of their time.

Heard of Hurd? Or maybe LUFS (http://freshmeat.net/projects/lufs/)? Or even the virtual filesystems on Midnight Commander? And KIOSlaves do just the same in an elegant, userspace, orthogonal, unix (as opposed to "let's build an entire portable OS on top of the OS"), way. And for GConf, well, it's just Windows registry in XML... and, as its cousin, seems to use a huge amount of memory just to stay quiet...

Re:MOD UP!

[be-fan]

How? There is a difference between tight coupling and tight integration. KDE apps are very loosly coupled, but tightly integrated, because they do all their communication via DCOP.

Re:MOD UP!

[be-fan]

I don't understand- do you not believe me or something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;
No, its just that what you're saying is non-sensical.

I dunno man- addressing your comments directly, AFAIK *nothing* uses GNOME-VFS yet (and I suspect it may die a horrid sudden death). And yeah, nothing uses GConf either (registry)- but really- those ideas are ahead of their time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not on KDE. Every app uses KConfig and every app uses KIO. KDE users use these features daily. For example, if I need to submit a big document to our central printer, I just save it directly from my program using ssh over KIO.

Those things make sense in *huge* integrated environments- sure they seem unwieldy and unneeded now
>>>>>>>>>>>>
KDE is a highly integrated environment, GNOME is not. That's why they are different! And KDE is not at all unwieldy or unneeded.

, but the principles they implement make sense. As for bonobo, I don't know what you're talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;
Bonobo is GNOME's answer to KParts, based on CORBA. Its over-engineered and very few apps use it because its hard to use. In contrast, tons of KDE apps use KParts because it is easy.

KDE has some of the same structures, (of those specifically, DCOP acting like Bonobo), but it just all *seems* more hacked together in a mishmash sort of way-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How is any of it hacked together? KDE is probably the *least* hacked-together desktop in existence. The UI polish is low, but that's a design factor, not a technology factor.

Like I said- I don't really see any *major* differences under the hood- the GNOME components just mentioned are (again) ahead of their time, and dont really contribute much at the moment- so things are basically in the same spot.
----------------
That's the essential difference. Those things might be ahead of their time on GNOME, but not on KDE. You're basically saying that if you ignore all the differences, GNOME and KDE are the same. Well, by your logic, MacOS X and WinXP are the same!

Menu at bottom, taskbar at bottom, quicklauch at top etc etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I've got my taskbar and panel at 75% size along the bottom. I've got the application main menu, clock, and system tray at the top of the screen (like MacOS) in a panel. I've got it set to allow applications to cover the main menu or panel unless I move my mouse to a specific location (like NeXT). This buys me tons of screen real-estate, doesn't require fast reflexes like auto-hide, and still gives me fast acess to the menus. There is just no way to do this in GNOME!

Anyway- I'm not trying to start desktop enviroment war I just hink that KDE is on its way out because of the Novell+Ximian+SUSE thing, and that it's a *good* thing- because those things that are *good* about KDE will now get put in to GNOME and the "Unified U*IX Desktop" will become a feasible reality :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Screw a unified *NIX desktop. There is no way I'm giving up KDE's 21st-century features to live in GNOME's 20th century crap-hole. And I'd be surprised if any cool KDE features make it into GNOME in the next decade. The GNOME developers have basically given a "screw-you" to power users, and decided that anything that might confuse a 80-year-old grandma shouldn't be in the system.

Re:MOD UP!

[be-fan]

Qt is a 7MB library. Hardly megabloat. And you can make it a lot smaller than that (think Qt-Embedded). And its got three components:

1) A GUI toolkit, which don't come built into Linux and which you're going to need anyway;

2) Framework libraries and utility routines, which don't come built into Linux and which you're going to need anyway;

3) A thin C++ API over features that do come built into Linux.

So the only "bloat" there is the C++ wrapper over the features built-into Linux, which doesn't account for a huge portion of the library, and which you'll need anyway if you want a C++ interface rather than a C one.

Re:MOD UP!

[Lozzer]

I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I guess the measure of loose coupling would be in the quality of interface each component exposes through DCOP. And as you say, that has nothing to do with integration. My apologies.

Speed, Schmeed. Give Me Something New

[reallocate]

Who cares if KDE or Gnome is faster if it is just faster at things I don't want to do?

As far as I'm concerned, both are fast enough. Stop carping on speed and start giving me new and interesting software.

Re:Gnome Zealot Translate-o-matic.

[RPoet]

If you were a big corporation and you could port your code to Linux and pay "not very much" to use QT, or nothing to use GTK, which are you going to pick?

I'm going to find out what the advantages of both are. It doesn't matter if GTK is free if I have to spend $10K extra developing my application with GTK than with Qt, which would have cost $2.5K for a license.

Ever Wroked In An Office?

[reallocate]

Do you work in an office? Office workers use one or two applications all day long, every day. Everything else is a waste of space. Open sources vaunted "choice" is completely beside the point for them.

As for attaching a "randpm USB thing" to the boss's hardware...well, you must think that office workers can bring toys from home.

Before Linux stands a real chance in the office, Linux developers need to spend a lot of time with real office workers and their employers.

Re:Ever Wroked In An Office?

[adrianbaugh]

The most random USB thing I ever had to attach to my office computer was a departmental digital camera. Even on a Windows machine software installation was still required; on a linux box it would just be a case of apt-get install gtkam (or whatever). But any other "random" hardware was right out.

Re:Ever Wroked In An Office?

[martinde]

> Do you work in an office?

Yes, but it's small and all engineers. All but one of us do use Linux on the desktop. I use CrossOver to deal with "real" .doc and PowerPoint, when it's required for electronic submission or whatever. (I'm just a satisfied customer, no affiliation.)

> Office workers use one or two applications all day long, every day.
> Everything else is a waste of space. Open sources vaunted "choice" is completely beside the point for them.

Actually, that was my point. For doing word processing, generating memos and so forth, OpenOffice is pretty much there. 1.1 has decent import of .doc files although it's still not 100%. The spreadsheet works great for me but I have not tried to do any real complex stuff with it.

KDE is close enough to Windoze for most people to acclimate, IMHO. Mozilla works well enough as a browser to replace IE for most apps. (CrossOver deals with IE well enough for the 1% that don't work for me.) I like Konqueror but it has too many rendering issues for me to use for real.

Some offices do thrive on Lotus Notes, although I think there's a native port to Linux from IBM. Others have lots of custom VB thingies, too.

> As for attaching a "randpm USB thing" to the boss's hardware...well, you must
> think that office workers can bring toys from home.

I don't think people can bring in random stuff, that's why I said it's a problem for grandma and grandpa but not your average secretary. Or are you saying people DO bring in their own stuff?

Re:Ever Wroked In An Office?

[reallocate]

You're highlighting the real issue with Linux and the offcie desktop: As long as it uses Windows as its yardstick, there is no compelling reason for people to switch from Windows to Linux.

If the Linux desktop is as good as but no better than Windows, why leave Windows?

Linux needs to be better than Windows to merit paying the price of switching. Being better doesn't simply mean doing everything Windows does two percent faster, it means giving office users tools to do things they need to do that Windows doesn't.

(And, I did mean that offices don't allow staffers to bring in hardware to plug into the company network. Most places I've worked, use of unauthorized gizmos would get you canned.)

Re:Ever Wroked In An Office?

[be-fan]

If you don't look at the ease of use and application support aspects for a moment (a big if, but indulge me) Linux is already ahead of Windows. Let me use some examples from KDE:

1) KWallet provides an integrated password-handling mechanism throughout the system. I think MS Passport might do this, but it doesn't seem to handle any non-MS apps, like AIM. This is very nice if you're in a networked environment and have passwords everywhere.

2) KIO makes the network transparent. Windows struggles to browse shared files on other Windows machines. Every time I use "My Network Places," Explorer becomes totally unresponsive. Same for IE trying to browse an FTP site. Meanwhile, with KIO, I can save documents to an SSH server from any app I use. This came in tremendously handy recently when I was doing a web-page. Instead of bothering with file upload and download, I just edited files directly on the server (some Windows apps do this, but its not integrated into the system) and save screenshots directly onto the server. Office environments are getting highly networked, and its good to have a DE that is comfortable on a network.

3) It doesn't bog down under load. My problem with every networked Windows machine I've ever used is that when I'm under pressure to hit a deadline, and some system-intensive activity is going on in the background, the system becomes glacial. While Linux GUIs may not be the fastest on an unloaded machine, they respond beautifully under load (at least since preempt was introduced) and can save you a lot of frustration.

Re:Ever Wroked In An Office?

[cymen]

Some offices do thrive on Lotus Notes, although I think there's a native port to Linux from IBM. Others have lots of custom VB thingies, too.

Just the server but the client does work in wine and probably in Crossover too.

Re:Ever Wroked In An Office?

[Havokmon]

Before Linux stands a real chance in the office, Linux developers need to spend a lot of time with real office workers and their employers.

It depends on the Office. Windows networks are prevalent because it's a desktop OS. There is no sane person who would create a Windows file 'server' on their own.

You also have to consider applications. Applications are chosen more on the basis of what the business requires, not the baggage they carry with them.

Re:Ever Wroked In An Office?

[bkr1_2k]

No, but if the office is a wrokin' don't come a nockin'

bkr

Re:Ever Wroked In An Office?

[reallocate]

Lots of sane people use Windows on servers, but little to do with the failure of Linux to make inroads on the desktop.

Don't understand your point about "baggage". I'm just asserting that it seems most Linux developers are ignorant of the needs of office workers, and don't show any interest in learning.

Linux is failing to make inroads on the office desktop because:

1. It's essentailly invisible to people who work in offices. When was the last time you saw a commercial for a shrinkwrapped Linux application? Or saw one sitting on a store shelf?

2. Linux doesn't offer any compelling reason for offices to abandon Windows as a desktop OS. If you are using a Windows app and someone tell you that Linux now has an app that is "just as good", your likely response will be "So what?"

3. The "free" aspect of Linux isn't a selling point in the office arena. Businesses typically aren't interested in RMS-inspired ideological arguments, and realize that the cost of buying software is a small part of the total cost of switching platforms.

4. The open source community evinces a strong disdain for corporate office employees and shows little understanding of their requirements.

5. The open source community often attributes Windows' success in the office to "evil" MS business practices, "stupid" workers, and "stupid" bosses. This blinds them to the reality that they need to start learning what their customers want.

Re:Ever Wroked In An Office?

[Havokmon]

Lots of sane people use Windows on servers, but little to do with the failure of Linux to make inroads on the desktop.

No, Consultants and MBA's do that. It's an example of the industry's back-asswards way of doing things. The people in the know aren't making the decisions

Don't understand your point about "baggage". I'm just asserting that it seems most Linux developers are ignorant of the needs of office workers, and don't show any interest in learning.

"Baggage" is the applications requirements. If a new application requires me to be on windows, it's 'baggage'. If it requires Oracle, it's baggage. I don't want anything that requires anything specific. That has nothing to do with that apps Open Source people are developing, but everything the commercial people are developing.

Linux is failing to make inroads on the office desktop because:

1. It's essentailly invisible to people who work in offices. When was the last time you saw a commercial for a shrinkwrapped Linux application? Or saw one sitting on a store shelf?

Who needs that? I don't buy business applications 'off the shelf'. What does that have to do with anything. Oh, the WRONG people are making decisions.

2. Linux doesn't offer any compelling reason for offices to abandon Windows as a desktop OS. If you are using a Windows app and someone tell you that Linux now has an app that is "just as good", your likely response will be "So what?"

That's true. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have no argument there. In that case there is no upgrade requiremnt.

3. The "free" aspect of Linux isn't a selling point in the office arena. Businesses typically aren't interested in RMS-inspired ideological arguments, and realize that the cost of buying software is a small part of the total cost of switching platforms.

I disagree. The platform is nothing. It's middleware. It enable an application to talk to the hardware. The user needs to be able to use the application. AFAIC, they can use OS/2 on the desktop, as long as the application they need runs on it.

Free is it. Why should I pay $100 per desktop for an application enabler?

4. The open source community evinces a strong disdain for corporate office employees and shows little understanding of their requirements.

Huh? The OS community exists to scratch an itch. The only time I see disdain is when a corporate employee says "I need this" and expects it done for them for free. (And then those same people complain there is no Open Source business model... ummm)

5. The open source community often attributes Windows' success in the office to "evil" MS business practices, "stupid" workers, and "stupid" bosses. This blinds them to the reality that they need to start learning what their customers want.

Actually, that's entirely true. There ARE better desktops (and servers), and there always have been. I was impressed the first time I ran Win2k, and saw it was as stable as OS/2 Warp from 1994. Windows Server have no value whatsoever - Well, unless you're only trained in the ways of Windows, and don't mind using newfangled technology instead of a good old batch file. I say, good luck in your disaster recovery.

So, yes, the problem is stupid people are locking themselves into Windows. Why is that my problem?

I have not locked myself into Windows, and the business applications that _I_ am looking at give me the flexibility of using whatever Server/Desktop combination that I decide is best for my company. Maybe if those corporate people weren't buying software off the shelf, and actually letting their IT staff do their jobs (After of course hiring competant ones), we wouldn't be as fucked up as we are.

Re:Ever Wroked In An Office?

[reallocate]

>> Consultants and MBA's do that...The people in the know aren't making the decisions.

The people in charge make decisions. Most of them are busy running companies and are bored stiff by computers and software. You're implying that Windows is never a rational choice and its use is always the result of ignorant executives being influenced by "consultants and MBAs".

>> "Baggage is the applications requirements. If a new application requires me to be on windows, it's 'baggage'."

The OS isn't baggage. I'll agree that, for example, a calculator app that requires Oracle is an example of unnecessary bagge. But, then, I've seen a number of simple desktop open source apps that require Apachage, php and mysql.

>> I don't buy business applications 'off the shelf'.

No? Where do you buy them? Here's the point: A mFree is it. Why should I pay $100 per desktop for an application enabler?anager isn't likely to respond positively to a sotware brand if he's never heard of it. Windows is everywhere; he's heard of it; he probably uses it at home. For better or worse, that counts when trying to make a sale. (As for the "wrong" people making decisions, I suspect you mean that software types ought to be deciding what software a company uses. God forbid. In my own experience, "software types" ere even more clueless about what people really do on the job that managers. I've led several corporate-scale development efforts and the single most difficult task was always persuading the software folks to actually spend a few days on-the-job with the people they were being paid to write code for.)

>> Free is it. Why should I pay $100 per desktop for an application enabler?

$0.00 is better than $100.00, but both figures pale in comparison to the cost of sending employees off to training, lost revenue due to downtime during the transition, etc.Linux might be "free", but no one trains people for free and no one compensates a company for lost revenue.

>> The OS community exists to scratch an itch. The only time I see disdain is when a corporate employee says "I need this" and expects it done for them for free. (And then those same people complain there is no Open Source business model... ummm)

What itch? If it's the itch of developers and geeks to have a free Unix to play with, that's fine. But recognize that it is transparently hypocritical argue that Linux is a plaything of geeks and, as well, to argue that it meets business needs better than Windows. (If a user has a need for software that doesn't exist in the open source world, why should he not be insulted by a response that says "write it yourself"? )

>> There ARE better desktops (and servers), and there always have been.

An assertion, not a statement of fact. It certainly begs the questions of what defines a "good" desktop. I will assert that, beyond the "doesn't crash" threshold, technical merit is not important to users.

>> ...the problem is stupid people are locking themselves into Windows.

Another unproven, and unprovable, assertion. Like so many others, you are associating use of Windows with "stupidity". This is simple bigotry.

>> Maybe if those corporate people weren't buying software off the shelf, and actually letting their IT staff do their jobs...

The job of the IT staff is to help the company make money. That means doing what the boss tells them to do. If they want to decide what software to buy, let them start their own company. The IT staff typically hasn't a clue about what the comany is in business to do.

Re:Ever Wroked In An Office?

[Havokmon]

The people in charge make decisions. Most of them are busy running companies and are bored stiff by computers and software. You're implying that Windows is never a rational choice and its use is always the result of ignorant executives being influenced by "consultants and MBAs".

Yes. This is why the IT staff exists: To determine what software is required by the company (that does not exclude talking to users).

The OS is baggage. I'll agree that, for example, a calculator app that requires Oracle is an example of unnecessary bagge. But, then, I've seen a number of simple desktop open source apps that require Apachage, php and mysql.

I assume you meant is. Apache and MySQL should not be required, but not requiring PHP is like not requiring VRUN300.DLL. You have to be able to interpret the code. PHP is done runtime, VB is compiled, and requires a DLL. IMHO, no difference. Apache should be able to be replaced by any web server, and MySQL should be able to be replaced by any SQL Server. Fortunately, if it's open source, you have that choice whether or not the developer provided it.

No? Where do you buy them?

Resellers. You have to talk to a lot of them to determine if the application they're selling fits your business

Here's the point: A manager isn't likely to respond positively to a sotware brand if he's never heard of it. Windows is everywhere; he's heard of it; he probably uses it at home. For better or worse, that counts when trying to make a sale. (As for the "wrong" people making decisions, I suspect you mean that software types ought to be deciding what software a company uses. God forbid. In my own experience, "software types" ere even more clueless about what people really do on the job that managers. I've led several corporate-scale development efforts and the single most difficult task was always persuading the software folks to actually spend a few days on-the-job with the people they were being paid to write code for.)

Holy Shit. You mean you aren't able to deploy applications because the department manager wasn't familiar with the name? Think about that.

$0.00 is better than $100.00, but both figures pale in comparison to the cost of sending employees off to training, lost revenue due to downtime during the transition, etc.Linux might be "free", but no one trains people for free and no one compensates a company for lost revenue.

You still can't seem to seperate the OS from the Application. Corporate users don't use OS's, they use Applications.

What itch? If it's the itch of developers and geeks to have a free Unix to play with, that's fine. But recognize that it is transparently hypocritical argue that Linux is a plaything of geeks and, as well, to argue that it meets business needs better than Windows.

As an OS, it just needs to run the Application of choice

(If a user has a need for software that doesn't exist in the open source world, why should he not be insulted by a response that says "write it yourself"? )

Umm If the user OFFERS PAYMENT FOR SERVICES, then no, they shouldn't be insulted. Why do you think your application should be written for free for you to use for free? Sounds like you have an itch. Scratch it ;)

An assertion, not a statement of fact. It certainly begs the questions of what defines a "good" desktop. I will assert that, beyond the "doesn't crash" threshold, technical merit is not important to users.

Exactly. The users use Applications, not the OS. Therefore an OS that doesn't crash is superior to one that does. Not much of a leap there.

>> ...the problem is stupid people are locking themselves into Windows.

Another unproven, and unprovable, assertion. Like so many others, you are associating use of Windows with "stupidity". This is simple bigotry.

You are correct, I should have said ignorant, because t

Re:Ever Wroked In An Office?

[reallocate]

1. The IT staff is not supposed to pick software any more than the motor pool is supposed to decide what cars the company buys. The IT staff has a right to offer input, but not a right to make purchase decisions.

2. Managers are no more likely to buy software they've never heard of than they are to hire employees without an interview. That's just common sense. Familiarity breeds acceptance. Again, you are supposing that the only factor involved in choosing software is technical merit. That's wrong.

3. Applications don't run without an OS. Presumbably, you know this are and being deliberately sophistic. My obvious point is this: changing platforms incurs a ccan'tost, of which the purchase price of the OS is only a small part, even if the OS is priced at $0.00.

4. No, I did not say that managers only choose software they are familiar with. I said they are more likely to do so. (You can call it stupidity or ignorance, and I will still call it bigotry on your part because you are linking use of Wndows to stupidity and ignorance.) However, I did say that, in my experience, IT managers and staffers don't know enough about the business of the company that pays them and the actual on-the-job behavior of their fellow empoloyees to be trusted to choose software. I've had IT people removed from contracts for refusing to spend as little as 8 hours observing an employee.

5. Choice of software is not a technical decision. How can an IT staff possibly select software for a business if it doesn't know what the business does? IT managers are not competenmt to determine the software needed to run a business. Once purchased, employees have no ability to choose the software the use.

6. I didn't mention the public domain. Nor did I mention paying an open source developer.

7. If I'm not running X, why would I ask "Does this run on X?" If I had any sense, I'd ask: "Does this software left my employees do something they can't do now that will increase profit? If it does, can we install it, train for it, and use it at a cost that doesn't negate those profits?"

8. I'm not complaining about my perception of what open source people should do. I don't care what they do, any more than I care what MS employees do. I stated that it is hyprocritical to assert that open source is a better platform desktop users while also maintaining that it exists only to "scratch the itch" of developers who want to play with Unix.

Re:Ever Wroked In An Office?

[Havokmon]

*sigh* 1. The IT staff is not supposed to pick software any more than the motor pool is supposed to decide what cars the company buys. The IT staff has a right to offer input, but not a right to make purchase decisions.

Wrong. A single car in the motor pool cannot, without gross misuse, put the entire company in limbo for an extended period of time. You are allowing those with little knowledge to put the company at great risk because of that.

2. Managers are no more likely to buy software they've never heard of than they are to hire employees without an interview. That's just common sense. Familiarity breeds acceptance. Again, you are supposing that the only factor involved in choosing software is technical merit. That's wrong.

Wrong again. You INQUIRE about software that will fit your needs. By thinking I am choosing software on technical merit (which, if you read, I did not), you are taking the opposite stance of assuming all software 'just works', and 'always fits' any given situation. Unless of course, you're talking about something as simplistic as a web browser - which I then have no idea what you're complaining about.

3. Applications don't run without an OS. Presumbably, you know this are and being deliberately sophistic. My obvious point is this: changing platforms incurs a ccan'tost, of which the purchase price of the OS is only a small part, even if the OS is priced at $0.00.

What the hell are you talking about? Are you an MBA? Of course an Application runs ON TOP of an OS. The users use the application, NOT the OS. Just like a user uses WinAmp, not a sound card.

4. No, I did not say that managers only choose software they are familiar with. I said they are more likely to do so. (You can call it stupidity or ignorance, and I will still call it bigotry on your part because you are linking use of Wndows to stupidity and ignorance.) However, I did say that, in my experience, IT managers and staffers don't know enough about the business of the company that pays them and the actual on-the-job behavior of their fellow empoloyees to be trusted to choose software. I've had IT people removed from contracts for refusing to spend as little as 8 hours observing an employee.

Keep in mind that not only do IT people need to observe employee behavior, but the employee also needs to be a beta-tester when required. This is all, of course, after IT has selected a list of applications that are well-suited to what the user needs that fit the IT philosophy.

5. Choice of software is not a technical decision. How can an IT staff possibly select software for a business if it doesn't know what the business does? IT managers are not competenmt to determine the software needed to run a business. Once purchased, employees have no ability to choose the software the use.

Answered above. But.. I'm confused as to why you'd have employees using already purchased software that they never tested.

6. I didn't mention the public domain. Nor did I mention paying an open source developer.

No - you said users were criticized by Open Source developers for wanting new features... and I agreed that you didn't mention paying those developers :)

7. If I'm not running X, why would I ask "Does this run on X?"

You mean you have NO idea where your network may be headed in the next 5 years?

If I had any sense, I'd ask: "Does this software left my employees do something they can't do now that will increase profit? If it does, can we install it, train for it, and use it at a cost that doesn't negate those profits?"

Of course those are nice general questions, but when you start asking "Can I click one button to ship a whole invoice, or do I have to do each line item manually." Then you can find out how flexible the software is.

8. I'm not complaining about my perception of what open source people should do. I don't care what they do, any more than

Re:Ever Wroked In An Office?

[reallocate]

Your being inane.

I'm arguing that Linux isn't successful on the desktop because it offers nothing that Windows doesn't offer. I like Linux, I use Linux, and I wish Linux was better than Windows on the desktop. but it isn't. If open source developers would stop blaming everyone but themselves for the market's reluctance to accept their products, they might start coding something better than Windows.

It is pointless to continue to assert that IT has the job of deciding what software a company should buy. In my experience, that has never been the case. Also, in my experience, IT managers and IT staffers maintained a studied and deliberate ignorance about the mission of the company and the tasks individual employees needed to perform. If someone doesn't know what an employee needs to do, they are not competent to buy or develop software designed to support that behavior. Again, in my experience, managements formed teams of employees and contractors, independent of IT, to determine requirements, test and select software, develop and test training curricula, etc. IT was brought in when necessary to answer specific questions, but we made the buy recommendations to management, who then gave direction and funding to IT.

Whether or not managers are technically competent to select software is, again, irrelevant. It's their responsibilty and it's their authority. They can ask for advice from anyone, including IT, but they make the call.

Your putting words in my mouth and generally behaving like an adolescent in a high school debate. Go score points somewhere else if it boosts your ego.

Re:Why the focus on KDE, Gnome has garnerd all sup

[Ice_Balrog]

Um, SuSE used KDE. And will continure using KDE (this has been pubically stated by Novell people). Mandrake's default is KDE. And I head that Debian is focusing on KDE more and more.

Whoops... there I go again, feeding the GNOME trolls.

Re:Speed, Schmeed. Give Me Something New

[Dom2]

Actually, neither is fast enough. Particularly where it matters: terminal windows. I've tried gnome-terminal, and I've tried konsole. They're both slow and buggy. xterm may not be as flashy, but it's fast and it works.

-Dom

because ....

[taniwha]

more people actually use KDE than Gnome day to day - maybe not in the US, and maybe not in the future given the current set of business deals going down .... but past surveys have always shown more KDE users than Gnome ones. This is probably due to KDE originally getting to a useable state before Gnome

Re:because ....

[Cid Highwind]

Does anyone have real numbers to back this up? It's an article of faith among KDE users that they are in the majority, but I've never seen a survey about this on an independant (not affiliated with KDE or GNOME) web site.

Re:because ....

[kragaroth]

Yes, that is a good point. I use gnome and am really satisfied with it. But I'm also playing around a little in kde from time to time, because it's fun to customize, and with a little effort it is a great DE, except I get a little scared everytime I open a menu, as I am used to gnome. I also like the look & feel of gnome and it's applications better. But I still can't help feeling that KDE has been further ahead in it's development. As gnome has reached 2.4 I feel that it has matured enough to be compared to kde 3.x. That is probably the main reason people has been using kde instead of gnome, though I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers have changed a little recently. Still, it's a great thing we have the choice between different DE's having different philosophies, especially now that they are agreeing on some standards to make them more interoperable. Had they only used the same gui toolkit things would have been a lot easier.

Re:Speed, Schmeed. Give Me Something New

[Sam Gibson]

Amen. I don't understand how they can add tabs (the only useful addition over xterm) and make it dog slow.

Re:Kan't stand it : +1 Insightful

[hayden]

And that's an amazing piece of karma whoring (as Spike said in Buffy, "Is everyone here really stoned?")

Fedora

[adler187]

Is it just me or doesn't it seem a bit odd that she installed KDE3.2 on Fedora, the same OS she thouroughly thrashed in her review? If she hated like Fedora so much, why is she still running it?

Re:Kan't stand it : +1 Insightful

[Abcd1234]

Damn... I'm wondering the same thing. I mean, honestly... WTF?

Re:My problems with KDE

[adrianbaugh]

I'd be happy if any open source alternative had as much as KDE's "almost there" feeling.

Re:KDE 3.2 == Mac OS 8

[pingveno]

In case you didn't noticed, OS X isn't very flexible. I haven't seen it put into handhelds or digital watches (yep, those nerds can do anything)

Don't get me wrong, I love Apple's OS, it's definitely easier to use and looks much cleaner.

-Pingveno

Re:My problems with KDE

[adrianbaugh]

1: I don't have bold fonts on my KDE desktop. I have no idea why not or when I turned them off, and I can't be bothered to find out for you, but it can be done.
2: So you prefer a Mozilla-style settings location to a KDE-style one? Big deal. It's just personal taste and for everyone who would be happier if it were done your way I'm sure there is someone who likes it better as it is. It is, after all, consistent.
3: I half agree with you. The settings in KControl should IMHO stay (my ideal desktop, I'm sure, is nothing like yours and I'm glad there are configurators so we can both be happy) but be hidden for novices (probably by the first-time wizard).
4: Agreed. Possibly configurable somewhere in the KControl panel? (gd&r)
5: I think konq's ok as a file manager, though I have issues with its standards-compliance as a browser. But I still find bash to be the best filemanager on my system :)
6: This is such a troll. QT's been available under the GPL for ages now.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Blaming the wrong people

[fwarren]

I agree with another poster here, perhaps a beginner(only the main things) vs. expert (every damn item) mode is in order?

I don't really kare that there are 4 text editors installed when downloading KDE from kde.org.

Menu organization and what applications are installed, as well as "application defaults" are set by the distribution.

Just because the kde.org download has 4 text editor means nothing. The default Mandrake install may only have 1 editor while Fedora may have 7 or 8.

This is how it should be. A distribution can target power users, i.e. a full install to get all of their goodies, a "lite" install for when they are slapping a system together for some newbie. Or a distribution can target beginners and give a one-click install with only the basic aps.

As far as too many menu options. It would not be a bad idea to have a basic/power user setup. I am a power user and I LIKE not having to go to the control panel everytime I want to change some options in Konqueror, I like them all there at my fingertips.

I would like to see embeded java applets in Konqueror stay inside of Konqueror instead of opening up in their own window when I am running Fluxbox as my desktop.

I am looking forward to about 6 months from now and getting my hands on Fedora 1.0 or Mandrake 10.0 running a 2.6 kernel and KDE 3.2 the performance is going to be stellar.

KDE 3.2-beta2 - Towards a Better KDE?

[cygnus]

aren't all KDE releases towards a better KDE?

at least, you'd hope so! :)

Troll. A good one, but a troll nevertheless

[arevos]

GNOME has always been the commerical desktop of choice. It has long been focussed on getting the basics right and building from there... as opposed to the KDE Project, which is entirely aimed at pleasing the slashdot peanut gallery with pointless eye-candy. KDE features are thrown into the mix with little or no regard for usability, or even good taste. The end result is disasterous, as can be seen by anyone unforunate enough to be forced into using it.

The KDE architecture is a lot further on than GNOME. Whatever the eye-candy, the engine that drives KDE does appear to be more advanced and better put together than GNOME. KDE is very well put together, and like the article says, once you've got that down, it's not too hard to streamline. GNOME will have a harder job getting to KDE's standards then KDE would have imitating GNOME's ease of use. If it even wants to. It's not like there has to be only one desktop for everyone.

KDE is extremely expensive to develop for, unless you intend to produce GPL software. TrollTech, the owners of KDE and Qt, license the X11 version of their Qt toolkit under the GPL. This forces anyone wanting to develop software built on top of it (including KDE), to be (L)GPL licensed -- or pay TrollTech $3000 for every developer you have working on the application to purchase a commercial license.

As opposed to GTK, which is fully LGPL, with no proprietry license. What was your point again?

TrollTech is also vulnerable to takeover by companies hostile to Free software and good corporate lawyers who can blow holes in the laughable FreeQt agreements.

Huh? The current copy of Qt is GPLed. TrollTech cannot retract that, even if they wanted to. If TrollTech stopped developing GPL Qt, then the KDE project would just fork the codebase. As others have said, the GPL is very legally secure.

As for all the other points, whilst I could argue that KDE has made headway into the business environment as well (Lindows, SuSE 9, and so forth), I don't see why I should bother. Open Source software does not need corperate funding to continue. If it did, Linux would never have gotten off the ground. Commercial backing can't hurt, but it's not necessary for a project, either.

Nor does a project die if another overtakes it. KDE is technologically ahead of GNOME, and has been ever since GNOME's creation. Does that stop people working on GNOME? Nope. Because the Linux desktop is a varied thing. Just because Windows gained a monopoly, doesn't mean that there has to be a desktop monopoly. I'd like greater inter-compatability between the two systems, but I don't see a need for there to be only one.

Re:Troll. A good one, but a troll nevertheless

[arevos]

In what way? Your message is nothing but opinion, and not a very sound one. GNOME, among other things, is considerably more advanced in both components, media framework (gstreamer), internationalization and (especially) accessiblity. The latter three pieces are about to be re-used by the KDE project!! So much for GNOME being behind and less advanced.

Pot, kettle, black? You offer little besides opinion as well. A quick google search turns up articles like this. I've yet to find anything touting GNOME architecture over KDE.

That's not to say GNOME doesn't have many good points that KDE should really look into (gConf comes to mind), but having coded for both systems, I know which one looks nicer to me.

KDE developers know the game is up, and are now trying (as the article says) to clean up the filthy mess that is the KDE/Qt interface and make it usable... and at the same time scrabble hopelessly to use the XML, media framework and accessbility systems from GNOME.

The article also says that: "Luckily for KDE, they have the advantage over Gnome. It is easier for them to streamline, strip out and clean up their current interface than Gnome to get that level or architectural quality that KDE today enjoys.", KDE's DCOP, KParts, and better overall integration (compare Abiword and Gnumeric to KSpread and KWord. I prefer the former, but the latter are better integrated).

Huh? My point, if you bothered to read it instead of getting all excited and zealous, is that it costs nothing to write applications (say a word processor) for the GNOME desktop whatever license you choose to use for your app. Unlike Qt, which will cost you $3000 for every developer you have working on it... unless you want to use the GPL for your application.

Um... Yes, you can write any application you want for GNOME, BUT it has to obey the LGPL license terms. You can't choose whatever license you want. LGPL != BSD. Whilst less restrictive than GPL terms, it's still difficult to write proprietry applications on top of it. Qt, however, has a choice between GPL and proprietry. You just have to pay for the latter.

Who is talking about commercial funding? I'm talking about commercial deployment... which is money in the bank + support fees + guaranteed survival.

Guaranteed survival? So no commercial product ever flopped?

I did not say KDE is dead. I said it is dead for business use. No doubt a hardcore of zealot will continue to huddle around the creaky old project, but it has no future in the real world.

Nice wording, but you're not backing it up much. SUSE still uses KDE as it's primary desktop, Lindows does, Mandrake does as well. Redhat uses GNOME but that's the only major Linux distro I can think of.

Again, a statement with nothing at all to back it up. Perhaps you think repeating the same old meme "KDE is more advanced" will make it true.

Um, it is? Just look at the two systems. Compare them side by side. GNOME has many nice features, but it is behind KDE; if you look at them both running, you can see that. There's quite a few internet articles on it as well.

Re:Troll. A good one, but a troll nevertheless

[arevos]

What, besides the fact that the KDE project is moving over to the media subsystem and accessiblity architecure (and already uses the XML libs) all developed for the GNOME project isn't a big dent in the statement that KDE has more advanced technology? Pfff.

I didn't say that KDE has more advanced technology, just that it's further along in general. Compare GNOME architecture to KDE architecure. I'd rather not get into a big point-by-point argument, as the architecture of both is quite involved. I'm not saying GNOME is bad in any way, just that KDE is further along, and in many ways has a better engine. That's not to say GNOME will not become better than KDE, but remember that KDE has had longer to mature than GNOME. And in many ways, Qt is a better toolkit than GTK.

Yeah, I'll bet that GNOME hello world program really stretched things.

Ad Hominem attacks are a really nice way to make your point there. Have you gone through the GTK and Qt tutorials, by any chance? From your talk, I rather assume not.

Good lord, are you deliberately being clueless. I can write an application for GNOME with a license that says "FUCK YOU, I OWN YOU AND YOUR FIRST BORN CHILD." and link to the GNOME libs. May I suggest a little research on your part before mouthing off again (it doesn't however, seem to affect the zealot upmodding that goes on).

Well, apart from the fact that a licence is limited by law, you're more or less correct, except there are limitations to the LGPL. No static linking is a headache for proprietry developers not associated with a particular distribution.

However, perhaps I was exaggerating a little. Ironic that KDE is more Free-as-in-speech than GNOME though, especially considering GNOME's origins :)

Still, a LGPL licence for GTK I like more than a GPL licence for it.

Oh man, you've clearly never used GNUMERIC.

And you clearly don't know the meaning of the word "former". As I said, I prefer Gnumeric over KSpread, but KSpread intergrates better with KDE and KOffice than Gnumeric does with GNOME. That's a result of KDE's architecture.

If you've got lots of users, you've got survival. GNOME the project guaranteed its survival by those large commericial deals.

Because commercial deals are the only way of getting users. And no commercial deal has ever resulted in few users adopting a product.

SUSE is now run by Novell and Ximian is now running the desktop.

Perhaps you could indicate a modern SUSE distro that favours GNOME over KDE? Oh, that's right, there isn't one.

Personally, I can't see that Novell would make SUSE switch. Would they go to all the trouble of remaking YAST and changing focus? KDE is a largely European effort. GNOME is more USian. SUSE is European, and it's developers have quite a bit of experience with KDE.

That SUSE will change desktops is pure speculation. It may occur, but I don't think it's too likely myself, and you've offered nothing in the way of evidence to suggest that this is their strategy.

You are like all KDE zealots, you constantly repeat the same tired meme... until you are incapable of seeing anything else.

AC: KDE's going to die! GNOME's superior!
Me: I don't think so.
AC: You damn KDE zealot!

As I said before, this looks a lot like a troll, though your zealous pursuit of this thread seems to indicate otherwise.

Yes, written by Nicholas Petreley and pals... look, get out more. See the world.

Conspiracy theories aside, my searches turn up zip. Perhaps you could find an article that explains the superiority of the GNOME engine over KDE's?

What would be really cool . . . .

[LazloToth]

I've often thought that a great project would be to collect scripts that reshape KDE config files to create lighter-weight, mass-deployable desktops. This would be something like themes, but would go deeper into the geometry and function of the desktop design. Such scripts might strip away unneeded applications, set up the taskbar, fonts, colors, widgets, etc. Wouldn't that be nice? I once watched a KDE wizard tear KDE 2.0 apart to demonstrate how much could be done in this way, and I was impressed. He was showing how a kiosk-style desktop could be achieved, and the results - - after an hour or so of tweaking - - were pretty good. There may already be work of this sort going on. If so - - links?

Re:What would be really cool . . . .

[teprrr]

About the kiosk look at here. The GUI for the kiosk will be in KDE 3.3, hopefully.

Re:"constructive suggestions "

[arevos]

KDE runs on top of Qt. The Qt library can be made to run without X. Thus, KDE is not really tied to the X Window at all. If something better comes along, then it will be relatively trivial to swap KDE across.

How to fix Konqueror

[spitzak]

After much frustration, I figured out how to reduce the bloat of Konq's toolbars.

The biggest secret: if you want a field that you can type a url into, you have to use the Location toolbar, and leave the "location" widget on it.

Here is what I do:

1. Pick "configure toolbars"

2. Select "Location toolbar"

3. Remove everything except the location field. Note that you can remove the "Location:" label, the "clear" button, and the "go" button, and it still all works.

4. Insert back, up, home, stop, and other buttons you want before the location in the toolbar. Apparently harmless to have these buttons be in more than one toolbar, only the location field has bugs.

5. Click ok to dismiss the configure toolbars dialog.

6. Using settings, hide all the toolbars except the location one. You may have to toggle a few on/off or drag the location bar around, so that it finally decides to be full-width.

7. Type Ctrl+M to remove the menubar.

Done! It now works really well. Except I can't get middle-click to open a background tab (it opens a new window). Otherwise as good or better than Safari.

Re:How to fix Konqueror

[quantum bit]

Done! It now works really well. Except I can't get middle-click to open a background tab (it opens a new window). Otherwise as good or better than Safari.

What you want is:

1. Settings menu, Configure Konqueror.
2. Go to the web browser "Behavior" page (the one with the same icon as Konqueror)
3. Check "Open links in new tab instead of new window"
4. Uncheck "Automatically activate new opened tabs"

Voila! Middle-click now causes a new tab to open in the background without switching to it.

Re:How to fix Konqueror

[spitzak]

Thanks!

Seems obvious now, but I did not figure that out... I was looking for something like "what does a middle click do". But I guess this will also handle those web pages that use frames to force new windows to open.

Re:How to fix Konqueror

[fault0]

> The biggest secret: if you want a field that you can type a url into, you have to use the Location toolbar, and leave the "location" widget on it.

This buglet was fixed in 3.2, I beleive. It was quite annoying before :)

Re:How to fix Konqueror

[spitzak]

Yes it was. In fact I thought the entire location bar was broken. You could type into it and hit return and it worked. But the pop-up menu was in the wrong place and you could not pick from it, and it refused to change to show the current page. I just thought it was broken and never thought I could fix it.

It still seems broken in the version I got with Mandrake 9.2. I figured out the problem because I first said "oh the location bar is fixed now!" and then tried to customize it the way I want, and then saw that the location bar was broken again, and I figured out the secret...

Re:"constructive suggestions "

[sirReal.83.]

WTF are you talking about? X is great. It needs work, but the framework is a great piece of engineering. It's network transparent, it's very fast, and it can exist in multiple instances on the same box. New extensions are being written. Efforts are underway to make it more modular and require less configuration. "When will it be ready"? Faster If You Help (TM). What windowing system do you use?

BTW, what's XWindows? Some Microsoft vaporware?

Re:Gnome Zealot Translate-o-matic.

[splint3r]

This is simply not true. I have GTK running on my windows partition (for Gaim) but I've never seen QT programs.

Re:KDE *still* the font of desktop innovation!

[toomuchPerl]

mod down, this has been posted before.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Alpha Blending

[Tyreth]

Personally, I don't think desktop users will notice it's missing, except for a small niche. Most people working in a company or using it at home for email and web browsing won't notice, and simply won't care.

I'm really looking forward to having alpha blending, but I don't believe it to be a necessary or even wanted feature by most people.

Re:The State Of KDE -- new, improved.

[Archie Steel]

Apology accepted - if that wasn't sarcasm (I don't think it is, since you didn't use any emoticons or other non-verbal signs that you weren't serious). If it isn't sarcasm, then I applaud you for your civility. If it is sarcasm...well, it will only reinforce my initial impression that you are a zealot. Since I'd rather give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll settle for the former.

I mean, really, can't we just all get along? There's enough room for two desktops, especially since they're not tied to a specific OS and they are increasingly interoperable? OS wars are bad enough, DE wars are downright ridiculous.

Re:Kan't stand it : +1 Insightful

[Feztaa]

That's an *excellent* point.

(just waiting for my +5, insightful :)

best of both worlds

[toomuchPerl]

Moving towards a bit of a "me too" response, I'd say that after installing redhat 9 with Gnome/metacity as the default [but kde apps installed anyway], I soon moved to blackbox WM and discovered perfection.

10 workspaces, almost perfectly customized to how i like it (only missing feature for me is how i cannot configure it to send apps to the next and prior workspace via keybindings) ... the speed is beautiful, as well.

I have a Celeron 2ghz machine, and I like snappy performance. Blackbox let me have that, and a speedy work environment to boot. On the plus side, I can still load both gnome and kde apps. The desktop environment isn't what's important, for me.
-toomuchPerl

mess in the home directory

[ephraimhorse]

My life as a kde user (and maintener/upgrader of my own Linux desktop) would be greatly simplified if I could easily restore the crufty "desktop setting and application self-data" to default values, while preserving my important "user settings and data".

Examples of what I understand by crufty "desktop setting and application self data": fonts, menus, icons, colours, content of files .ICEauthority, .mcoprc, .i18n, .qt, .mailcap, temporary files, caches, symbolic links created by applications, and other things that are spread troughout my home directory which can make my desktop misbahave after upgrading from RedHat 8.something to Mandrake 9.something unless I delete them by hand.

Examples of what I understand "user data": .kppp connection info, imap mail server settings, .signature file, contact lists, email content, user documents, browser bookmarks, document history.

It all boils down to the mess that kde (oofice, gnome, and other applications) damp into my home directory and which makes my desktop computer choke after an upgrade. ooffice seems to be the worst damping brainless stuff into my home directory, but kde and gnome follow closely.

Could I suggest two directories in user home:

.unimportant_settings_and_general_cruft_delete _if_desired

.user_important_setting_data_docs_dont_delete Best regards.

Her opinion is VALID

[7-Vodka]

Sure, for her and many others *like her*, her opinion is valid. That's not the problem.

The problem is that she is so ignorant, that she doesn't see that eliminating useful options shouldn't happen at the KDE-HEAD level, but at the distribution level. But that's ok. Just acknowledge the fact that her concern is valid even if her solution is bogus.
If you want to make a distro for people who don't use many options, go ahead without forcing those personal decisions on all of us. We don't all have to use every bit of software that comes with kde, much less with identical configurations. THAT my dear friends would be hell.
Disable those features at the distro level. This can probably be done extremely easily with the kde-kiosk framework. That's the reason we have different distro's: to meet the needs of different individuals.

Re:Her opinion is VALID

[phutureboy]

Maybe KDE has gotten to the point where it needs to be split into two separate branches, not unlike Debian stable vs. unstable, or Red Hat Enterprise vs. Fedora. Let the testing and innovation originate in the "unstable" branch, and trickle over to the "stable" branch upon maturation.

It would help if another high-profile distro adopted KDE as the default.

Re:Redundant troll, wish I had mod points

[be-fan]

The sad thing that its not even his post... It's an old troll from dot.kde.org that's been recycled a few times over there too.

Konsole kicks GnomeTerminals Ass 3 times over

[Kashif Shaikh]

I use Konsole exclusively for programming with vi even though I use Ximian Desktop 2 /w Gnome. I would like to use Gnome terminal, but don't for the following reasons:

- You can create tabbed child windows, with gnome terminal, but switching between them is dog-slow(flickers). It seems to be painting the same screen twice, making it very irritating over long editing sessions. Konsole doesn't have this problem and allows rapid switching with "shift" + "left" or "right" arrow keys.

- you can witness the dog-slow tabbed window switching even more in Gnome Terminal if you enable transparent terminal windows. Here the transparency is calculated on each window switch. Konsole calculates the transparency once(at startup or window move) and window switching happens at full-speed(though refresh rate does drop down).

- Konsole allows you to easily set font sizes(like xterm's "small, medium, huge, etc" using bitmap fonts by default. Gnome Terminal is fucked since it by default is configured with true-type anti-aliased fonts. This alone makes it slow. It shouldn't allow AA fonts *at all*. Who the fuck uses AA fonts on a terminal?

- Finally, konsole is very customizable with it's colours, fonts, schemas, bookmarks(!), programs to run in shell, etc. The bonus is that its integrated into Konqueror, KDevelop, etc.

Re:Konsole kicks GnomeTerminals Ass 3 times over

[Kashif Shaikh]

"Switching tabs is instantaneous. Switching tabs sometimes results in tearing (flicker) which has nothing to do with speed, it's a visual artifact. Rapidly switching tabs is accomplished by whatever you use for keybindings; the default is ctrl-pageup/pagedown."

No, it is NOT instantaneous. The fact the screen is drawing twice(try gnome terminal with a dark background -- it will first draw the screen white, then draw the selected color). This tearing is not good -- especially if you're like me who constantly switches between multiple tabs instead of opening 20 xterms.

P.S. I don't have to list features I don't use -- I simply stated why Konsole kicks GT's ass three times over.

Very sure.

[Inoshiro]

Everything else runs at the same or faster as the equivalent under Win2k (last time I stuck in a Windows HD to check was 6 months ago). Mplayer does accelerated playback, etc. The only thing that changed was Gnome 1.4 - 2.2 and then 2.4. It was slow.

It seems to have gotten a little better in 9.1, but KDE is still more responsive in its text areas and terminal widgets. For example, I do ls -la in gnome-terminal in my home dir: I have 508 items listed. It takes ~3.8 seconds to scroll past. In konsole, it takes ~0.6 seconds.

GTK+v2 is just slower. Maybe it's not very compatible with XFree86 4.3 in Xinerama mode w/ the Radeon driver, but I suspect it's mainly GTK+v2's problem.

Gedit's not.

[Inoshiro]

I can still type faster than it responds. I do have a fairly high rate of typing, but I like to think I'm not abnormal. The widgets in Mozilla or Kedit don't seem to have such problems. AFAIK, Mozilla's using GTK+v1 inside it.

Re:KDE's speed

[kragaroth]

Nope, it's really one of the most important issues that is being worked on right now. Many "gnomes" are being shipped with a patched up gtk, to improve on the file selector, but it still has limitations. The new gtk will have a much improved and long needed file selector. Still a simpler one than kde, but much more useable than the current one.

kde

[ShadowRage]

I think is prolly the best choice for new users just coming from windows, or macos.

the reason why kde gets a lot of crap is because of the regular linux users, or diehards think it's shit, namely because it's like windows and macosx, and is bloated, however, it loads most apps on my 433 faster than gnome did, well, apps that didnt need the dcop server.
many apps are also well designed and run well, and work, gnome, some apps either load slowly, or lack functionality, and sometimes freeze or crash.
I know gnome 1.4... an applet crashing could cause issues to arise.
KDE isnt that bad, especially for newbies who just want things to work, and work right.
then they can consider gnome.
gnome does have a lot of strengths, a lot of apps compiled in gtk dont need gnome. (I dont know why there are apps in gtk that require and depend on gnome) and gnome 2.x seemed nice to me when I tried it. metacity was a drawback IMHO.

if you truly want speed, whilst maintaining a windows like interface.. icewm and dfm will do the job.

but in general, if you dont like it, dont use it.

people complain about kde as if it were forcing people into using it.

it's just a desktop environment. same with gnome, this is why linux has alternatives, and if you want something done right, do it yourself.

Honestly, you look at the work they've accomplished so far, they've done a good job.
I havent seen many other desktop environments that are as user friendly as kde. in fact, I can safely say zero.
kde is staightforward..
gnome is that next step off of kde.
and so on.

What's plaguing linux in the desktop market is people who cant place themselves in a new users' shoes and figure out what they want out of it.
and like I said.. KDE is basically a new users' interface to linux. so dont complain if it isnt technical. it's like making the Spirit of St. Louis go into a dogfight with an f-22, it wasnt what it was made for.
KDE isnt really for a seasoned linux tech, and a console based system or minimalist window manager isnt for a new user.
so for once, look at it in an unbiased view and what it can do before rekindling the tried and worn arguement about how gnome or *insert random wm name here* is better than KDE, because honestly, kde is a nice setup, needs a little cleaning up in some spots and needs better methods of loading things, and needs to rid of excess programs, functions and code.

Re:KDE speed ups

[nitehorse]

Well, there have been speedups across the board, but the really impressive ones that I've noticed:

• Konqueror is much faster in quite a few areas where it wasn't before. KHTML is now much faster (and includes Safari code; this is the first KDE release to have it). Maksim Orlovich put a ton of effort into profiling and debugging the slow parts of Konqueror's startup code, and it's really made a difference.
• KAddressBook has been improved by two or three orders of magnitude, speed-wise. The usability is also much improved, although I don't know if the usability improvements are quite as impressive as the speed improvements.
• The kio_imap code was pretty thoroughly vetted for performance issues and is now much better, resulting in a noticeably snappier KMail. Also, KMail blocks much less on output from other programs - some emails used to cause it to choke for long amounts of time when it was waiting for gnupg to return information, but these cases have been eliminated and/or much improved.
• Part of the changes for speed have been some fixing of the base code in the KDE libraries, benefitting all applications - stuff like XML-GUI and DCOP.

I know that there's more that I'm missing, but these are some that came to mind first.

-clee

Re:My problems with KDE

[fault0]

> Make them context sensitive.

Uhm Konq's context menus, *are* _mostly_ context sensitive in KDE 3.2.

More things will be changed in 3.3 however. The current plan is to move things like Security to the status bar.

Oh well, it's *good enough* for a large amount of users, and that's really what's important.

WinXP went somewhat AWAY from that.

[WoTG]

A couple people have already mentioned that W2K and Office 2K use something similar - i.e. they hide things that haven't been used for a while. (I'm neutral on it personally, in some programs it works for me, in others it doesn't).

Anyway, I'd add that in Windows 2000, the programs list used to do this behaviour by default, it doesn't in Windows XP - one can only assume that the majority of people found it more confusing than it was worth. In it's place, WinXP puts the most frequently used programs in a separate listing - which works very well for me, since it seems to slowly adjust itself as projects (and their necessary programs) move up and down in priority.

I think similar features are in KDE.

Why do people post 1280x1024 screenshots?

[shess]

Do they think their target audience has a 1600x1200 desktop, so that they can easily see the entire screenshot in a maximized browser (or graphic viewer) window? Or do they not bother to actually look at their screenshots to see if they really are viewable? Or do they think that their target audience enjoys being required to scroll around if they want to visit the corners?

s p a c e

[nfotxn]

All KDE really needs is some appropriate minimization and negative space. Something most OSS developers really over-look.

Until then most stuff continues to look and function amateurishly despite having great code behind it.

Ssssssoooo funny !

[jdifool]

Hi,

in our already deprecated world, people lack physical agression, war, violence, exteriorization of human silly desires. I guess this is why you can see so many people arguing about whether Paris is the most beautiful city in the world, whether America or Europe is the best place to live, whether a Kalashnikov or a M16 is better to kill 3-legs sheeps, and eventually, whether Gnome or KDE is the faster desktop. This a replacement for street fighting, for knife fights, for insults and injuries ; at last, I can see no other explanation.

What is this all about ? Why do we all need to take so puerile stances ? Is it worth it ?

The vast majority of people here are so self-convinced of which desktop is best than they are never going to change. We have to face it : we are zealots, each and everyone of us.

But the main thing is that I think too that the vast majority didn't choose a desktop by considering objective facts. In my own case, I chose Gnome 1.4 on Slack 7.0, mainly because I found it nicer, and less Windows-like than KDE. No matter for me if there was a tiny difference in speed ; what a newbie wants is a nice GUI as a shelter aside the black and white scary terminal, a warm place to stay some time, chilling with some music, before getting back to the frightening emacs. After that, this is all about personal preferences. I still use Gnome 2.4 ; I never gave a try with KDE. I guess this is kinda cool, but I have no interest in changing from Gnome, because it fits to my needs. I find it fast (not lightning fast, but fast, and not 3,6 secs to ls 500 items, stop kidding), beautiful (especially with gdesklets), stable (the few times it becomes buggy the restart is almost instantaneous), with well-integrated apps. What can I ask more ? IMO, nothing. I'm not saying that KDE is not good, maybe if I took some more time to explore it (more than 3-4 days in the beginning), I would be writing with Ksomething. This is not the case.

This is really, really strange that in a field that requires correct estimation about what you need (don't you get mad about people buying war machines for making some text processing?), people in here are still competing on milliseconds that kind of stuff. Gnome may release a new version, faster, more stable, maybe a bit less than KDE, maybe a bit more than KDE. Who cares ? Who cares ?

Be happy with your GUI, stop pissing around. Linux is great, and that's it.

Regards,
Jdif

Re:Ssssssoooo funny !

[jdifool]

Hi,

this time I'm gonna turn into the trollish.
What the hell was flamebait in my previous post ? I included myself in the labelled "flame". It was meant to be a different perspective on this problem. Fuck you mods. If you can't even take that criticism, that is adressed to each and everyone of us, piss off.

Regards,
Jdif

Re:Ssssssoooo funny !

[splint3r]

Agreed. It was one of the only non-flamebait posts in this thread. Glad to see it's modding has been corrected now.

I tried to stay out of this because of the retarded posts evident early in the thread (which apear to have gone on). But when people are just plain wrong about something I had to post a reply. I got shot down like a scud for it. It really is amazing how childish people get over the Gnome/KDE "war". I mean I know people have their preferences but damn, grow up.

I use Gnome because I like it. I play around with every new release of KDE and sometimes others to see if I'll like them more than I like Gnome, until I do I'm not changing desktop environment and no amount of bullying or lies will make me.

Bloody children.

(Now this is flamebait).

Smarter than the average bear

[maharg]

I'll second that, except to say that I use OpenBox instead of BlackBox. OpenBox2 was based on the BlackBox code, OpenBox3 is a ground-up rewrite. If you love BlackBox, give OpenBox3 a try - you'll definitely be able to configure your keybindings the way you want, and it's just as fast as BlackBox. I've some screenshots up at http://www.savoy.f9.co.uk/ take a look at the OpenBox site at http://www.icculus.org/openbox/

What about the screensaver?

[jejones]

About the review: having choices is a good thing; just because one person can't see why one would want to do something doesn't mean it shouldn't be possible.

But what I would like to know is: has the KDE screensaver done the nifty thing that has been in the Gnome screensaver for some time, namely letting you specify a random screensaver and then choosing the particular screensavers from which the random selections are made. There's lots of pretty eye candy in the various screensavers, so I'd like to have my wife's computer (she uses KDE) make a random choice, so that they all get seen eventually--save that there are some that she just can't stand (greynetic, she says, gives her a headache). The only way to avoid the sucko screensavers under KDE is to stick with a single one that you like. (Unless there's a way to selectively uninstall the obnoxious ones...)

Re:What about the screensaver?

[teprrr]

I didn't mention when I looked the settings of random screensaver so I reported it, here. This won't made into 3.2 release, but maybe to the NEXT!(tm).

Anyways if you've other wishes or there's a bug bothering you, take a look at bko and made a wish/bug report. Or if there's already one, vote for it :)

KDE Start menu headaches

[Brian Kendig]

The biggest problem I've had with KDE is that EVERYTHING has to be on the Start menu (or whatever it is that KDE calls it -- the K menu?). If I remove an app from the Start menu, then I have no way of knowing it's still installed and available on the system, unless I happen to remember how to start it some other way or I go into a package tool to see that it's still there.

What KDE needs is an Applications directory like Mac OS X has -- show me a window with pretty icons and clear names for all the applications I have available on my computer, and let me customize the launcher (Mac OS X's Dock, Windows's Start menu, KDE's Startorwhateverit'scalled menu) to just list the apps I want to get at most often.

Speed, etc.

[Balinares]

Just to pipe in, I've been giving KDE 3.2beta2 a big hard testing, and so far Konqueror starts up in fractions of a second and renders most pages almost instantly. KMail opens almost as fast, is able to open mailboxes with over 36,000 messages in one second or so. KNode starts up almost instantly. Same for about all the apps I've tested so far, in fact -- they're really surprisingly fast.

In fact, they're much faster than many a standalone app (Mozilla, etc), counterintuitive as it may seem. I have a feeling this may be due to their noted good organisation and code reuse, but a deeper study of just how they managed it would certainly be interesting, as other notoriously slow projects (I'm thinking Open Office here) may wish to learn from them.

Note, I've not prelink'ed it yet. I hear it allows to divide startup times by up to a factor of two. We'll see, but I doubt it can become much faster than it already is, honestly.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Speed, Schmeed. Give Me Something New

[teprrr]

Emm, so how konsole doesn't work? And the bugs? Can you mention them here or do you have reported them to bugs.kde.org?

Dropline Gnome?

[big_groo]

You're running slackware, and *not* running Dropline Gnome?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Correct.

[Inoshiro]

Is there a problem?

I don't think I'd go back anyways. The better integration in KDE has grown on me (KDE's Konquerer Desktop isn't all slow like Nautilus is). Plus, nagging bugs (IE: focus follows mouse defocusing windows when over desktop) aren't in KDE :)

Agreement

[pantherace]

On the first computer I installed, I couldn't (well I could but waiting a minute between mouse clicks wasn't something all that fun (486-40 w/6&2/3MB RAM))

However, that is what most people I introduce to linux do right off the bat. Customize the desktop. Most of them look at gnome, and it's lack of looking decent, and arguable lack of speed, kde is much more responsive in general than GNOME, in my experence. Then you look at the menus, and Eugenia is completely wrong. USERS LIKE MORE THINGS. Now, I have noticed a split at somewhere around 40years (GENERALLY) that people older just do not explore anything, without being told to do so (I can cite tons of counter-examples, but that's the general case).

"for all its 'terrible' flaws KDE managed to harness the largest user base, despite corporate support for the other DE."
It's just better? It has a consistant feeling (GNOME has no office suite, it has to rely on Open office for a decent one, and a different web browser (be it mozilla & variants, konqueror, opera, links etc) all with a different feeling.

"No noob who tentatively tries out 'the other' OS would go like: I want that up button out from the file-manager!"
If they did, it's logical: settings -> configure toolbars.

Tell me how edit->prefrences is more logical?

Re:Speed, Schmeed. Give Me Something New

[Dom2]

Good point. I should have reported them. But it's a lot easier to switch to working software.

-Dom