Slashdot Mirror


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."

71 of 518 comments (clear)

  1. I think by Pingular · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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)

    --

    When anger rises, think of the consequences.
    Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
    1. Re:I think by sujan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.)

    3. Re:I think by selfabuse · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    4. Re:I think by molnarcs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:I think by wolrahnaes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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 ;)

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
  2. The State Of KDE -- new, improved edition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:The State Of KDE -- new, improved edition by neonmagic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

      --
      Slashdot can go and get fucked.
    2. Re:The State Of KDE -- new, improved edition by 10Ghz · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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?
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    3. Re:The State Of KDE -- new, improved edition by ahillen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  3. Misspelling? by SeanTobin · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
    1. Re:Misspelling? by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 4, Funny
      I liked the review, but in the end they misspelled "Konclusion".

      Gnerd.

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

  4. Heresy by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Heresy by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Heresy by Ice_Balrog · · Score: 3, Informative

      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...

      --
      #include "sig.h"
    3. Re:Heresy by molnarcs · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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
    4. Re:Heresy by moderators_are_w*nke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
    5. Re:Heresy by randomblast · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

      --
      ...these aren't my real teeth.
    6. Re:Heresy by adrianbaugh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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!

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
    7. Re:Heresy by AntiOrganic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  5. KDE 3.2 is going to rock by qed123 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. Regarding the cluttered Kmenu by suso · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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. ;-)

    1. Re:Regarding the cluttered Kmenu by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  7. Re:Mac compared to X by aldoman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

  8. Wouldn't that be... by pcgamez · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    konstructiive?

  9. Kan't stand it by Saeger · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
    1. Re:Kan't stand it by SeanTobin · · Score: 2, Funny

      I always thought it was pretty Kool.

      --
      Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
    2. Re:Kan't stand it by Tyir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Kan't stand it by Poeir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Sigs are like bumper stickers.
    4. Re:Kan't stand it by wobblie · · Score: 2, Funny

      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?

    5. Re:Kan't stand it by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    6. Re:Kan't stand it by vadim_t · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    7. Re:Kan't stand it by MikeXpop · · Score: 5, Funny

      iDunno, but iAgree. iThink it's iStupid.

      --
      Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    8. Re:Kan't stand it by sicking · · Score: 2, Funny
      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?
      --
      Failing to learn from history dooms you to repeat it.
    9. Re:Kan't stand it by Wolfier · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  10. I "emerged" it over the weekened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  11. KDE Control Center by pantherace · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:KDE Control Center by pyros · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

  12. Java App. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  13. No more Keramik! by 3Suns · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --

    -3Suns

    ~~~~
    The Revolution will be Slashdotted
  14. Linux on the desktop by martinde · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...

  15. Former KDE user by Apreche · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    1. Re:Former KDE user by mickwd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  16. Browser integration by Karamchand · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  17. fewer features or saner defaults by molnarcs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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???)

    1. Re:fewer features or saner defaults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > 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 ;)

    2. Re:fewer features or saner defaults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  18. Re:The State Of KDE -- new, improved. by Archie+Steel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    --

    Reminder: find a new sig
  19. Just wait till some developers get pissed... by jared_hanson · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    --
    -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. That's the way to go IMHO... by Ploum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 .

  22. Fact. by Inoshiro · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
    1. Re:Fact. by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  23. It's no where "system near" by Inoshiro · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
  24. Your "bloat" are my features by jopet · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

  25. This is a horrible review by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...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.

    1. Re:This is a horrible review by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:This is a horrible review by MechaStreisand · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.
      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
  26. Re:The State Of KDE -- new, improved. by Archie+Steel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!!! :-)

    --

    Reminder: find a new sig
  27. Re:Gnome Zealot Translate-o-matic. by renelicious · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Luke, I am your node.parent();"
  28. Speed, Schmeed. Give Me Something New by reallocate · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  29. Re:Why the focus on KDE, Gnome has garnerd all sup by Ice_Balrog · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    #include "sig.h"
  30. Troll. A good one, but a troll nevertheless by arevos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Troll. A good one, but a troll nevertheless by arevos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  31. Re:Ever Wroked In An Office? by cymen · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  32. Re:Alpha Blending by Tyreth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  33. mess in the home directory by ephraimhorse · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.

  34. Re:MOD UP! by be-fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  35. Re:KDE speed ups by nitehorse · · Score: 2, Informative
    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
  36. KDE Start menu headaches by Brian+Kendig · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  37. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion