Slashdot Mirror
Review: KDE 3.2
Anonymous writes "Today I installed KDE 3.2, third major release of the award winning KDE3 desktop platform, on my Fedora box. I have been using KDE 3.2 RC for the past few days and the final version from today. My first impression is 'wow.'"
Ahhh. I love the smell of fresh rpms in the morning...
Not that KDE 3.2 isn't distributed in other formats besides RPMs. But, man, I love new desktop environments. Gnome is nice and stable, but KDE is quite configurable.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
What awards has KDE3 won?
I like KDE much better than Gnome, personally, but that's because I like have a well-designed API. When it comes to window programming, object-oriented is the way to go. QT gets this, so does anyone using wxwindows (a good rewrite of MFC/OWL). But the Gnome folks stick to their procedural programming style APIs which are fine for simple programs, but for larger programs it just means that the programmer has to reimplement the OO overhead.
I have been pwned because my
Wow! That's it? That's the entire review? No offense slashdot editors, but this is pretty insubstantial. Hell, a Gene Shalit movie review is more insightful. Why not just a link to download the new KDE?
Damn, there goes my already diminishing karma.
it's just a KDE fan boy with screenshot reiterating the change log
This is not a review. It's just a rehash of some parts of the kde3.2 announcement enhanced with a few screenshots and personal comments.
It's not bad as such, but it didn't help me much either.
You mean there are still people programming in low level languages like C and C++? ;)
I use the GNOME libraries from Ruby (via the excellent Ruby-GNOME2 bindings)-- and I've never heard anyone assert that Ruby is less OO than C++. Oddly enough, no one seems to be making Qt or KDE-lib Ruby bindings (probably has a lot to do with the C++-based FOX bindings already existing as free software on both Windows and Linux). And just in case people care: the gtk++ parts of Ruby-GNOME2 work on MS Windows, too, via the Dropline Gtk++ runtime for Windows.
For other scripting languages I can't speak as confidently, but doesn't Python have bindings for both gtk++ and Qt? Not remotely so sure about Perl, since most Perlers seem pretty happy with Perl's forked Tk library.
Now don't anybody get me wrong, I think the KDE project is very impressive and has a lot to be proud of. Especially of note is the wide range of native utility applications.
I do not have a signature
This review reads like a lot of fanboy reviews of games, sci-fi flicks, and superhero comics: A bit of hype ("award-winning" - Why is this relevant to your review?), overly-broad praise ("you can configure it in any way you want by right clicking on the desktop" - You mean I can configure it to work just like OS X?), and missing-the-point criticisms ("I don't understand the need for three editors" - Maybe it's provide people with the choice of their favorite?).
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Not to appear as a troll, but wasn't it about time that someone noticed that SuSE had a product which is very well received in a lot of environments (read companies), and Ximian have a few (admittedly) "killer" apps? If SuSE's got a system that works for their clients, why break it? Enhance it, by all means, but if you're buying a KDE-centric distribution, why would you like to throw all the work done in it away?
But the Gnome folks stick to their procedural programming style APIs which are fine for simple programs, but for larger programs it just means that the programmer has to reimplement the OO overhead.
... ... which means it runs on a larger number of platforms than that C++ of yours you only barely stop short of calling a silver bullet. ... and wrappers for other languages can be written more easily.
You don't know what you're on about.
1. Gnome and GTK are both object oriented APIs.
2. C is for Compatability
3.
4.
Gnome developers chose C because it works. Everywhere.
And don't forget stepping up to C++ leaves C developers out in the cold - especially if you make any sort of use of templates. That goes for moc too.
Even wxWindows has a GTK port. Where's the KDE/QT port?
So stop laying shit on the "Gnome folks".
it's not OSNews doing the 'reporting'.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
wxwindows (a good rewrite of MFC/OWL)
That's oxymoronic. You cannot get a good rewrite of something so lacking as the MFC, and OWL is hardly better.
Don't believe me? Then why don't MS use the MFC themselves? For they don't - for all practical purposes they've shunned it all along, and with good reason.
I don't really believe the KDE people patterned their work after Microsoft's anyway; and as for 'procedural programming' in Gnome needing C constructs to achieve object orientation - well, if Linus himself says it can be done and done efficiently, then that's two voices who say so - at least.
I am not touting Gnome - on the contrary. And I am not touting KDE by any means - I've seen the code and it gives me vertigo. For you cannot achieve OO with C++ anyway. It's far better to use straight C, and then you don't have the overhead.
Whatever - if you want OO, use Objective-C. It's based on Smalltalk, and that's the only viable paradigm we've ever had (Simula/C++ just don't cut the muster, not by a long shot), and there I'll quote Alan Kay himself, thank you.
Finally, there is never any 'overhead' in OO any programmer has to 'reimplement'. OO is a way of looking at programming assignments - 'organisms' as Alan Kay saw it. It has nothing to do with orientation, or reimplementation, or any of that.
All of which might be too 'developer oriented' for this discussion, but you brought the topic up (and clumsily), not I.
I'm sorry, all credibility goes out the window with "award winning". It seems to me there's a whole lotta KDE astroturfing goin' on.
I see. Seems to me there's a whole lotta Microsoft shills that got modpoints, today (parent was modded '5 Insightful' at time of reading).
As a matter of fact, KDE has won numerous awards, year after year. And I wouldn't call it "astroturfing" to express celebration over a release of a new KDE version in an article announcing the release of a new KDE version.
Mods, what's so interesting about this post? Konqueror has had tabbed browsing for quite some time. Kwallet *is* a new feature but looks unfinished in some respects.
I think it looks better than Windoze - classier, a polished, consistent look - but it's still a Windoze lookalike.
Get rid of that Teletubbie thing...
As far as I'm concerned, we're way past the time where C developers should be left out in the cold when it comes to UI programming.
I don't care if the OS and Kernel stuff is written in C for speed, whatever, but don't force an obviously OO concept (UIs) to be implemented in a procedural language...
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
I'm by no means a pacifist. In fact, I think that people who go around calling for peace are criminal. There must be JUSTICE for ALL and then perhaps peace will follow. Peace alone means surrender. "Why can't the Palestinians be peaceful? Boo hoo hoo." Translates to why can't they just surrender to injustice.
Slashdot is populated by geeks, yes, and geeks have many varying philosophies: liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc. What we have in common is a certain tendency toward egalitarianism and the strong tendency to question everything. We don't accept what's told to us as fact (no matter how mundane or "common knowledge" it may be) without making our own minds up. We may reach different conclusions, but we tend to do so after some thought and analysis and mulling things over. Even Geek Common Knowledge (eg Microsoft Sucks!) is open to constant reexamination (yup still scucks, today), reevaluation, exceptions, etc.
For example, you bring up WWII and I am reminded of well-meaning people such as Tom Brokaw who wrote about "The Greatest Generation." Excuse me? The greatest generation may have had a lot of good people in it but it still had a segregated military and segregation and oppression at home. Yes, I know a lot of really sweet old folks who came of age during WWII, but I also know a lot of people who are more like the father (Buck) in the movie "Monster's Ball." Had African-American soldiers turned against White America would you have been as supportive of their "fighting for peace?"
What's one of the worst insults for geeks? Sheeple.
He installed KDE 3.2 earlier today and already have a review ready? How is it possible to get an impression of such a big piece of software as that so fast, and still have time to write a review?
A piece of advice for future reviewers: Being fastest isn't the point with reviews -- thouroughness and being informative on behalf of the customers is.
What platform doesn't have a c++ compiler today?
I mean the same people trumpeting C because "it works everywhere" also have no shame in writing scripts in novelty languages like ruby.
Maybe if it was 1993 or something C++ would be all new and scary....
And you walked up hill both ways carrying coal to fire your coal powered CPU while it compiled source code using a rosetta stone.
Folks, I know it means something to you to have done all this, but if Linux is to move into the mainstream, KDE is a good desktop to do it with and getting it into a form where updates don't have to be compiled is going to have to happen or else IT managers are going to have a real fight to get Linux on anything but their email server.
I don't get it. Random backdrops have been around in KDE since at least 3.0 and possible some of the 2.x series (I don't remember that far back). They just changed the name to "slideshow" and suddenly everyone seems to think its new!
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
What part of "thumbnail" do they not understand? Even if many of us have broadband/fat pipe connections doesn't mean everybody does and it doesn't mean we all want to look at all of the pictures.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Which is why the Ada95 binding to GTK uses a license that specifically allows templating.
Ada generics are the most analogous thing to C++ templates, because instantiating a generic requires copying part of the code and compiling it for the specific types involved. At least that's how most implementations handle it.
GtkAda uses a modified version of the GPL called the GNAT-modified GPL which allows instantiating generics by closed-source programs. This way the library code stays open while you are free to *use* it as you please. This license was pioneered by the Gnu Ada Translator project for their library components. It seems to be fully in the spirit of gcc and the GPL, because it is the GPL.
I switched from the spartan Flux/Blackbox a while ago, and I really like KDE as a WM, plus the panel. However, I much prefer Mozilla to Konq, OpenOffice to Koffice, and the same goes for any category of software I've tried (multimedia, graphics, editors,...).
What it looks like, there's no way of installing a diet version of KDE, without hundreds (ok, dozens) of programs I'll never use. Should that be necessary? I'm using Debian packages, but this doesn't seem to be much different if you compile it yourself. In this regard, KDE takes "bundling" to a new level, whipping Bill Gates' ass!
Switch to Gnome? Unfortunately I don't like that environment at all.
Lest we forget that Apple's Safari is based on Konqueror, eh? (entirely legally and within the terms of the LGPL, so more power to them). Anyway, I don't doubt that OS X is prettier and probably easier out of the box, but KDE excels over the Aqua interface when it comes to customizability.
Ultimately, the KDE folks (as well as pretty much every other group of designers) have learned a lot from the Mac, and meanwhile the Mac has benefitted from the interface innovations of others (HUGELY from NeXT, Jobs' other company, and also from KDE re: Safari). All I'm saying is that the Mac engineers might be impressed by a few things in KDE 3.2 (the Windows UI designers, on the other hand, need to come to grips with the fact that KDE is now and has been a better GUI than Windows).
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
On the broader topic, most geeks would say that your "liberal/conservative" dichotomy is too limited, or limiting, to describe what geeks believe. In general geeks tend towards rationalism, which pushes them away from religious fanaticism (except in the case of computer based religious fanaticism (KDE vs. Gnome for example) in which case rationalism gets tossed out the window. Most people tend to have a "ha ha, only serious" attitude about computer holy wars). Since a large chunk of the Republican party is dedicated to religious fanaticism, most conservative geeks I've met tend to be into Libertarianism.
On the whole though, geeks tend to be rather socially accepting. Not to deny that bigoted geeks exist, but they do seem to be a minority (except for a rather nasty strain of male chauvinist gamers, who don't really count as geeks IMO). This does tend to produce what might be termed "social liberalism". Personally I think it has nothing to do with social liberalism. Its more of a matter of focus: hacking ability is so rare that it doesn't much matter of the person with the ability is a different race/religion/sexual orientation/whatever. What matters is the ability.
As for broader political beliefs, I don't think you can really say that geeks are particularly inclined towards liberalism or conservativeism. They are inclined *away* from herd mentalities, blind following, and anything that seems like it would reduce individual liberty. Several geeks are NRA members and many of them are also members of the ACLU, they see nothing contradictory about this. I've met anti-war geeks and pro-war geeks. I'd guess that your personal beliefs tend towards the "conservative" side, which means that in all likelyhood you tend to notice the "liberal" comments more than the other comments. Look around, there are also "conservative" comments; often in the same post as the "liberal" comments, actually.
See my own sig as an example of the complexity of geek politics. I worry about threats to my liberty from all sources, not merely governmental sources. Therefore I see unrestrained corporate power as a very serious threat to my liberties. But if you assume that this means I'm a communist you'd be wrong.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
I don't believe that the parent post was intended as flamebait, saying that KDE has won no real awards, but that he may have been saying that it doesn't matter if any awards were won--it is a useful piece of software, and that is what matters.
Considering the GW Bush has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, can you really take many awards seriously?
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
Sun chose GNOME because they don't have a decent C++ compiler. Redhat chose GNOME because they're funding they damned thing. And Userlinux chose GNOME because it's Debian at it's core, which started the whole KDE-is-illegal brouhaha.
The GPL/QPL license of Qt does not prevent in-house development. And considering the complete lack of commercial proprietary GNOME apps, no one in the enterprise cares about LGPL vs GPL.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
1. Gnome and GTK are both object oriented APIs.
... I know the arguments about how OOP can defined in a variety of ways are wide and varied. But C doesn't fit any of the definitions unless you just require it to be written in a programming language. The argument that gtk/gnome code is OO is just a bunch of C programmers feeling left out of the OOP craze.
Balderdash! C doesn't provide encapsulation, polymorphism, inheritence,
Not only that, but their approximation of OOP code is more painful than listening to Al Sharpton screaming his tripe in my ears. Horrible, horrible code.
--
http://cheeser.blog-city.com
What do you care about which language the GNOME guys use to do their thing? If you just want to write GNOME apps, you can use C, C++, Python, or whatever.
One of the major reasons the GNOME guys chose C was to make it as easy as possible to use other languages to write GNOME apps. It's pretty easy to write language bindings for a C API, and much harder for C++. With C, it's easy to know what symbols the linker will see when you export things from your API. With C++, the compiler does "name mangling" and it's much harder to know what the linker will see -- and different C++ compilers do name mangling in different, incompatible ways, so you might have to modify your bindings for each platform you support.
And anyway, I don't buy the whole "C can never do OO" idea. The language doesn't natively have OO idioms, but you can write OO code in C if you want to; it's just not as pretty.
C++: foo.bar(a, b, c)
C: FooBar(&foo, a, b, c)
C++: foo1 + foo2
C: FooAdd(&foo1, &foo2)
You can still have a nice, tidy FOO object, with nice tidy operations you can perform on it. That's what OO is about.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Anyway, I wish that the KDE people could get their act together on usability. As they
/always/ been more useable than GNOME,a nd still is. So they haven't published a fancy guideline manual with all kinds of rules everyone has to follow. Big deal! The apps work, and importantly "just work", intuitively and as expected. The interface is cleaner and more consistant than GNOME.
/like/ GNOME, and I preferred it to KDE up through GNOME 1.2. After that it seemed that they started removing features for no reason, or little reason. Topical example: Right click the Epiphany toolbar. Nothing! What I EXPECTED is to get some contextual options. Right click the Konq toolbar: Aha! A menu. Low and behold! It allows me to configure what's on the toolbar! That makes sense! AND SINCE NORMAL USERS WOULD NEVER HAVE CLICKED, IT IN NO WAY DEGRADES EASE OF USE TO HAVE THE OPTIONS THERE. Options hidden in plain quickly-accessed sight is GOOD.
/really/ pisses me off.
/seperate/ "MOVE to trash" and "DELETE" options.
clearly have a technical edge over Gnome this is
really sad they they doesn't do better in this area.
II keep hearing this complaint, but I just don't see it. KDE has
Reading the rest of your post, I think I see the problem: You and GNOME people seem to equate "Useable" with "Feature-starved". Just because GNOME's epiphany can't be configureed does NOT mean it's more useable! I don't know who first introduced this "No options is inherently superior" doctrine, but I don't like it, and it is just plain wrong.
I used to
This "Too many small icons" arguement doesn't hold water. Maybe there are for YOU, so right click and change them! For GNOME, they've decided being able to suit your environmnt to your needs is BAD, so they give me what is acceptable to the LOWEST common user skillset. That's fine! But since they've also decided that users shouldn't be given options, I CAN'T CHANGE IT!
I really prefer C to C++ for a lot of reasons. Some things about KDE annoy me. But GNOME
Functionality != hard to use! Get it right, people!
If the toolbars are crowded, the context menus are even worse. E.g. in the right menu button menu of the konquerer file manager you have both a "Move to trash" and a "Delete" item. Wouldn't it have bin better to just have a "Move to trash" item, and then configure the trash to perform the correct action this would have bin more in line with the desktop metaphor. On the your normal desktop you put things you don't want in the waste basket, and then you decide when to empty it.
No. On SOME people's desktops "trash, then delete" is the norm. Most people, however, when they want to delete something, they want it GONE, not hanging around and taking up disk space. Thus the very-clear, understandable, and
And, incidentally, being "in line with the desktop metaphor" is NOT a valid reason to configure a GUI one way or another. The desktop metaphor is merely a minor convenience, I practically guarantee that it is not how most people actually think of their computers. The technical people think differently because they know better, the nontechnical people don't think about it enough for it to make much difference whate metaphor s being used. If the goal is being easier to use, then the GUI should make things easier, not conform to a model which might, maybe, we HOPE, be easy to understand and relate to for some office workers.
The menu still have a dominating red cancel button. That button is probably the first thing the user sees when he drops a file over a folder, and the menu pops up. To me its somewhat unclear why this menu needs a cancel button in the first place, all other menus seam to be able to do without it. And second why does it have to be that eye catching. After all in most of the cases "Cancel" is not what the user is most likely to do.
The reason that the Cancel is in big and red is not that it is the most LIKELY thing the us
I want my Cowboyneal
Does KDE 3.2 work well with 16 colours? 4 colours? Black and white?
Traditionally a lot of X11/Unix desktops were high resolution but only 1-bit colour; that's a bit extreme these days but 4-bit colour should be enough for a good screenshot that doesn't eat bandwidth. I fear it would get in the way of all the kewl graduated shading though.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Sorry, but your post makes no sense. If you were talking about QVWM, I'd agree, but KDE isn't QVWM. It strives for a lot more.
KDE takes the _accepted_ popularity and understandability of Windows, but sugar coats it and adds new features. Virtual desktops are the most prominent. It's not emulating Windows per se; it's providing a familiar environment with more usability goodies on top.
Again, your point is totally valid for QVWM (or perhaps FVWM 95), but not KDE.
(I try not to feed the trolls these days, but the odor eminating from that one was overwhelming. Infact, I passed out at least 3 times before I managed to get to the last line, and hit Reply.)
Troll,
I've done a number of things besides Propaganda, all of which are free for guys like you to use, and enjoy. I'm glad you at least remember some of it. Considering it's been like 2 years since i've made any concerted effort to make more "pretty backgrounds", the fact you remember them makes me think you like them. Thats cool. You're welcome to use and enjoy them.
I have never written an operating system. By saying "We wrote an entire enterprise-class OS from scratch", i'm referring to the entire Linux movement, et al. From the kernel maintainers to the app writers, from the documentation guys to the guys who paint icons. Out of curiosity, where do you fit in, exactly? Or are you one of those people that just sponges off everyone? You know, the ones that contribute nothing of value in return?
As for your allegation that I tried to "make Red Hat pay me for my backgrounds"... (Heheheh, God, where do you guys come up with this stuff!?) I never asked Red Hat to pay me cent. The images were then, and are now, free...Free as in beer. How could I have charged them for something I was giving away for free? Or charge anyone else, for that matter?
I was happy enough knowing Red Hat had an interest in my work..Interestingly, I didn't even approach them about including my stuff in their distrib. They were the ones who approached me, back in May of '98, asking me if it was OK to include Volumes 1-6 in their next release. I was shocked they even heard of me. I was very honored, both then and now, to be included. Infact, I remember buying a bottle of champagne that night, and uncorking it on my balcony with a few friends to celebrate. It made me really happy to know that somebody felt my work was good enough to include, and that tons of people were going to use and enjoy my stuff.
Does that answer your questions?
Bowie J. Poag
Well, there are a couple of good reasons (and I *do* wish that KDE followed Windows a wee bit less closely, a la GNOME).
* First, Windows has become ubiquitous in the past ten years. Everyone knows Windows. That's how they expect computers to operate. This has produced a barrier to entry for anyone that chooses a different method.
* Second, the approach is pretty good. Remember that Microsoft themselves chose to use Apple's design. It isn't perfect, but there *have* been significant improvements made in the KDE projects (some degree of accelerator rebinding functionality provided to users, though less than GNOME provides, tearable panes, support for multiple viewports...)
* Third, if nothing else, this can be treated as a transitional system to get people onto a platform where new ideas *can* be implemented.
May we never see th
Slogans inevitably oversimplify, its part of their very nature. Unfortunately you can't put the intracacies of rational argument into a 120 character sig block. Or at least I can't :)
Of course religious belief doesn't automatically make one fanatic. But we must face the fact that every religion has its share of fanatics, and that's where the problems set in. I consider fundamentalism/fanaticism (call it whichever you prefer) to be the single most dangerous force in existance. True fanatics are not evil, but their fanaticism can lead them to do evil things. I'm certain that Torqmada honestly and genuinely believed that the Inquisition was a force of good. Similarly I do not think that the 19 terrorists of September 11 cackled maniacally at the thought of the evil they were wreaking. Fanaticism can blind people to the point that they truly believe that their evil is good. Frankly, that terrifies me.
Here I think I'll have to disagree with you, and I believe the facts back me up on this one. During the time when anthrax scares were sweeping the nation a group which has been subject to numerous terrorist attacks over the years offered its help and advice to Mr. Ashcroft's Justice Department. The group was Planned Parenthood, and they have pleanty of experience dealing with mailbombs, assissans, etc. Mr. Ashcroft told them to go away and never call him again. Hardly the action of a man who keeps his personal beliefs out of the way of political necessity. Similarly, Mr. Ashcroft has long been a vocal advocate of "State's Rights", he has been interviewed by several pro-Confederate magazines, etc. Yet as head of the Justice Department he has used ever erg of his power to fight the decisions of the people of California to legalize medical marajuana, and the people of Oregon to allow doctor assisted suicide. Again, I'd say that he was definately allowing his religious convictions to override his enforcement of the law.
Groups who bomb abortion clinics are still not classified as terrorist groups. Et cetera, et cetera. Mr. Ashcroft seems, to me, to be a perfect example of how a religious fanatic (and what else can you call a person who apparently thinks he's a King in ancient Israel rather than an appointee in the modern USA? No rumor here, he himself has stated that whenever he is appointed or elected to a public office he has himself anointed with oil (he specified that he used Wessen cooking oil), just like the ancient Kings of Israel did. Fanatic is perhaps too mild a word, delusional comes to my mind here) can, and does, govern by religion rather than law.
Not that I'm saying that the entire Republican party is governed by religious fanatics, not at all. The Democrats have their own fanatics as well of course. I'm a political agnostic, I vote for people, not parties and in the past I've voted for both Republicans and Democrats. But lately the fanatics seem to have the power in the Republican party. The current furror over gay marriage seems to be a good indicator of that. I can see absolutely no practical benefit to keeping homosexuals from having the same tax benefits, health care benefits, etc, as streight people have, and I can see hundreds, if not thousands, of things in
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003