Slashdot Mirror
Ars Technica: Deep Inside KDE 3.2
binner writes "Ars Technica features an article 'Deep inside the K Desktop Environment 3.2' written by Datschge and Henrique Pinto. After introducing KDE and the project's structure the authors present some new applications of KDE 3.2. After that they explain the key KDE technologies KParts, DCOP, KIO, Kiosk and KXMLGUI and give examples for code reusage and an overview of efforts to integrate non-KDE applications. For developers Umbrello, Cervisia and Valgrind with KCachegrind are introduced and of course KDevelop 3.0. An examination of licenses precedes the positive conclusion."
The best thing about KDE is not the window manager/panel, but the application framework, like the technologies discussed in the articles. If you don't like the feel of KDE, you can always run fluxbox, but use KDE apps like Quanta, Konqueror, KDevelop and the likes. I've done that with Afterstep and WindowMaker as I'm not a fan of KWin.
The biggest thing for me is that KDE doesn't treat users like idiots. All the configuration options are out there if I want them, easily accessible via the menus.
The super geek would say, that putting all the options in menus is in fact treating the user like an idiot. But that's definitely not you because
I'm still the text-terminal type anyway
Also...
The GNOME people seem to have decided that ordinary users are too moronic to be allowed to configure the look and feel of their own desktops
No, they pretty much assume if you're using linux you're so smart you don't need menus and you deal with your gtk+ themes.
Me? I use XFCE4. KDE is nice with all its apps, some of which I miss. But the vast majority of the things KDE offered just used up RAM and slowed my pc down. XFCE4 is great because it gives me what I need. A panel app, some virtual desktops, a taskbar, and a control panel to control theming and mouse sensitivity. Nice, lightweight, standards compliant and easy to use. I can run any linux app I want: Qt, GTK+ or otherwise. And I don't lose half my RAM to stuff I don't use.
I'm wondering if maybe kde might be or might become the killer app for Linux? I know that anyone who happens to glance at my 3.2 desktop always asks, "Wow, what's that?". It's no longer, "Hey is that a mac?" or "How did you get XP to look like that?". I think KDE has something going that no other desktop has. It has features that are all it's own, that aren't simply attempts at copying features of other desktops.
As a long time Gnome user, and as someone who will go on record as disliking Trolltech and their business model, I must say I am extremely impressed with KDE 3.2. Whilst I still think there is some tidying to go WRT options dialog boxes, this release strikes me as a massive leap forward. The new features and the improvements to Konqueror and the Kicker and so forth are really impressive. So much so, for the first time ever I spent the day working in KDE instead of Gnome and actually enjoyed it, rather than being constantly frustrated by inconsistencies and the general looks of the desktop.
Plastik is the first theme I've seen that makes KDE really start to look like a professional desktop rather than a mish-mash of poorly concieved applications. The underlying framework (KParts, kioslaves) and QT have always been superior to Gnome's, that much I'll admit. I still think it's a shame that QT is licensed under the GPL rather than a BSD-style license, but I guess I'll live.
I might even switch permanently if KDE 3.3 brings as many improvements.
I don't mean to be rude, but do you understand the difference between a desktop environment and a window manager? KDE is the former, Fluxbox the latter. They are two entirely different beasts. You can still run KDE or Gnome applications under any window manager. I run mine under Window Maker. To be fair, you're not the only one giving this sort of advice. I see it every time a Gnome or KDE story comes up, but it's annoyed me enough now that I just have to speak up.
The GNOME changes have nothing to do with assuming users are idiots. They have to do with cleanliness. I'm a developer, and I understand what just about any GUI option you throw at me does, or am quite capable of figuring it out. That doesn't mean I want to wade thru page after page after page of options which have no relation to what I want to do to find the one option I'm looking for.
:)
The GNOME changes are not dumbed down, they're cleaner. Advanced users are still quite capable of changing a plethora of options, using advanced methods. Only the very commonly changed options are placed in the menues and config panels, which makes it dead easy for both novices *and* experienced users to tweak the common things.
So far as the gatuitious UI changes, there are clear advantages to the way GNOME has chosen to do things. The dialog button order is a favorite thing of people who wish to bash GNOME, and thus serve as an excellent example. The new button order is *easier* on people both physically and mentally. (location of button wrt mouse movements, location wrt eye movements, etc.)
Additionally, there are no "OK" buttons. If you find one, it's a bug. Which is great. If you see a dialog, what the hell does "OK" mean? You have to read the whole dialog. And deal with the fact that in some cases, "OK" is the safe option, while in others it's the dangerous option. Different apps would pop up dialogs with different OK/Cancel meanings for the same dialog action. (like quit without saving - does OK mean "OK, Save" or "OK, Quit" ?) GNOME solves the problem by mandating that you don't use OK, but put the actual action as the button label. "Save" or "Quit". Much, much harder to accidently click OK when you meant Cancel because the meanings for two apps are different.
Granted, the last bit can be done even with the Windows/KDE button order (i.e. [Save] [Cancel] vs [Cancel] [Save]), which is something I really wish both Windows/KDE would do. The GNOME/Mac ordering however makes for consistent button location, however, since the "positive" (most commonly used) button is always in the same location in the dialog, which (as mentioned above) is both easier and more efficient physically and mentally, for both novice and experienced users. KDE having the ability to change button orders (as I've been told it does) is definitely cool; it would be great if they defaulted to the more human-friendly GNOME/Mac order, and let users who refused to learn switch back to the classic order.
Lots of users and developers think the GNOME/Mac button order is "weird" because they're used to the Windows' way, but that kind of thinking doesn't ever foster improvements. Thankfully, GNOME, OS X, KDE, and most other modern desktops are willing to break the mold and do things differently, even at the risk of "confusing" users, for the sake of moving the GUI experience forward, and not keeping us all locked into Microsoft's (and others') design mistakes made a decade or more ago.
I don't claim that GNOME has things perfect. Far from it. Simply explaining the reasoning behind certain 'controversial' changes. Hopefully useful.
One of the best and most unappreciated features of KDE is it's inherit troll value.
I'm sorry to post such a blatantly inflammatory gripe, and please don't reply to it in kind. Just be aware that the whole KDE vs. Gnome conversation is quickly degrading to the same sort of drivel that existed in the vi vs. emacs, gui vs. cli, X vs. Y debates.
Both KDE and Gnome are reasonably good programming environments (meaning I can program in both without requiring corrective surgery or extreme pain) and they both do a good job of managing, unifying, homogenizing, and (whatever) of the desktop.
If they come from two licensing lineages, so be it. I'm not worried about the environment / license you are going to choose, I'm going to choose the one I feel most comfortable with and has licensing (at cost or otherwise) that allows me to use it as I need. I'll assume you will do the same.
Less "better than Gnome!" or "worse than Gnome!" and more "it's really great that it has cleaned up feature X" please.
I apologize for such a rant, thank you for putting up with it.
There are quite a few programs that are officially not part of KDE but are excellent KDE based programs nevertheless. For example KPlayer is a superb mplayer based media player I use on a daily basis, and I heard good things about Kaffeine as well (but that one is xine based).
imo the KDE people should take a step back and see what they're doing. all those pretty menus and shiny lights and a multitude of buttons and applets. neat, but useless. instead of new features (which KDE has enough already) they should focus more on the interface and how to make it more efficient.
:-)
If you were to read the article, and read the press announcements that came with KDE 3.2, and indeed try KDE 3.2, you'd find that they have done just that, as well as provide interesting new features. For example:
- KWallet, a new feature but one that makes using passwords and secure form data anywhere in the system much more efficient
- Cleaning up of lots of right click menus
- Cleaning up and improving kmenu
- Improving tabs in Konqueror
- A new universal side bar, which apparently is a lot more efficient for some people
- Even better integration of existing KDE technologies like klipper and kio_slaves into many KDE applications
The list goes on and on, but mostly they are small changes so you either have to use it to notice, or read through CVS changelogs. Next time I suggest you check before making loud statements like that
No, they pretty much assume if you're using linux you're so smart you don't need menus and you deal with your gtk+ themes.
This is exactly the kind of thinking that is holding Linux back from its full potential. The average joe-6-pack end user is sick and tired of Windows, and wants to get away. However, the average end-user is not "so smart they don't need menus"
It is only when developers (like the KDE team) start thinking of the average not-as-smart-as-you end user that Linux will truly flourish as a desktop OS.
Kudos, KDE!
BTW I have always used KDE, and LOVE 3.2 (and yes, I am "smart enough" to configure my OS/WindowManager/Desktop Environment without menus)
bash: rtfm: command not found
4 years ago: "Bahh, KDE is too much like Windows, it sucks, real men use Gnome because it can use all my 3 different windowmanagers!"
Now: "Bahh, KDE isn't enough like Windows, it sucks, it doesn't even have a registry-knockoff, you should use Gnome because it's even more dumbed down than Windows XP!"
It doesn't matter what KDE does, there will be always the KDE-haters who will hate it by heart.
Also the anti-KDE retoric seems to depend more on Gnome than on KDE itself, it changed by 180 degrees in the last years.
"Shareware developers need not apply, which happen to make the Windows platform what it is today."
A big mess of losers who want you to pay $30 for their crappy half-day hack that's available free in any other OS, and where they've spent more effort on "antipiracy" measures than on the program itself?
Traceroute? yep, that'll be $30 please.
Text editor? yep, that'll be $30 please.
Hex editor? yep, that'll be $30 please.
Icon editor? yep, that'll be $30 please.
Graphics converter? yep, that'll be $30 please.
and so on and so on...
Shareware developers should not be underestimated in their importance.
I'm sorry, but there is very little room on Linux for shareware developers anyway.
Theink about it - for every little shareware application that somebody could come up with, if it's useful, chances are somebody has already released something with the same feature-set under the GPL. And if they haven't, it will be cloned in two seconds flat.
The only markets for shareware on Linux are the ones that Free Software has problems with, mainly mainstream games like Quake et al.
To get a license for both Windows and Linux for QT you would have to pay 2500 USD minimum. Gee for that I can get a universal subscript to MSDN, which gives me an IDE, OS, Office, Windows, Windows Server, etc,etc. And what do I get from Trolltech? And SDK! Gee, yippee...
I'm sure they'd be willing to throw in KDevelop, Linux and OpenOffice if you asked nicely.
I would love to see some of the lower-level KDE features made available to gnome through some kind of thunk layer. For example, blending gnome-vfs modules into the KIO subsystem, or blending KIO slaves into the Gnome VFS subsystem would be very very useful to me.
Theming integration is also cool. Right now there is a gtk theme that uses the current KDE theme engine to draw the widgets. I would love to see a QT theme that uses the current GTK engine to draw widgets. Then a program like KDevelop might actually fit into my desktop.
Another pipe dream that is slowly being worked on is a way to call methods on objects from the Gnome framework to the KDE framework and vice versa.
I don't like the Windows UI either, that's why I used GNOME for quite a while. Now I'm just using fluxbox because its really, really fast and I can still run all the GTK/GNOME and QT/KDE apps without all that extra clutter. But maybe I'm a little weird considering I like Slackware BECAUSE you have to configure everything on the command line. In reality, I use 1D interfaces much more than these 2D interfaces. And if there's something that can't be done on the command line that ticks me off to no extent. That's a primary reason I left MS.
Of course, UI frontends are okay sometimes!
--- "To iterate is human, to recurse divine." -- Robert Heller