Slashdot Mirror
KDE: Breaking the Network Barrier
comforteagle writes "In this month's KDE: From the Source, entitled Breaking the Network Barrier George Staikos takes us on a walk-through of KDE's desktop networking protocol handlers in the vein of sftp:// webdav:// and a few really nifty ones I wasn't aware of like info:/ perldoc:/ and tar:/. The entire KDE desktop environment is decked out like this, and as George puts it, 'Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X have a long way to go to catch up with the robust, transparent functionality that KDE has provided since version 2.0.'"
I'm sorry, but to me that bit just reduced a potentially informative article to yet another trivial Slashvertisement.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Not to be a nervous-nellie, but isn't adding more networking/protocols to the desktop just asking for more hacking problems?
Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
For every one geeky thing that OS X can learn from KDE, there are fifty things that KDE can learn about design, usability, polish, and consistency from OS X.
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
The one thing that I do not like about it, is how long it takes to boot. Windows (and probably mac, never really used it) have linux/kde beat for loading times. I really wish there was a distro that could integrate kde into the booting process rather then boot linux then kde - like back in the dos/win days...
spend money here
The entire KDE desktop environment is decked out like this, and as George puts it, 'Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X have a long way to go to catch up with the robust, transparent functionality that KDE has provided since version 2.0.'
And the entire Windows OS is decked out with enough user friendliness for most people to use, and, as I put it, 'KDE has a long way to go to catchup with the userfriendliness of Mac OSX and Windows.
Windows, as much as everyone hates it, is still more user friendly than KDE. If they'd spend more time on user friendliness and less on robust (aka confusing, complex) features, they'd find more people willing to try it out.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
That didn't take long. I was thinking that I would have to scroll down more then one page to see that garbage.
KDE is pretty damned easy to use and consistent too, it's just that not all applications are written in QT, just as not all Gnome apps are written in GTK. So, you get some apps that don't fall in line with the look and feel of the rest of the OS.
So is the way of the Linux desktop right now, and you can't single out KDE for that.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
I thought this was pretty boring until I read this part:
Being able to do all of these things from a web browser is definitely a nice parlor trick, but in reality it's not a very easy way to use a computer. The real power of these protocol handlers is unleashed when they're used within various KDE applications. Any of these protocols can be used from the KDE file dialog, allowing files to be opened from or saved to any protocol!
I must say, as much as I don't really like KDE, that's really slick, and potentially very useful. Nice job guys.
(I'll even withold bashing and pro-gnome comments for the sake of sanity)
...yet.
Microsoft won't see any need to add new features as long as it's users don't find out, and it's market share remains 90%-ish.
Once it DOES feel threatened though, it'll pour resources and add all the features to it's OS that it thinks will maintain it's dominance. (think Mac/Windows, Netscape/IE, Java/C#).
But it'll probably ultimately fail this time. I'm a Windows fan, but I'm realistic: Linux will win in the long run.
Us computer geeks like this because we think of things as networks and protocols. However, the rest of the computer users don't. tar:/ is no more intuitive than double clicking on the .tar file and opening it.
Saying Windows and MacOS has to catch up implies that these are feature people want, or would want if given the option. I think treating compressed files like folders like they already do is more intuitive and makes more sense. I think they got a little carried away with this.
That's not really the same thing. KIO protocol handlers allow KDE apps to understand new types of filesystems. So you can define a module that allows any KDE app to transparently have access to a "gmail drive." Can you do that in Windows, without any changes to applications?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I've been through some KDE code myself (not Konqueror, though, but the code in question is in KIO, not konqueror), and the code quality is very good. It's not as good as Qt, which is pristine as the virgin snow, but pretty good nonetheless.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
these are clients. This is like adding an ftp client, or a normal e-mail client, or a straight browser, or.... Basically, the only security risk is that more code was added. But that is common with adding an new functionality. The nice advantage of this is that a new app can get well tested code, and of course a common app can gain a new protocol.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'll just flip the two statements around here:
... followed by ...
George Staikos takes us on a walk-through of KDE's desktop networking protocol handlers in the vein of sftp:// webdav:// and a few really nifty ones I wasn't aware of like info:/ perldoc:/ and tar:/.
Now, you can call me paranoid, if you want, but just look at the number of errors that are related to this kind of hadling prtocols. While it is really nice to have all these protocols accessible in one common and uniform manner, this also looks like a road to Microsoft-like hell. It only takes one bug in one of the protocol handlers and one "link" embedded in HTML document to wreak havoc over application, desktop or even worse complete user profile.
While I do like the KDE environment, I just can't use it. I don't think that kind of close integration between desktop and network can be a good thing. Not yet. Having a desktop like this means that I have to avoid using any native KDE (KHTML) functionality including HTML document thumbnails in Konqueror as file manager, and Konqueror as a web browser. This suddenly lands me in a situation where I HAVE to use alternative (most likely Gecko based) browser that is not integrated with KDE in any way.
It is nice to go in the direction of component integration, but in this "protocol" case, I simply don't belive in integration safety. It is a step forward not to have complete computer hosed because of one bug in web browser, but I don't think I would like to see my desktop and/or profile hosed because of it either. Too much integration leads to too much danger for my data. All backups aside, I simply don't like doing restores. They take ages, and prevent me from browsing Slashdot. I just think KDE team managed to find another excuse for me to stay in AfterStep environment. It doesn't have many bells or whistles, but it is truly rock solid.
Anonymous Cowards Unite
Correct, although...
...that doesn't mean that suffixes aren't needed at all on UN*X - try calling a C source file "foo.f" and see how eager GCC, for example, is to compile it:
At the desktop GUI level, some UN*X desktops, such as KDE and, I think, Gnome (and possibly CDE and others) don't require suffixes in many cases, as they do file-style file type determination by looking at the file's contents, and give the file the right icon, launch the right application when you click the file, etc., but whether that behavior can be attributed to "Unix" is another matter. At least one UN*X desktop is mainly suffix-based and doesn't do that sort of "look at the file contents" file type determination, although I guess if the file's on a file system that supports resource forks and the resource fork has the right type and/or creator code it might work.
Umm, no, OS X definitely lets you add handlers for arbitrary URL schemes, and I infer from what others have said in replies to the original article that Windows does so as well. They don't have an IOSlave equivalent, but, at least in OS X, I'd be inclined to implement that as a user-mode NFS server, which means it'd be more general than an IOSlave, because it'd be usable by all applications, not just KDE applications (see, for example, OS X's mount_ftp, which I think might work through a user-mode FTP server with an FTP client as a back end). If possible, I'd be inclined to do it with a user-mode SMB server in Windows, although that might be less likely to work on port other than 139 or 445 (and thus less likely to run without interfering with any standard SMB server running on the machine).
The only downfall, is that I need to force it to go to the next track after it gets to the end of a track, instead of automatically doing so, but it's a minor compared to the above ease-of-use.
So, you're saying that the lack of basic mp3-player functionality is a minor issue? You really are a Linux nerd, aren't you?
That's so insulting.
Want to get specific, you old troll? Studies have shown that there's no significant difference in "usability" when measured in terms of getting things done or user perceptions. When you consider how much more you can get done with KDE out of the box, I'm not sure how anyone could say that Windoze was more usable.
Some obvious improvements to usability from KDE include:
So there you have it. What exactly does Winblows have to offer the "average" user again? The same user can do all of that and much more with KDE's excellent programs without any additional trouble or cost. Complex != difficult or expensive. The proof is there for anyone who would check out Knoppix, Mepis, etc.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It's garbage because it's off topic and very typical of a Mac zealot to say something like that.
I admit, you don't sound quite as unresonable as some Zealots, but you did post that just the same. The article nor slashdot post wasn't about usability, it was about resource transparency.
And to proclaim that KDE is "ugly and clunky compared to OS X or even windows" - such an objective thing say that you can't just preach it like it's fact. Personally, I feel too confined in OS X. It's okay I guess, and I like the shadows under the windows, but I find the interface to be unyeilding and stubborn. KDE is prettier then Windows I think, and it functions very similar to Windows. And I think the Windows UI is very usable, it works for me.
Just because your preference is MacOS doesn't mean that KDE or Gnome are worse.
My KDE desktop is clean, it's fast, and very accessable. I really don't see how I can ask for much more than that at this point? The rest is on the horizon, and with the rate that OSS progresses it won't be long before there's no more arguement against it.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
but Apple is doing it right by integrating network resources into the real VFS layer so that all applications can access them.
If you mean the kernel VFS layer, then Apple is not doing it right: this sort of functionality does not belong in the kernel. And Apple has not even managed to make the Carbon and Cocoa views of the world entirely consistent.
KDE's I/O slaves are not real filesystems and are not accessible by all applications.
True, and that is bad. But there is a middle ground between KDE's piecemeal approach and Apple's kernel bloat.
As a web designer, I feel that Konqueror 3.3.1 is miles ahead of 3.2.* and Mozilla. I'm constantly surprised at how well it renders CSS.
testing out my trending skills