Preview of KDE 3.4

Real Window Managers by SlashdotMirrorer · 2004-12-02 03:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

I know I'll probably be modded down as flamebait for promoting alternative window managers in a KDE message thread, but I think it might be a good time for the every day user to take a look at how bearded terminal hackers are making things more efficient. Many "LINUX power users" are making their every day work more efficient by using and developing great window managers such as EvilWM, which I am currently typing this post up in.

Maybe a grassroots movement towards simpler window managers is in order. This would be a movement similar to what Bruce Perens trailblazed for GNU/Linux back in the early nineties to fight the onslaught of OS2 and Win 3.1. Now that we have a stable system to build upon after all of these years, we should concentrate on a good user interface. Not necessarily a Desktop User Interface, but a thin, lightweight interface that allows the user to more efficiently do their work without any messy cognitive analogies.

Re:Real Window Managers by SyntheticTruth · 2004-12-02 04:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

"If Microsoft integrates a browser with a file manager, or hints at integrating a media player or anything else in the OS, everyone cries foul, so why is that considered good practice in the major *nix environments?"

But KDE *does not* tie the browser to the OS, it ties the browser to the *desktop* and there is a *HUGE* difference in that. I can't think of any part of Konqueror that directly makes calls to kernel functions (though admittingly I have not dove deep into the code.)

MSIE is a beast that is *tied* to the kernel, uses kernel internals, and thus, is bad. I have yet to see *any* *nix desktop/window manager that does such a thing.
Re:Real Window Managers by herc_mk2 · 2004-12-02 04:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

The problem I have with both KDE and GNOME is that some packages offered as part of the desktop are so dependent on various other components that they're unusable on their own.

The problem I have with both KDE (which I use) and GNOME is that they both require that ancient bloatware package known as "The X Window System."

Much as I dislike Microsoft Windows, the Win32 GDI (which ain't that much different from the Win16 GDI) is very thin and provides more than enough functionality and device independence for 99.9% of the users out there. How often do you need to run an X app across the wire? How many times do you need to support multiple displays and screens (OK, this is slashdot, so I know some of you do -- I have myself, but it's very rare).

I'd love to see a thin, fast, cross-platform replacement for X.
Re:Real Window Managers by Hatta · 2004-12-02 05:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem I have with both KDE (which I use) and GNOME is that they both require that ancient bloatware package known as "The X Window System."

X is not bloated. It's the toolkits. Try running a lightweight window manager (fluxbox, icewm, etc). It's damn snappy. X can run on the most minimal machines and even PDAs.

How often do you need to run an X app across the wire?

Every day. X needs better network transparancy, not less. Keep in mind that for local delivery, X uses unix domain sockets which impose no observable overhead.

How many times do you need to support multiple displays and screens

Again, every day. And again, if you don't use them, it doesn't hurt you any.

(OK, this is slashdot, so I know some of you do -- I have myself, but it's very rare).

What's next then? X is slow because of virtual desktops? Makes about as much sense as your other objections.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Real Window Managers by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 05:21 · Score: 1, Insightful

I just wish it were easier to extract only the packages I like and use them without having to install the whole deal. As I said, I also have the same problem with GNOME, so I'm not picking on KDE.

One nice thing about modern desktops is that they provide the development infrastructure to develop apps for that desktop without reimplementing the functions all over again when you want your app to use the framework.

Dependencies? Yeah. Advantages? Enough to compensate them.

Just consider how big the apps would be if they didn't rely on previously created libraries. There is a lot of redundancy taken out of the code.
Re:Real Window Managers by Coryoth · 2004-12-02 05:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem I have with both KDE (which I use) and GNOME is that they both require that ancient bloatware package known as "The X Window System."

What, exactly, is wrong with the X Window System? It's not bloat - X gets used on handheld and embedded devices. It's not that the network transparency slows it down - when connecting to a local server X uses shared memory on the machine and doesn't go through any network calls. Speed? Now we're talking implementation issues, but X has been getting better on that front since it finally moved on from XFree86 as the default implementation on Linux. More importantly, in raw rendering speed, X is actually faster than windows. Percieved lack of speed is more due to some lingering X rendering issues (which Keith Packard is fixing), and the toolkits that run on top.

Sure X isn't ideal - nothing is, but it is a hell of a lot better than most stuff out there, and it certainly has many advantages over Win32 GDI.

How often do you need to run an X app across the wire?

Every damn day! Just because you don't use this feature doesn't mean it isn't (a) immensely valuable, (b) used regularly by everyone else. It is not at all uncommon for me to have a desktop full of apps, where each app is actually running on a different machine. X lets me do that, and have a perfetly seamless desktop as if all the apps were running locally. That is a huge advantage.

I'd love to see a thin, fast, cross-platform replacement for X.

X is surprisingly thin - more so than Windows, which has Win32 GDI tied in to everything else. X runs on embedded devices - how slim do you want? X is fast - run some raw render benchmarks for yourself. X is cross platform. I've run X servers on Windows, on Mac, on Linux, on Solaris, on AIX, and on BSD. They all connect to each other happily with no complaints. Show me Win32 GDI doing anything similar.

Jedidiah.

--
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Re:Real Window Managers by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 08:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

updating the display frequently does require several context switches between the client application, the kernel and the X server.

Context switches are not an issue unless you're painting individual pixels onto the framebuffer -- which is going to be slow as a snail in molasses anyway because of function call overhead...

the Devil is in the Details by DarkSarin · 2004-12-02 03:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

which is what this article lacks. Don't get me wrong--there is some cool information there, but I want to see screenies of the entire desktop--has that changed much or not?

I would also like more information about the core KDE, not just the peripheral stuff like Konq & KHTML.

All that said, the idea of a new version of KDE is fairly kool, but frankly, as an XFCE user (and occasionally Gnome), I find the KDE desktop & icons to be just a shade on the kludgy side. They don't look as clean or professional in my mind.

But that's just one geek's opinion.

--
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)

Re:Shouldn't this be posted Anonymously... by Ed_Moyse · 2004-12-02 04:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, the site is down already and if he hadn't posted that then I wouldn't have been able to read the article. So I don't really think it's karma whoring.

IMAP filtering in KMail by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 04:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Anyone know if the new KMail will supported incoming message filtering on IMAP folders? The ONLY reason I'm stuck using evolution at work is because evolution can sort mails coming into my IMAP Inbox into various other IMAP folders.

What about the menu editor? by jav1231 · 2004-12-02 04:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

There would appear to be no mention of improving the menu editor. This should be a priority.

Re:Rendezvous? by xirtam_work · 2004-12-02 05:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Apple have stopped using the name Rendezvous in favour of 'OpenTalk'. ZeroConf is the another name for the same protocol used by the open source version of the project.

Another company owns the trademark on the work Rednezvous when used in relation to networking.

Re:autorefresh by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 05:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

Well, I just tried a little file containing and it worked fine with konqueror 3.2.3. After 5 seconds, it forwarded me to google.

Make sure you put the meta tag in the head where it belongs.

Re:some KDE myths by carnivore302 · 2004-12-02 06:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

It almost seems like trolls spend more time on their posts than regular users, and often include some nice words of wisdom:

Online polls are the joke of the
century; it doesn't even require a motivated script kiddie to render then worthless.
A single post alerting the faithful on a zealot-ridden site can skew the result so
much it makes American presidential elections look fair and well organised.

This is so obvious, I have in fact never thought about it this way. "He guys, on www.xyz.org, I've put up a poll. Do (a) love xyz, (b) hate xyz. Please stop by and vote!". Guess what happens to the results..

While I am a KDE user (loving it since version 1.0) I do think a couple of the objections raised have merit, and others can be easily countered:

What about application installation and removal? GNOME has the excellent RedCarpet by
Ximian [ximian.com] [ximian.com], which makes the installation, removal and updating
of applications trivial.
KDE offers none of this, only a few small half-assed Linux-only tools,
which make no attempt at check-pointing to return to known working configurations.

I think this is true. Although most of us are not hindered by untarring, typing ./configure;make;make install, it is true that KDE is behind in this respect. On the other hand, when using gentoo it is often a matter of a simple emerge -u xyz.

[Konqueror]
It is quite unreliable and even simple standards compliant
pages can crash it quite comprehensively

Maybe, but it hasn't crashed on me for a very long time. As both a windows and kde user, I must say explorer crashes more often than konqueror.

Perhaps the most cretinous of all problems is blaming the extremely slow startup
times of KDE apps on GCC. One need only look at the recent fuss
over ugly KDE hacks (such as prelinking) used to bandage up the design and coding
flaws in the decrepit KDE architecture to see the truth.

Choosing C++ as the main language for KDE is indeed a decision with lots of impact. At the time of the birth of kde, which must be 7 or 8 years ago(?) only two viable choices were available: C or C++. The choice for C++ has probably speed up the time to implement things, but turned out to be slow at execution. The whole linking mess was discovered long after KDE started out - the KDE architects cannot be blamed for it. As an aside, I think if KDE were redone in java (now also a viable alternative), it would reach the same functionality as todays KDE in very shorter timeframe, while being faster and having fewer bugs.

Still, I think the parent deserves a (+1) underrated.

--
Please login to access my lawn

Where's the beef? by mccrew · 2004-12-02 09:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

the UI of KDE and GNOME is still severely not user-friendly.
...
put more emphasis on usability if you don't want linux to fall in a few years

Define user friendly.

--
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.

Re:some KDE myths by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 09:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Perhaps the most cretinous of all problems is blaming the extremely slow startup
times of KDE apps on GCC. One need only look at the recent fuss
over ugly KDE hacks (such as prelinking) used to bandage up the design and coding
flaws in the decrepit KDE architecture to see the truth

When was the last time you used kde? You may be surprised at the speed improvements kde has made recently. I used KDE up to version 3.0 where I finally found it to be so bloated and slow that I actually returned to windoze. Of course.. it wasn't just KDE that was bloated and slow, it was also Red Hat 8.0. Windows actually ran much faster. I wasn't as far ahead of the power user curve as I am now and I wanted an easy to use environment.

I returned to my linux journey this January where I installed Slackware with XFCE. XFCE is great. I love the CDE style since I spent a vast majority of my time during my college years coding in Solaris. The problem was that I found myself using more and more KDE programs. Gnome/Gtk programs may have been more flashy, but definitely tend to be behind the curve in both features and usability. In addition, I really hated the lack of key bindings and the rigidity of the interface.

When KDE 3.2 came out I heard that it was significantly faster and less resource demanding. I made the switch just a couple of months ago and I was VERY impressed. I use gentoo now and optimized the build and I now get a very fast start up for both KDE and all KDE apps. I do hate the standard windoze style interface, but have since customized it to a CDE style. This was not so straightforward, but few DE/WMs could manage so much at all. Plus I get hot-keys and tab functions galore and don't have to use the mouse much at all..

Don't mistake static builds with pre-linking, they are similar but different. I've never liked the shared library concept. This was not even worth the saved space way back when windoze started doing it. It's what led to DLL hell.. and now leads to package/library hell. I saw BRAVO for more static linking. As far as pre-link.. I use cron to prelink my system once a week. The few GTK programs I use seem to benefit from it as well. Does that mean they're decreipt?

Re:again, a lack of priorities. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-02 09:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

although the screenshots show that the UI is getting better, the UI of KDE and GNOME is still severely not user-friendly.

I agree that there are a lot of areas for improvement, but I don't think that they are behind Windows or Mac OS X. Both of those environments have significant shortcomings as well.

put more emphasis on usability if you don't want linux to fall in a few years.

Both the projects have usability teams, but even without them I don't understand why you think that way. Poor usability didn't stop Windows or Mac OS X from becoming accepted. Care to back up your claims?

i'm sure a bunch of 13 year olds who just installed red hat 7 on their parents old PII-350 are going to rebut saying i don't know what i'm talking about... but from a CS student's perspective

Did you ever think that, as a mere student, you aren't in a position to belittle the credibility of other peoples opinions? Or that, if a 13 year old can use it just fine, perhaps it's not all that unusable?

Re:some KDE myths by msh104 · 2004-12-02 10:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

excuse me... but static linking applications would tripple it's size, if not more. just imagine konqy and the 44 libs it uses (on my system that is) compiled static together.. it would become VERY large. then add kicker, kdestop, kopete, amarok, kontact and all the programs it uses... it would cost you gigs of discspace for a decent kde install.

Re:again, a lack of priorities. by morgajel · 2004-12-02 23:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

put more emphasis on usability if you don't want linux to fall in a few years.

What's wrong with it?

This could just be the Mac influence in you talking. I personally find kde/windows 2k and lower a breeze to use, but when I used an ibook for a month I thought it was the worst UI ever (I dislike winXP as well). It's not so much that one is worse than the other, it's that they're two different approaches. windows vs. mac. KDE, though they don't like to admit it, owe most of their UI to windows. I'm not saying that Macs aren't good; the next laptop I get will probably be some type of powerbook, but it'll probably dual-boot with gentoo.

my wife, who is not a computer person, was able to pick up kde with very little problem coming from a windows-only background. She's now capable of changing her kdm login manager and her desktop settings. she's moved the menubar to the top of the screen. she's able to update the menu when I install something new for her if it doesn't automatically (kde->settings->menu updating tool)

so I guess my question is, what is it you're having problems with? every kde thread that comes up there seems to be someone saying this exact same thing, but I never seem to hear what is actually wrong with the UI other than it's not a mac. Have you submitted a bug report about it? that's the easiest way to get the info to a kde dev. just set it to the lowest priority/wishlist or whatever, and a dev will probably check it out.

if I pissed you off on accident, I'm sorry- I just woke up.

--
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.

19 of 315 comments (clear)