KDE 3.4 RC1 Released

twener writes "The KDE project has announced the first release candidate of KDE 3.4 which brings many new features targeted for release at 16th March. Sources (requirements list, build script), an i486 GNU/Linux Live-CD (375MB) and SUSE 9.2 binary packages are available currently. OSdir.com and tuxmachines.org have screenshots of this release. Source Code and a Live CD are available."

Comments

Kongratilations!

[DrunkenTerror]

Ceep up the good worc.

i486?

[idiot900]

Is anyone trying to run KDE on an x86 processor that doesn't support at least the i586 instruction set? Anyone at all?

Re:i486?

[Erik Hensema]

Besides that, the i486 is a very weird architecture. i386 optimized binaries run faster on a i586+ than i486 optimized binaries.

Never, ever optimize for i486, unless you own one. But then don't run KDE on it. You won't be happy.

Re:i486?

[Ulric]

The live CD is based on Slax, which is based on Slackware, which is built for i486. Until recently it was i386.

Re:i486?

[Xeleema]

Gawd, your sig is giving me flashbacks..

"This is my sig. There are many like it
but this one is mine. My sig is my best
friend. It is my life. I must master it as
I must master my life.

"Without my sig, I am useless. I must post
true. I must post faster than
my enemy who is trying to FP me. I must
FP him before he FPs me. I will."

Re:i486?

[m50d]

I seriously doubt that, why would slackware optimise for 486 if 386 ran better on modern machines?

Constant Change

[HeelToe]

I'll probably get modded down for this, but my forays into KDE use have been separated by 6 months at a time. It seems the KDE team is emulating Microsoft's penchant for changing how major features of the interface work at frequent intervals.

I see lots of people complaining that each time Windows is updated they have to relearn the GUI, but honestly the same is true with KDE.

I'm not primarily a Windows user - I mostly use Mac OS X these days, but because of the amount of change that happens in KDE, I find it more trouble than it's worth and have begun to just stick with XFCE when I'm working on my Linux boxes.

It would be nice to see some consistency between major releases of KDE so that configurable items are still found in the same place when you upgrade, etc.

Re:Constant Change

[grasshoppa]

The difference being, of course, you don't have to work with kde to do administration.

That said, I completely agree. I'll take it a step further and say they should snag the UI requirements that apple has available for software developers to ensure consistent look and feel on their OS ( I believe those are freely available ) and use that to redesign KDE once and for all. Or come up with their own list, but *stick* to it, and further, don't approve software apps for kde unless they follow the list as well ( note: not saying people can't develop for KDE without these requirements, just saying they won't be "officially approved" ).

The important thing is to make the entire thing feel consistent. If I right click in one window, I expect the same behavoir there as I do in any other window. That kind of thing.

Re:Constant Change

[Psiren]

It seems the KDE team is emulating Microsoft's penchant for changing how major features of the interface work at frequent intervals.

I'm not a heavy KDE user, although I do develop programs under it. I can't say I've noticed anything that's changed much between releases, and certainly not "major features of the interface". Could you give an example?

Re:Constant Change

[flithm]

Consistency is definitely good, but it's one of those short term benefits. If you want to keep on top of things you've got to be able to progress and evolve.

Take Windows for example... people certainly complain that the interface changes, but think about it. Does it really? It hasn't changed much since 3.1. If you used 3.1, you can use XP. You might be dazzled by the blue window colors, but basically everything is still the same.

Fact is, people don't like change, and people complain. What the KDE people are trying to do, are create a really awesome system. They're experimenting and trying things out. Let them! It's not like they're making any wild changes that totally blow your mind. After 10 or 15 minutes of using a new release you should be fine.

Come on, you can set aside 15 minutes to have fun and play around with a new system. Exploring rules!

Something tells me you might be the kind of person that would complain regardless: "Hey this is exactly the same as the last version, there's nothing new to explore here, this is stupid I'm not using it anymore!"

Re:Constant Change

[tommyth]

Consistency is good, but I think the KDE team is looking more at trying to make the 'perfect package'. In other words, their desktop system basically tries to include everything, from mp3s to cdburning to smb managing to instant messaging, all things that could be done with third party software as well. But KDE's programs are often the most newbie-friendly, and for people new to linux, KDE makes a nice manager because it includes all those things. But I guess the KDE team doesn't think they've really got everything the way they want it, so they're expanding and changing. As long as the changes aren't detrimental (except for having to learn them), I say keep innovating.

But, for many linux users who use the desktop as a place to hold terminal windows, we'll take fluxbox.

Re:Constant Change

[SQLz]

I see lots of people complaining that each time Windows is updated they have to relearn the GUI..

Those people are baffoons. How do you relearn: read screen , point at something with mouse, click on it?

Don't be surprised about open source programs rapidly changing. To a lot of people, their project is an educational tool. Interfaces and APIs are constantly being honed and retooled. Even the Linux kernel will trash APIs used for years and release totally new ones maintaing no backward compatability in the middle of a stable kernel release.(SATA,USB for example) KDE is going to use the latest techniques and abilities provided by Qt and KDE libs. Thats how those libs get tested and improved and ALL programs using those libs benefit from this.

In open source land, we don't have to hang on to old broken APIs and libraries. The best code *almost* always gets put into use and every project utilizing that code benefits, even if they have to make some changes to use it.

As a user, do you have to upgrade to this new whiz bang version? No. Is this policy the best for all projects, No. But,the end result in most cases is that developers of open source code are able to use the majority of their time creating (which is what we like doing) and less time 'maitaining' old stuff they might not find as interesting and hardly anyone uses anyway.

If the two methods of development, open source and closed source, were equal in all ways except for the fact open source developers had the freedom to trash old interfaces and closed source had to keep them around, who would end up with faster,tigher code?

Re:Constant Change

[HeelToe]

I can definitely see your point of view. Progress does need to be made.

I think we're all inclined to complain about things we don't necessarily want, but I don't think I'm any more so inclined than anyone else.

With respect to Windows 3.1 -> XP. As another poster mentioned, you're not using KDE to admin the machine, whereas that's where I personally see a lot of change in Windows - the interface with regards to administration of the machine.

Where I (and some of my users - not nearly as technical as me) see change is partly in how everything looks. The widgets have changed a lot over the last two years. To less technical users that is a barrier - you and I might blow it off, but it can be an issue. Once you spend some more time, there are more things that have changed for what I can see as little reason - maybe someone's idea of organization changed over the years and so all of a sudden, things move around on control center.

As I've upgraded from KDE 3 -> 3.1 -> 3.2 -> 3.3, I've noticed that many times my settings get lost and it's not so easy to go re-establish them. Things like keyboard shortcuts, mouse onClick behaviors for the various buttons have moved around. Heck, at one release the Control Center started taking on different forms depending on whether I selected it from the menu or selected it off the "dock" (can't remember KDE terminology).

Am I opposed to exploring for 15 minutes to use it? No, certainly not - but when I use it so little, I am more accustomed to metaphors of other desktop environments, and using KDE 6-8 times per month becomes a chore - again - it's been easier to just use XFCE.

Re:Constant Change

[Coryoth]

That said, I completely agree. I'll take it a step further and say they should snag the UI requirements that apple has available for software developers to ensure consistent look and feel on their OS ( I believe those are freely available ) and use that to redesign KDE once and for all. Or come up with their own list, but *stick* to it, and further, don't approve software apps for kde unless they follow the list as well

I'm beginning to come around to the point of view that perhaps Human Interfeace Guidelines ought to be enforced programmatically rather than as a document of requests of things you would like a developer to do. What do I mean? I mean, try and create a new layer of abstraction for programming so that GUI construction and layout becomes the responsibility of desktop environment rather than the responsibility of the programmer. The application developer has the responsibility for coding the various components of the application, exposing their functions in a particular way, and the relationships between components; then the HIG (a DE library, or formal code spec, whatever) takes the components, features, and relationships and constructs a GUI to make those components and features accessible to the user (via menus, buttons, list selectors, dialogs, etc.) structuring them, according to the given relationships, into a completely HIG consistent GUI app.

Okay, that is a very non-trivial exercise, and exactly how much work you can get the HIG to do instead of the programmer is not an easy question, however, thee are some real gains if you can actually do (at least some level of) this right:

(1) All applications coded with this will automatically be very consistent with all others, and complete HIG compliant - the developer doesn't have to worry so much about UI design (that work is pushed off more toward the people writing the HIG engine).

(2) Each DE can have their own programmed HIG, so an application coded with this system can be compiled against each DE and be fully HIG compliant for each different DE.

(3) It completely formalises the HIG - it isn't a document of reccomendations, but is required to be an actual formal layout engine.

(4) For the really "do it yourself" people you can code your own HIG engine and have your own completely unique look and feel that will be consistent across all the application coded with this system.

So perhaps widgets are too low level for application programming these days. It is my understanding that AWT worked something along these lines at least for layout of widgets), and well, obviously AWT isn't very popular. Then again, AWT was a little slow, and didn't provide the flexibility I'm talking about (it had, presumaly, its own hard coded HIG engine). As I said, this sort of thing would be very difficult, but perhaps it is worth considering.

Jedidiah.

Re:Constant Change

[jayloden]

It seems the KDE team is emulating Microsoft's penchant for changing how major features of the interface work at frequent intervals.

I think in software we call that "active development".

While I'll be the first to agree that consistency is key to a stable system, Linux is an environment that, in my experience, is continuously shifting and improving. Yes, things move in KDE, but they also are moving most things in a generally consistent configuration - i.e. most configuration is now available in the Kcontrol panel. They're actively developing the software and with each release, KDE gets more and more complete as a desktop environment, but you have the hiccups that are inevitable when something is changing that much (overall for the better, in my opinion). The interface changes because they add features. I'd say it's a case of taking the good with the bad for the best end result.

-Jay

Re:Constant Change

[HeelToe]

Is this a jab at Apple?

It's kind of funny, actually. :)

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I'd like to keep the speed and only have new features activated if they are worthwhile to me.

I'm more likely to want to use an app to build a cut list and then drop the GUI and use command line tools to render/transcode/burn my video. A candied-up UI to handhold me ends up constraining what I can produce.

Re:Constant Change

[Waffle Iron]

I've been using KDE daily for over a year, that means KDE 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and now 3.4 beta2, and I don't know what you are talking about.

I've been using it for 5 or 6 years, and I also can't think of any truly major UI changes over that time. It's mostly been a gradual evolution of small improvements.

Certainly nothing as jarring as the Win2K -> WinXP changes, where in the defaults for navigation the directory tree mostly got replaced by wishy-washy wizards that try to second-guess what you're doing.

Re:Constant Change

[fr0dicus]

Agreed, I prefer new features AND more speed. Which is why Mac OS X Panther was such a nice update.

Re:Constant Change

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

It hasn't changed much since 3.1.

I'm not a big fan of the Windows XP desktop, but admittedly it's much better than the cluttered mess of subwindows that was Windows 3.x. (I had a relative who would insist on opening every single program group simultaneously, with the tiny windows tiled across the screen.. I don't know how he found that to be usable)

Re:Constant Change

[stilborne]

> Human Interfeace Guidelines ought to be
> enforced programmatically rather than as a

this is how many such things are already done in KDE. margin hints, spacing hints, menu layouts... there are some things that just don't translate to being put in the libraries, however. but yes, defining as much as you can in the infrastructure that applications are built on top of is a good idea.

Re:Constant Change

[dogfull]

What you describe are human interface guidelines, and this has been done in GNOME for quite some time.

You can find these guidelines at gnome.org

Re:Constant Change

[Coryoth]

this is how many such things are already done in KDE. margin hints, spacing hints, menu layouts... there are some things that just don't translate to being put in the libraries, however.

I think that's great, but in the end that is just hinting toward looks, not actually doing the job of laying out the GUI (which is possible). The really extreme approach is to actually decide how to represent things in the GUI - a component just says "I have feature X which has use priority Y and ..." and the HIG engine decides whether that features needs its own dialog, or a button on the toolbar, or ... and where (based on relationships to other functions and components) to place the function as a menu item in the main menu. Does the function show up in a context menu? Potentially you can define all of those things too.

Jedidiah.

Re:Constant Change

[datadictator]

Not true.

In fact it's MUCH worse in Gnome.

KDE has a very strictly enforced guideline denying any non-trivial changes in minor releases.

All non-trivial changes as limited to major releases, nothing intrusive ever happens in the a released tree.

That said, KDE's changes even between major releases are usually logical expansions on what was there, not rabid redesigns so to compare it to the changes between say windows 98 and windows XP is simply inacurate.

Finally, as a point of evidence GNOME does NOT have a rule like this, and makes changes of any kind at any time. Gnome apps have had no less than four different file selection dialogs just in the gnome 2 tree, every single gnome release seems to change major parts of the interface in completely new ways.

At least they finally seem to have settled on a file selection dialog now (which is still harder to work with than the KDE/XP variants). KDE waited until they could replace the old selector with the best that current evolution in DE's could suggest, and changed in a major version - ONCE. The File selector now has been there since KDE 3.0 and it will definitely not be changed again until at least KDE 4.0, KDE's CVS maintainers will simply refuse to merge a change to it until then as it's an intrusive change, and intrusive changes cannot happen in minor versions under KDE's development rules.

Re:Constant Change

[ookaze]

Your post is a new proof to me that the KDE people are doing the right thing.

The widgets have changed a lot over two years ? That is not true, perhaps you meant the *default* widgets. The old ones are still there.

But more importantly, you say that you, who uses KDE 6-8 times per month, are lost in KDE. My wife, who is computer illiterate, uses KDE *every day*, and she NEVER saw ANY changes in the interface between release upgrades, she just went along. She never told me anything about changes, except when new features appear (like the password wallet).
So KDE is tuned for every day users, and not casual users, and I think this is the right way to do it.

Myself I have the problem opposite to yours about configuration : it always stay the same between updates. So, if a new function appears in KDE, my wife just will not see it the old config takes precedence. I had your problem a long time ago, when I was testing every beta and release candidate of KDE. Now, the desktop has to be stable, so I can not do that anymore (and have no time to).

Re:Constant Change

[m50d]

I haven't noticed such changes. 3.1 and 3.3 seem to behave pretty much the same way, and where it's changed, it's usually the case that the new behaviour is what I thought it "should" be. KDE has certainly never done anything like forcing the file browser into "spatial" mode or reversing the order of buttons in the confirmation dialog, and every kde change has been reversable by hand with ordinary configuration changes.

Re:Constant Change

[m50d]

Are you sure that's not your distro moving your config files? Many will use a different config for each new version, because sometimes KDE gets confused when upgrading and they reckon it's better to just start afresh. The control centre still has those two different forms (module at a time or whole thing, I presume you mean), and having it load the "whole thing" off the panel to be consistent with the menu was a change - would you have preferred that to stay the same?

Re:Constant Change

[Doug Neal]

Aw, are you all confused now? :P

Re:Constant Change

[Blakey Rat]

Hah! If you think the change from Windows 95 to Windows XP has been bad, you should have been in Mac-land and experienced the change from System 7 to OS X 10.3. In comparison to MacOS, Windows has been rock solid stable, interface-wise.

Of course the problem as I see it is that Windows' interface is getting better, or at least Microsoft is innovating more, and MacOS' interface is just getting more annoying. Apple seems to be throwing all their interface research they did for the original MacOS out the window while working on OS X... it's sad.

Re:Constant Change

[TuringTest]

What you describe is a whole field of academic research, running at least since the early 90s. They're called User Interface Manager Sytems and yes, it's difficult; that's why you haven't seen it in any new commercial interface.

The closer you can get in non-academic world are the XUL and XAML architectures, which could be a basis for this kind of system to be built on top of them.

Re:Constant Change

[stilborne]

> not actually doing the job of laying out the GUI

yes, this is exactly what XMLGUI does for menus, toolbars and even context menus (though not enough apps use it for context menus still). there are people playing around with it right now to extend it to simple dialog layouts as well.

additionally, there are APIs that apps use which allow them to say "configure the keyboard shortcuts" and the actual libraries handle all the details of that. it's exactly one line of code in a KDE app to configure shortcuts, or rearrange toolbars...

we can certainly take it further, and likely will, but we've been walking down that path already for some time.

this is, btw, one of the reasons why KioskTool works so well =)

Re:Constant Change

[TuringTest]

I wouldn't care to call most KDE apps 'newbie friendly'; in fact they tend to be just the opposite. Many KDE apps when open the first time consist of a single, empty square with just one button in the toolbar and no text labels. These apps MUST be 'konfigured' in order to access the most common functionality, with buttons that are hidden in the 'configure toolbar' dialog.

Ditched as it is by KDE users, the Gnome approach is really much better for newbie users. It has simple applications that do only one thing, but does it well. Yes, you can't tune it to the finest level, but you shouldn't need to. If you are an expert who needs a lot more, you should be using a complex application for that task, not the default that the desktop provides.

The KDE approach is great for power users that want to build their own desktop environments from pieces. Think of KDE as the "LEGO" desktop.

Re:Constant Change

[Corbin Dallas]

Many KDE apps when open the first time consist of a single, empty square with just one button in the toolbar and no text labels. These apps MUST be 'konfigured' in order to access the most common functionality, with buttons that are hidden in the 'configure toolbar' dialog.

Hmm, interesting that I've never noticed that. What applications that come in the official KDE packages have this behavior? What version of KDE? What distro packaged it? I assume you have quite a list since you used the adjective many.

I've been using KDE since '99 and I've been developing for it since '01. I've seen a lot of bugs and broken features in that time, and I've even seen things that I didn't think were very newbie friendly; but I've never seen an official app just dump you to an... excuse me, empty square? If you're just interested in cheering for your home team then that's fine, I won't stop you. But I hope you didn't expect to spread unsubstantiated FUD and make a clean break. Did you?!

Re:Constant Change

[zarr]

I am a heavy KDE user (not developer), given that I spend about 12 hours every day in 3 different version of KDE. My RHEL box at work run 3.1, my laptop has 3.2 and my desktop runs 3.3. Are there differences? Of course there are, but none that I notice much. The only thing that bothers me with the oldest version is it's not so good xinerama support (doesn't handle screens with different resolution very well...) You'll probably notice more differences if you use a lot of the default KDE applications. Non of my most used apps are KDE-apps. The "environment" (panel, desktop, configuration) seems pretty much identical, if you ask me. I guess it's a sign of KDE's maturity.

Re:Constant Change

[tommyth]

I agree. KDE is very newbie-friendly, as I said before. I'm not trying to start another stupid "which desktop is better" thread (as I use GNOME/fluxbox and not KDE), but KDE has some very nice newbie-friendly tools. I've never had the "empty box" the grandparent speaks of. I will agree that it can be used as a powerful desktop manager.

Re:Constant Change

[pantherace]

There is one, I can't remember the name for sure (Kugar?) The report or database app.

However, it comes up with a wizard to configure it as well.

I've used KDE since 98... and that's the only app I've noticed that does anything like that in that time, and that's Koffice, not KDE proper.

Re:Constant Change

[edxwelch]

I love KDE, but I have to agree. Just reciently I noticed that they changed the waste basket folder name from "Trash" to "Wastebin". Is this change really necessary? I has the effect of breaking all applications that delete files to the wastebasket.

Re:Constant Change

[G00F]

want to see a difference bewten versions?
check out the resources it uses.

Re:Constant Change

[TomC2]

[p]I really have to disagree with that. 3.1 had a completely different front end interface (program manager vs the start menu), completely different file management system (file manager, short file names etc), and things like control panel are layed out completely differently.[/p]
[p]If you really want consistency, compare the Acorn [url=http://acorn.cybervillage.co.uk/emulation/ris cos2/file.gif]RISC OS 2.x[/url] with [url=http://www.houseofmabel.com/puters/RISCOS4/sm all/RO38.png]4.x[/url] (bearing in mind they are 10 years apart). Ok, so things have been made prettier and the logo has changed, but otherwise everything is in the same place.

Re:Constant Change

[Coryoth]

You mean like this from 1985 which had (they claim) a working User Interface Management System? Yes, I agree, it is hard, and is an active field of academic research. There is a lot of research though, that we really ought to be looking at instead of just letting it remain research. I think this starts to fall into that category.

I don't see why you need XUL or XAML either - it would seem to me that, for instance, libglade is something you could build such a system on top of as well. This is something GNOME and KDE could be working toward right now as yet another way to help unify the desktop. Applications could still be GNOME or KDE specific (if they chose to use particular features of the DE) but it would then also be possible to write applications that were desktop agnostic and slotted into either.

Jedidiah.

Re:Constant Change

[Jameth]

Good point. They've cut down the requirements significantly in the last couple of revisions. (Unless you meant the opposite, that it uses more resources, in which case it was a horrible point, being incorrect and all that.)

Re:Constant Change

[TuringTest]

Yes, we really ought to build new kinds of interactive systems, but every new proposed widget toolkit is based on the same 30-year-old XEROX principles (except for The Humane Interface) perhaps?.

XUL and XAML allow for separation of content and presentation and thus are well suited to automatically building new interfaces on the desktop - the same that is already being done in web content management systems. This would be possible with widget toolkits, but more difficult as they're not declarative.

Also mobile gadgets will drive this area forward, since the same content needs to be presented to very different screens and input devices.

Re:yay?

[schnits0r]

KDE has updates? I didn't know that! I use Debian!

Whats the point of screen shots?

[Krypto420]

Looks just like the kde version I'm using.

Live CD's

[IceFox]

This is one area where Live cd's really shine. As a user I am able to download, burn and try out new major pieces of software and help out by reporting bugs v.s. before where most people would just wait for the 1.0 release and then report problems they spotted. Spend ten minute checking out the cool stuff in KDE 3.4 and make sure to report any bugs you find (In the help menu of every kde app there is a report bug action).

Along the lines of bugs, KDE's bug tracking system just reached it 100000 *reported* bug (not open) On the kde news site ther is a story about it include tips on how you can help report bugs/problems that you find in KDE to help make it better.

-Benjamin Meyer

Re:Live CD's

[m50d]

Burning karma here, but ffs why are you putting an apostrophe on cds?

Re:Live CD's

[grammar fascist]

Burning karma here, but ffs why are you putting an apostrophe on cds?

He's talking about the Live CDs' ownership of "really shine," whatever that is. It sounds like some kind of Japanese product.

"Buy our CDs! They have Really Shine (TM)!"

Of course, "This is one area where Live CD's really shine" is now a sentence fragment, and the apostrophe should have gone after the s. I guess some people just can't win...

Re:Live CD's

[badasscat]

Burning karma here, but ffs why are you putting an apostrophe on cds?

Burning my own karma, but he's probably doing it because it is an acceptable and in some cases encouraged use of an apostrophe in English.

It's a myth that apostrophes always denote possession or contraction. They don't. (In fact, there is no apostrophe in the possessive "its", which should tell you something.) Their purpose is to add visual information so you know what it is you're reading (i.e. "wont" vs. "won't"). To that end, putting an apostrophe in the plural "CD's" makes perfect sense and is acceptable usage.

CD's vs. CDs is an ongoing debate but there is no rule in English that says you cannot have an apostrophe there (in fact, even if there was, many apostrophe rules are broken all the time in standard English). The New York Times style guide says to always use an apostrophe when pluralizing abbreviated letters or numbers. The Chicago style guide says the opposite, but with some exceptions. From what I recall, the AP style guide also allows it.

Just as you can write "CD's", so you can also write "1980's" and nobody ever complains about that. If I say "I remember the 1980's - that was a crappy decade", nobody is going to be confused and think I meant the 1980's possessively.

Apostrophes are like commas - in many cases, there are no hard and fast rules on their usage, but it's usually better to be safe (and not use one) than sorry (and use one). In this case, most grammar nazis will tell you not to use one, but there's no rule that says you can't and if it adds clarity to a word ("CD'S" is clearer than "CDS", for example) then you may as well use it.

Re:Live CD's

[m50d]

In fact, there is no apostrophe in the possessive "its", which should tell you something.

That's the exception that proves the rule, and as I'm sure you know it's to distinguish the possessive from the contraction. In any case I fail to make the leap between "there's a possessive without an apostrophe" and "you can chuck apostrophes on random plurals".

but there is no rule in English that says you cannot have an apostrophe there (in fact, even if there was, many apostrophe rules are broken all the time in standard English).

The first place I looked (Wikipedia) I found " It is not necessary where there is no ambiguity, so CDs not CD's". The apostrophe is used in a few plurals where there would be ambiguity otherwise, that is all.

I accept that english is in flux, but I do complain, and I complain because I get confused. When I see a sentence like that, I search futilely for what it is that belongs to the live cd for a few seconds. I agree that you should use it where it clarifies things, regardless of rules, but it genuinely confuses me. Not to the extent that I can't read it, but like when there's a hanging clause that doesn't refer to anything, it takes me a while to parse the sentence properly and disrupts the flow of my reading.

Re:Live CD's

[MrWa]

Along the lines of bugs, KDE's bug tracking system just reached it 100000 *reported* bug (not open) On the kde news site ther is a story about it include tips on how you can help report bugs/problems that you find in KDE to help make it better.

Maybe tips on fixing bugs would be more useful - the reporting side of things seems well in hand! :-)

Re:Live CD's

[Jameth]

"The first place I looked (Wikipedia) I found " It is not necessary where there is no ambiguity, so CDs not CD's". The apostrophe is used in a few plurals where there would be ambiguity otherwise, that is all."

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is very good for quick reference. If you wanted to have actual backing for your claim, you should have picked up "The Elements of Style" by Strunk & White, as that is about the only resource that is going to trump the style guides the grandparent already referenced.

And, while in an argument where you are defending your own grammatical excellence, at least re-read your post. (Check that last sentence, in specific.)

Re:Live CD's

[m50d]

I'm not defending my grammatical excellence, I'm just complaining that the apostrophe was used in a way that is ungrammatical to the extent that it made it hard to read

Obligitory KDE joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: How do you identify a KDE programmer?
A: He's swapped the functionality of the 'k' and space bar keys :-)

BTW, Are there any screen shots out there?

Re:Obligitory KDE joke

[grammar fascist]

Q: How do you identify a KDE programmer?
A: He's swapped the functionality of the 'k' and space bar keys :-)

Ikdon'tk nowkwhatkyou'rektalkingkabout.

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE update= new features
Windows Update = Fixing bugs
Maybe if you got more benefites from windows updates other than patching holes.

If you're going to Kompare apples to oranges go ahead. This is more along the lines of a service pack, or beta of a new version of windows.

3.4 changes

[sewagemaster]

been running kde 3.4 beta1 for a few weeks now. my personal favorites are the improvements to kdvi and kpdf. things are rendered a lot better in each, and the sidebar page previews really help navigating for us needing to edit long latex documents... too bad the bug that doesnt show >1 images in kdvi on the same page when it's supposed to is still there.

the best thing now is that they're no longer using that hideous keramick theme as the default...

unfortunately, everything in kde is a little too self contained. as in it doesn't launch the 'default' browser (sensible-browser) that you set. there's not even a simple config/dialog where you can choose to run firefox/mozilla instead of konqueror whenever you click on links on other "K" apps.

Re:3.4 changes

[stilborne]

> there's not even a simple config/dialog where
> you can choose to run firefox/mozilla instead
> of konqueror whenever you click on links on
> other "K" apps.

in the Control Center, under KDE Components, there's a "Component Chooser" panel that's been there since 3.3 that allows you to set your default browser, email, text editor, IM client and terminal app.

Re:3.4 changes

[Seli]

> unfortunately, everything in kde is a little too self contained. as in it doesn't launch the 'default' browser (sensible-browser) that you set. there's not even a simple config/dialog where you can choose to run firefox/mozilla instead of konqueror whenever you click on links on other "K" apps.

It does launch the default sensible browser for me. And in case such browser is not Konqueror in your case, that non-existent config dialog is in KControl - KDE Components - Component chooser - Web browser.

Re:3.4 changes

[CmdrGravy]

Maybe you get along better with big bright pictures but that seems pretty sensibly named and located to me.

Re:3.4 changes

[stilborne]

well, "intuitive" is a sham. there are no intuitive interfaces, no, not even the nipple (which is also learned.. look up "nurse latching" on google).. there are only learnable and familiar interfaces.

but since people often can't find where this particular setting it, i'd agree that it's certainly not familiar. and while it's learnable, the learning curve is apparently a bit too steep.

the Control Center is one of the things that will be massively reworked for KDE 4.0. we've been holding off until 4.0 to do that for a couple reasons, one of the major ones being not to ruin the familiarity of the control center to people who have learned it. we happen to care about our users and their time investments =)

but having a setting for default web browser that isn't immediately findable does not make KDE not ready for the desktop. if that were the case, nobody would be able to use Windows or MacOS either, both of which have nicely hidden features that are difficult to find unless you are familiar with the system.

i know i know, don't feed the trolls .. but sometimes i wonder if this seemingly common concept really isn't just a troll but a deep seated misconception.

Re:3.4 changes

[ayn0r]

in the Control Center, under KDE Components, there's a "Component Chooser" panel that's been there since 3.3 that allows you to set your default browser, email, text editor, IM client and terminal app.

Yeah, I was very happy about this improvement. But then I discovered how it works - and that's not very well.

I prefer Firefox so when I click on URLs in KMail that's the browser I want to be started. But what happens is it grabs the content and puts it in a local temporary, THEN opens up Firefox with the tmpfile as argument. So if the page contains relative URLs, as is good practice, I'll have to fire up Firefox and put in the URL manually if I want to use any links on the page. Not exactly how I want it to be done...

Re:3.4 changes

[dracvl]

in the Control Center, under KDE Components, there's a "Component Chooser" panel that's been there since 3.3 that allows you to set your default browser, email, text editor, IM client and terminal app.

Ah, that explains it - I was looking for the Komponent Khooser. Thanks!

Re:3.4 changes

[Will2k_is_here]

Not only that, but I found I can't even use Konqueror for web browsing at all anymore. Any link I visit in Konqueror opens up Firefox. That's okay though, I might just have to go back and fix that setting. Definately not what I expected though.

Re:3.4 changes

[0racle]

So report a bug. That definatly sounds like unintended side effects.

Re:3.4 changes

[stilborne]

> grabs the content and puts it in a local temporary

that's actually not related to the default browser feature at all, but to how KMail handles links. it's trying to deduce the mimetype before launching it. it doesn't just look at the protocol (since you may get any type of file via http://), but it also doesn't look to the file extensions AFAIK (which it probably should and probably will eventually)

Re:3.4 changes

[TuringTest]

the Control Center is one of the things that will be massively reworked for KDE 4.0.

I hope that you actually sit some real users (of different skills) in front of real keyboards to test the new design, put them to try some common tasks, and then take note of every problem they have finding the right control for the proposed task.

Re:3.4 changes

[stilborne]

would you be happy to know that such tests are actually going on right now in a usability lab? i ask because we've got such a thing happening in a usability lab over in Europe. OpenUsability.org is turning out to be quite a great resource!

also .... don't be surprised if the control center in KDE 4.0 doesn't have exactly the same "tree on the left with 3 tabs, viewer on the right" interface.

Re:3.4 changes

[TuringTest]

Yes, I've heard of the KDE usability labs as asociated to some kind of FOSS conference? I'm glad that they will keep going regularly. It's one of the best news for Open Source usability since Gnome published it's HIG.

I checked OpenUsability some months ago, and it wasn't very active then. If the usability tests for KDE are being published in that website, then it's time to check it again!

Re:3.4 changes

[stilborne]

it takes a while to get something like OpenUsability moving, but moving it is! there are around 20 projects and 6-8 usability professionals involved ... here's a "fireside chat" with the people who started OpenUsability, Jan and Ellen, and a few others:

http://dot.kde.org/1107931942/

Re:3.4 changes

[DCMonkey]

Yeah, here's a screenshot of the new design

Re:3.4 changes

[Luke-Jr]

Not sure whether you were joking by posting an image of OSX's configuration interface, but a similar one is actually being considered: http://www.icefox.net/gallery/pictures/2005/System %20Preferences/system_preferences8.png

Re:3.4 changes

[Will2k_is_here]

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10713

Re:3.4 changes

[Will2k_is_here]

Ignore the last comment, replied to the wrong message. I do intend to roll through bugs.kde.org to see if it's been done. the biggest problem with bug reporting is to ensure it's reproducible and absolute and that takes time.

Re:3.4 changes

[TuringTest]

Interesting. Can you point for me where is the mailing list for talking about the new KDE Human Interface Guidelines? (Did you notice that finding the right communication channel in a Open Source project website is often an impossible task?)

Re:3.4 changes

[stilborne]

you'll find various mailing lists we use to collaborate at http://www.kde.org/mailinglists/

look for ones about usability.

> Did you notice that finding the right
> communication channel in a Open Source project
> website is often an impossible task?

not usually. first i look for links named "mailing list[s]" or "developers" or, if that fails, "documentation". it's usually right there on the main page. there's a "mailing lists" link on kde.org for instance =)

Re:3.4 changes

[Billly Gates]

Are you guys also testing some of the KDE apps?

I use to love KDe back in the 1.x days!

I find many apps like Kdevelop turn horrible and confusing to operate. This is from a seasoned pc user. I admit I use Windows more and more and I am not super familiar with kdevelop but using all the tabs and menu's to find documentation and code was confusing and uncomfortable compared to VS.NET and earlier versions of KDEvelop.

Gnome is finally getting usable so the competition is certainly improving.

Also what about gnome/kde look and feel integration? I thought you guys were working with them for a unified look?

A speed boast wouldn't be bad either as macos and OS/2 has similiar features with processor speeds of a pentium.

That is at least what I would want for kde 4.0

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll say one thing for GNOME ..... it makes KDE look fast.

Live CD

[Deaper]

I find it interesting that they released this as a live cd. As far as I can remember this is the first time a desktop environment released a live cd with their new releases.

This is certainly a trend I'd like to see more of. There have been times where updating to the latest version of kde or gnome could cause a headache that lasts several hours (yes even in debian where there are occaisional dependency problems especially in unstable). And there are of course some distros that take several weeks before packages are available. Of course compiling from source is an option, but remember if linux is ever going to be ready for the desktop, compiling from source has got to be just that, an option.

But with a live cd release you can check out the new features and decide whether it's worth the risk of a headache.

I'm still downloading the iso but I give KDE major props for releasing a live cd in addition to the source.

Re:Live CD

[gimpimp]

gnome has a live cd, based on debian.

Re:Live CD

[Deaper]

Yes I'm aware of gnoppix. However what I was pointing to is that this is the first time I've seen a live cd that was released with the new release by an organization. Gnoppix is made by individuals that aren't directly affiliated with the Gnome project.

Re:Live CD

[TuringTest]

No problem! You still can use it on Undead Linux!

torrent anyone???

[advocate_one]

a torrent, a torrent, my coffee for a torrent!!!
fancy posting a link to an iso and there not being a torrent available...

Re:torrent anyone???

[nutshell42]

If you'd bothered to follow the link you'd noticed that there are at least a dozen .edu-class mirrors around. I doubt even /. could kill them all

Re:torrent anyone???

[nutshell42]

*try* it.

And I was wrong, the dozen mirrors I talked about were the local mirrors. Seems more like a hundred

Re:Not sure where to put this....

[chill]

Ask and ye shall receive...

http://amarok.kde.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#How_can _I _rip.2Fencode_Audio-CDs_with_amaroK.3F

You can burn or rip from withing amaroK. Personally, I prefer ripping straight from Konqueror -- it is the most intuitive interface I've ever seen with the drag-and-drop from virtual folders.

-Charles

Re:Not sure where to put this....

[stilborne]

> Is there some way to merge the burning and
> playing application for media files inside KDE

both JuK and amaroK support burning of playlists. right click on the playlist, select "Burn to CD".

Typo in the title

[cerberusss]

Shouldn't it be "KDE 3.4 RK1 Released" ?? :)

Re:Why make it look like Windows?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Why do all the Linux desktops emulate the Windows interface?

It's sweet, sweet revenge for when Bill ripped off the Windows interface from Apple.

Re:Why make it look like Windows?

[mungtor]

which was sweet revenge for when Apple stole it from Xerox....

Re:Why make it look like Windows?

[fr0dicus]

The difference is, Apple improved it. Everyone since has just royally screwed it up.

Ironic

[Quattro Vezina]

Heh...a new KDE release candidate comes out less than two days after I stop using KDE after spending the last two years as a die-hard KDE user.

It's not that I have anything against KDE, but I just discovered Ion and how completely wonderful it is. KDE's the best traditional DE, but why should I use a traditional DE or WM when I've got Ion?

It took a little getting used to, but once I got my screen layouts and virtual desktops set up in a way that I like, I've found that Ion is far more natural and useful than a normal WM/DE.

Of course, even though I'm no longer using KDE as a desktop, I still use quite a few KDE applications, and that's not going to change soon.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Ion looks like some kind of pathetic throwback design based around text input. Their arguments are valid but they miss the point with their implementation. At least it's a form of innovation though, rare in the F/OSS world.

Re:Ironic

[Knuckles]

"Pathetic", I don't think so. Have you used it? "It looks like" is hardly a valid point when assessing a UI. I did use it, and it rocks.

I missed 2 things:

1) Basic DE infrastructure support, like e.g., support of gnome-session
2) Support from multi window apps, like Gimp

The first issue is there because the maintainer is/was just not interested in it. After all, Ion is mostly a project to explore a special form of window handling
The second issue probably can't be solved without apps giving hints etc. But it was not a major thing, I just ran those apps on their own desktop with xnest.

Other than that, I've never used wm that so much supported me and stayed out of the way

Re:Not sure where to put this....

[clickfurtle]

You can select the current playlist in amaroK and select Burn... from the context menu to burn to audio or data CDs.

I don't know what the difference between a playlist and a burn list is - aren't they just the same list in different contexts?

And without the dragon, how are you going to burn anything ;) ?

Re:Why make it look like Windows?

[gowen]

Why do all the Linux desktops emulate the Windows interface?

To paraphrase John Dillinger, because "that's where the users are".

Re:Why make it look like Windows?

[cozziewozzie]

You can make it look like anything you want, what's your beef?

Want menus on top, like MacOS? Check.
Want clear background with no icons like FVWM? Check.
Want a Wharf-like sidebar with application buttons on the side instead of the panel like WindowMaker? Check.
Want to change the order and shape of the buttons in the window titlebar? Check.
Want the taskbar to sit at the top and not at the bottom, like AfterStep? Check.

Seriously, have you ever even USED KDE?

Funniest quote

[BenjyD]

I lurk on the KDE optimize list and came across the funniest comment in an email there the other day that probably goes a long way to explaining the mess that is KControl. They were discussing reducing disk accesses for displaying icons (a worthwhile cause) by building a database of their location:

"Do you think that it can make sense to add an option in KDE Performance -> System to Cache icons location?"

It's just like they have some instinct to add options rather than taking decisions. Just profile the system with and without the cache on and if it helps, enable it. If building the database takes some time, spawn it as a low-priority background task. Don't push all that work off onto the user.

Re:Funniest quote

[friedmud]

I guess it all depends on why you're using KDE in the first place... but for me one of the large reasons is all of the options...

I like to have a perfectly configured system built from the ground up for myself. I take the time to go through each option and select the things that I like.

This is one of the reasons I can't use Windows, Gnome or OSX.... there is just simply a lack of options.

Now I understand that "regular" users don't like being confronted with as many options... But... "regular" users also don't go looking for them. KDE gives a good set of default options (especially if you pay attention during the Wizard that pops up the first time you start KDE)... and for "regular" users they will be happy with that and not worry about it.

My point is that options are never bad. Give a sane set of defaults, but leave the options in there for us power users. A dumb interface is not necessarily a good one.

Friedmud

Re:Funniest quote

[stilborne]

one of the things about an open, participatory project is that you get all sorts of ideas and opinions. sometimes the people who choose to get involved have good ideas, sometimes they don't. most people have a mix of both over time, with some having a lot of _really_ good ideas (and the converse as well, of course).

so it's not like we can control what people suggest. in fact, when brainstorming it can be a bad thing to do so. but we don't have to, nor do we in practice, implement every single idea/concept/suggestion.

so what really matters is what gets put into CVS, not what appears on a mailing list. and no, there won't be an option in KDE Performance to cache icons.

there have been times in the past when the project got a bit crazy with the options in places without really thinking about the costs or if there were other better ways of approaching it. but that's not the general direction in the project as a whole anymore. you'll still find areas that have unnecessarily messy sets of config dialogs, but those are receding and fewer new such items are going in.

in fact, with KDE 4 we will likely be instituting a GUI review system and period in the release cycle.

in any case, since you brought it up and since you lurk on kde-optimize, maybe you'd be willing to help out with the profiling? =)

Re:Funniest quote

[BenjyD]

I understand that it must be tricky with so many developers in the project to get decisions made. I find it difficult enough with my project, and I'm the only developer! I just felt the quote was indicative of the development mindset that led me to switch to GNOME.

I'm glad that KDE is taking this kind of issue more seriously - I switched to GNOME a while back, but I still check out KDE every so often. I think I still have about 30 lines of code in KImageEffect somewhere.

I'm not sure I'd have the time for working on KDE - I already run my own project and have a pile of feature requests going back months I never seem to get round to.

Re:Funniest quote

[delire]

This is one of the reasons I can't use Windows, Gnome or OSX.... there is just simply a lack of options.

i have to agree, though Gnome can't be compared to OSX or Windows for their relative lack of configurability.

some see choice as a stalwart, but generally speaking it is one of the few means a computer user can actually make their computer *their own*, not a facsimile of visions drafted up by 'HCI experts' set on homogenizing the computing experience.

really, if some of the arguments against configurability and choice were applied to people's houses, cars, relationships they'd make little sense. how is the flexibility to choose a new icon theme any worse than being allowed to paint your own house? do you own or rent your machines?

Re:Funniest quote

[stilborne]

fair enough. perhaps you'll use KDE again in the future. =) you may be interested in reading this:

http://dot.kde.org/1107931942/

> I just felt the quote was indicative of the
> development mindset that led me to switch to
> GNOME ... which led you to feel compelled to post it to this article. heh. aaaah, slashdot! no place quite like it.

Re:Funniest quote

[Knuckles]

My point is that options are never bad

If you really think that, I'd encourage you to think some more. In this article, Havoc Pennington gives several reasons why too many otpions can be bad. Whether you think Gnome 2 has given the right answers to these issues or not, all of them have merit:

Too many preferences means you can't find any of them.

Preferences really substantively damage QA and testing.

Preferences make integration and good UI difficult.

Preferences keep people from fixing real bugs.

Preferences can confuse many users.

Re:Funniest quote

[BenjyD]

If somebody didn't bring up old arguments every time a relevant story was posted on Slashdot, there'd be no comments ;)

Interesting discussion on dot.kde.org, by the way.

Re:Funniest quote

[m50d]

I take it you'd prefer to have your file manager start spewing windows everywhere, your dialogs backwards, and NO WAY TO TURN IT OFF?

Seriously, the "offer an option" approach is one of my favourite things about kde. There will be times when icon caching makes sense and there will be times when it doesn't, there will be users who want it and users who don't, so let the user choose!

Re:Funniest quote

[TuringTest]

Interface configurability is sometimes closer to allowing you to change the inner pieces of the faucet than to painting the wall. There are places where it's simply better to call an expert to build a subsystem for you, tailored to your needs, than to build it yourself.

The choice doesn't need to be accesible through the user interface. If you want configurability and you have the source code available, you'd be better hiring a programmer to fine-tune the interface rather than forcing the user to learn the meanings of 1 zillion configuration options.

Re:Funniest quote

[stilborne]

it requires striking a ballance. QA is dead simple if there are no options and few features. but then you have software almost nobody will want to, or even be able to use in the real world. so you add some features, some configuration ... at the cost of QA overhead. but you get useful software.

ballance.

it's similar with the other items you list (bug fixing, integration, etc), though QA is hit harder than them. the "finding the options" problem is more a limitation of how we enforce hierarchical navigation of these things more than having a sane number of options. because even a sane number of options quickly spirals out of range of these mechanisms.

so ... we're engaged in an ongoing search to find that ballance in KDE, and i think we're finally getting some good formulas together. KDE 3.x is used by enough people who really enjoy it that i don't think it's fair to call it "unusable", but it can be improved upon (it always can ;). and so we continue to make new releases.....

in his FOSDEM interview, Matthias Ettrich (the project's founder) was asked what three things he'd like to focus on in KDE 4 and he said: usability, usability, usability. good answer.

of course, usability is about a LOT more than ensuring there are only N options in an app, or that the menus are correctly arranged. those are important steps, but let's not get obsessive over details that are only part of the picture, something i see a lot of people do, sadly.

for instance, i find it interesting that for being such a central piece of UI, the file dialog is rarely considered by usability "enthusiasts". take the KDE file dialog and compare it to other Open Source toolkit file dialogs .... personally, i'd take a file dialog like KDE's even if it meant having to put up with some annoying config dialogs elsewhere. it's items like file dialogs which provide most of the "usability" in a desktop.

but then... i use my systems to get real world work done and so these sorts of things actually matter to me. =)

Re:Funniest quote

[stilborne]

lol .. the "quantity over quality" stand. hehe.

> Interesting discussion on dot.kde.org, by the way

anything in particular there that caught your interest?

Re:Funniest quote

[TuringTest]

There may be an even better way to do this than the button/etc method.

Do you mean, something like this?

Re:Funniest quote

[TuringTest]

Also with screenshots.

I've seen people ditching the Gnome preferences approach, but then the idea of having advanced preferences separate from the common ones is a very good idea that could be used by every user interface.

Re:Funniest quote

[functor]

Sorry, but Havoc Pennington's influence has castrated GNOME. The few things you can change, you need to fire up gconf-editor for (remember NT 4 and the Registry Editor?).

I use KDE, unashamedly because it offers me options and one size most certainly does not fit all when it comes to UIs. Sane defaults, yes, but one man's sanity is another man's annoyance.

Under Havoc Pennington's influence, perfectly sane preferences such as the ability to turn off Nautilus' desktop icons disappeared between GNOME 2.0 and 2.2 off pref dialogs, with the prefs receding to the murky depths of the largely undocumented gconf system. Forgive me if I think he's GNOME's problem, not its savior.

Re:Funniest quote

[lakeland]

If the user doesn't have much ram, then a database is a bad idea. If they have lots of ram, then a database is a good idea. Perhaps the developers should experiment with pulling DIMMs out of their system to find the turning point, but even then -- the users might have the extra ram because they've got a multi-head machine or whatever.

There really is no way of finding out except guessing based on the user's machine's specs, or profiling it while running on the user's machine. Since both of those are subject to errors, I really would prefer the user could change the option.

Y'know, I'm really rather fond of KDE making it easy for me to customise everything how I like it...

Re:Funniest quote

[Brandybuck]

Do you want to get rid of the plethora of configuration options? THEN STOP REQUESTING THEM! The fact is that users want them. I know they want them because they keep requesting more and more of them.

Go peruse kde-look.org and see all the requests (and mockups) for additional features. Themes have even been forked to add options. There's one theme that has FIVE PAGES of options, and it's a POPULAR theme! Then go look at the bug lists for KDE. A high percentage of feature requests are for additional options.

Now on to your specific item. That's in the Performance tab. It's the equivalent of an advanced set of options. Users who fear options will never see it because they will never get that far. If this item really does make a significant tradeoff between performance and functionality (I have no idea if it does), then it deserves an option somewhere.

I really don't understand those who think that the entire configuration UI should consist of a single button labelled "Do It". There's a new kind of popup window annoying people on the net. It doesn't bother me because I can block it with Konqueror or Mozilla. But there's no way to block it with Firefox. We have to wait for someone to write a Forefox extension for it. Now tell me what's harder, clicking an option in Konqueror, or finding the right extension for Firefox then installing it?

Re:Funniest quote

[Jameth]

"for instance, i find it interesting that for being such a central piece of UI, the file dialog is rarely considered by usability "enthusiasts". take the KDE file dialog and compare it to other Open Source toolkit file dialogs .... personally, i'd take a file dialog like KDE's even if it meant having to put up with some annoying config dialogs elsewhere. it's items like file dialogs which provide most of the "usability" in a desktop."

The file dialog gets tons of attention. It was one of the main pieces of improvement in OS-X and got tons of their attention. It was a centerpiece of one of the recent GNOME releases. And, if people can get together on a design, it will be one of the most significant changes in KDE 4.0.

For a slight idea of what has been done in this area, take a look at [ http://www.cis.gvsu.edu/~abreschm/designs/file_sel ector/index.html ]. It's a bit out of date (hasn't been touched in six months) and is only mock-ups, not code, but it got a lot of discussion on the Usability lists at the time. Maybe, if the search system is all together for KDE 4.0, that's the sort of system you'll be seeing in the future.

(In the interests of proper disclosure, I should note that I run that website and made those mock-ups and designs. If I had the time, I might even still be pushing for them to be implemented.)

Re:Funniest quote

[aussersterne]

Counter-point: If a system doesn't have enough preferences to configure the things that I want to configure, I won't use it, even if it's "better for me" and "better for software the whole world wide!"

Re:Funniest quote

[stilborne]

> The file dialog gets tons of attention

i wasn't referring to the people who do the actual work, who i would agree do pay a lot of attention to these things. i was talking about the "enthusiasts", which was a nice way of saying "very loud users" ;)

> It was one of the main pieces of improvement in OS-X

and it shows. =)

> It was a centerpiece of one of the recent GNOME releases.

and unfortunately i still groan every time i'm faced with it =/

> that's the sort of system you'll be seeing in the future

i remember the screenshots and the discussion on kde-usability, and i've still got that site bookmarked. and yes, i do plan on coming back to it for KDE4. i really liked a number of the concepts there, though i'm still of the opinion that there are waaaay too many configuration options in that design =)

btw, most of the thumbnails there now link to images that have 404'd...

Re:Funniest quote

[stilborne]

hahaha.. oh man. please don't read my blog then. it's a well known fact that i can't spell. (thank the goddess for editors!)

rumour has it that it may be linked to my odd inability to use the shift key. ;-P

Re:Funniest quote

[Jameth]

"i remember the screenshots and the discussion on kde-usability, and i've still got that site bookmarked. and yes, i do plan on coming back to it for KDE4. i really liked a number of the concepts there, though i'm still of the opinion that there are waaaay too many configuration options in that design =)"

Yeah, I know the configuration options are ridiculous. That was what I was revising when I got swamped with other work. I haven't touched it in a long while, but I still kinda want to get back to it.

"btw, most of the thumbnails there now link to images that have 404'd..."

Yeah, all the configuration pictures are gone because that's my student website and only has so much space. And, seeing as I was in the process of cutting that anyway...

Re:Funniest quote

[Knuckles]

Agreed on the balance thing. My reply was to a guy who said "options are never bad" (note: never)

Re:Why make it look like Windows?

[OmniVector]

it's not that simple really. radical changes in the user interface require high learning curves to transition to. it's not often when these changes come around, and any major paradigm shift in guis should happen gradual to ease users into a new way of using the computer. it's difficult to do all at once because people will think it's just too 'different.' everyone really borrows ideas off each other in the interface world. pretty much all environments now are a mix of the attributes of others. gnome is heavily mac os influenced. kde is heavily windows influenced. windows is mac influenced and mac is mostly xerox with a bit of creativity and HCI behind it. it's a natural evolution for the open source choices to take the best of both and try and merge them.

Re:Not sure where to put this....

[Jonny_eh]

When I found out you can rip music from a CD using konquerer I nearly flipped. It was too cool!

My only question with that feature: How do you set the quality of the rip? i.e. How can I get a higher bit-rate for ripping ogg files?

Desktop Unity?

[Doc Ruby]

What happened to implementing the Shared MIME Info spec from FreeDesktop.org? As recently as 1/2005, KDE was "planning to support it for their next major release". GNOME already supports this way to focus on our data, with automatic integration with our apps, without worrying that we picked the right desktop to mediate between our apps and our data. Is the next "major" KDE release "4.0", and we have to wait a few years for MIME integration to catch up with GNOME? Or is the MIME layer already in 3.4, and this is just another action-packed OSS episode airing with hidden, inscrutable features not making it to the release notes?

Re:Desktop Unity?

[stilborne]

well, let's see. KDE has had a MIME system for years that works rather well. the new MIME spec, which isn't somehow obviously better, is a rather radical departure from this existing system. one might consider that writing new "cooperative" specs that ignore existing methodology is a bit brain-damaged.

not only does it mean that everyone who has a solution now has to rework their software, it means throwing away lessons learned from the existing implementations (assuming they aren't broken and need replacing, of course). instead, with a completely new spec we get to restart the learning and debugging process. such fun!

worst, perhaps, is that it means those who already have working, efficient solutions in place (in this case, KDE) have to create a migration path for their user base that is smooth and non-frustrating for the users. which means the project needs to pick when and how to do it carefully, which is rarely smooth and non-frustrating for the developers. during this transitional time, the "common spec" doesn't create a commonality at all but rather it reinforces the discrepancy for at least some time period.

i think it's _great_ that we have a shared mime spec. i also think that the execution of creating that spec was woefully poor.

so before you get all fanboyish about every single thing that hits the pages of FreeDesktop.org or any other such "let's all cooperate" concept, consider the quality and value of those contributions. getting Open Source software to work together seamlessly is a necessary endeavour and a great goal. let's do it right.

Re:Desktop Unity?

[Doc Ruby]

"Fanboy"? What's your problem, with the namecalling? You agree that "it's _great_ that we have a shared mime spec". And in fact, any minimally workable MIME system that interoperates is better than sophisticated ones that don't interop. Because interop is a feature that unifies the desktop markets for app development. That's hardly "every single thing that hits the pages of FreeDesktop.org" - it's a primary strategic goal for all Linux developers, and one to which KDE has agreed. It's past time for your anal-retentive perfectionism - the perfect is the enemy of the merely good. stop designing windmills to tilt at, and get with the program.

Re:Desktop Unity?

[pherthyl]

And in fact, any minimally workable MIME system that interoperates is better than sophisticated ones that don't interop No. I'd rather have an advanced mime system that works properly and doesn't interoperate than one thats stupid and just minimally workable but interoperable. I don't give a rat's ass about my mime system interoperating with GNOME. Its not a big deal if they are different. Its a mime system, how many times do you really have to have both DE's work with it. Chose a DE and stick with it, you won't have any problems. Any anyway, right now, what does the GNOME MIME system interoperate with? Just as much as the KDE system, which is, only with itself. So any claims of interoperability are BS.

Re:Desktop Unity?

[Doc Ruby]

You're missing the point. Desktop interop is important for the community so we can have a critical mass of software consumers for our community of software developers. Otherwise, the infighting and fragmentation interfere with the momentum that will make Linux desktops "mainstream", with all the growth and benefits that will bring everyone, from markets for software to software for markets to freedom from the current monopoly.

In order to get there, we've got a desktop interop spec that both major Linux desktop communities have accepted. GNOME has released their compliant version, while KDE has promised to, but a "significant" (is it "major"?) release has now appeared, probably without their meeting their agreement. So of course the interop isn't here - because until KDE meets the agreed spec, its promises are just BS.

Now that there's a mutual spec, with software to back it up, where does this petty desktop religious war get us?

Re:Desktop Unity?

[stilborne]

> Desktop interop is important for the community
> so we can have a critical mass of software
> consumers for our community of software
> developers

i couldn't agree more. which is why when creating new "standards" we need to do so in a way that makes it as straight forward as possible to get the implemented. the mimetype spec really dropped the ball on that one. this is not a KDE problem, but it was a bit of a learning experience between all the software projects involved in perhaps how not to create specs.

you said earlier that it's not about perfection, it's about pragmatism. and i'd agree.

if the mimetype spec had been pragmatic, it would've documented the existing working systems, of which KDE probably was the definitive example of such a thing. instead, it was written as a new development concept. this may make something better, but it takes longer. if you value pragmatism over perfection (personally, i'd like to see a dash of both ;) then you'd realize how we kind of cocked up with the mimetype spec.

it'll get sorted out eventually, and i think we're all learning from that experience.

Re:Desktop Unity?

[Doc Ruby]

Why wait? Why not just do it properly already? The worst way to do it is not to do it at all. BTW, GNOME (which is in v2.8.1+ these days) does it so well that I only have to include a pair of headers and call a single function with the MIME type, to get the commandline that ALL GNOME apps will use to handle that MIME type. Then I go on with my business.

Re:Desktop Unity?

[Doc Ruby]

I'll tell you, if we can get the MIME associations registry working cross-desktop, and a URL-scheme registry too, we're looking at a distributed desktop platform that can take off as huge as the Web has. The only remaining hurdle is IPC, which itself is covered by scheme/MIME. Imagine calling "ipc://mozilla@localhost/javascript:%20resizeTo(20 0,400)"; how about replacing "localhost" with a remote FQDN? And returning an octet-stream tagged with a MIME Content-type, perhaps a custom XML including its DTD URL. These techniques are the application of the three-tier model to everything. Just getting up something simple, that works, with proper independence of scopes, will let the traditional unix "small tool that does one thing right" philosophy drive the complex apps that use it.

Re:Desktop Unity?

[Doctor Crumb]

Yes, 4.0 would be the next major release. 3.4 would be a minor release. It just happens to have a lot of cool new features.

Re:Desktop Unity?

[stilborne]

erm. who said anything about a registry? i appreciate your distaste for a registry, but KDE neither has one nor is planning making such a thing a central point of configuration. so... yeah. chill =)

Re:Desktop Unity?

[stilborne]

> The only remaining hurdle is IPC, which itself
> is covered by scheme/MIME

no, that's covered by whatever will end up being DCOP+1, which currently seems to be a future version of DBUS.

XML is generally too slow and is unnecessary for most IPC. for the cases where it does make sense, we already have RFCs for that such as XMLRPC and SOAP.

> ipc://mozilla@localhost/javascript:%20resizeTo(20 0,400)

dcop konqueror konqueror-mainwindow#1 resize 200 400

> will let the traditional unix "small tool that
> does one thing right" philosophy drive the
> complex apps that use it

we've been doing this in KDE for several years now. look at Kontact: it's the binding together of a handful of applications using IPC (DBUS, in specific) and an extensible plugin system. or look at Konqueror: it uses KParts to load embedded viewers for most common file types based on mimetype relationships to applications.

the more that other Open Source desktops adopt KDE technologies and techniques, the faster this will spread elsewhere. in the meantime, KDE works pretty well and we'll continue to blaze these trails further.

Re:Desktop Unity?

[Anonymous Coward]

As recently as 1/2005, KDE was "planning to support it for their next major release".

3.4 is a minor release. 4.0 is a major release.

we have to wait a few years for MIME integration to catch up with GNOME?

What on earth makes you think that KDE 4.0 is a few years away? 3.5 will be a few extra features while Qt 4 stabilises, and then KDE 4.0 will be a straight port of 3.5 to Qt 4. Neither of these are particularly slow endeavours.

Re:Desktop Unity?

[Doc Ruby]

We're talking about different semantic levels, so we're not really disagreeing. All those KDE operations you're talking about are great, essential - and braggable, because they work. The same was true of all the Internet protocols, including HTTP, before URLs let everyone interoperate with the same data format. So MIME and scheme lookups don't conflict with DCOP work (or GNOME bonobo) - they enhance it, by packaging it *uniformly* for everyone's apps to use. Once there's uniformity in the data format, there's a place in each desktop for a single facility for ushering them around. I'm not trying to convince *you* to work on common MIME specs, especially when you're spending your time making these subsystems work under the hood. I'm talking about leveraging these subsystems, even separate ones specific to a given desktop, into one uniform system that any app, therefore any user, can use, without choosing all the other baggage that comes with a given desktop or other package. In short, I'm talking about factoring apps into components wrapped in simple APIs for immediate interop. That's something we're all working on together, each our own part, whether we realize it or not.

Re:Desktop Unity?

[damiam]

No one said registries have to be cryptic files with single points of failure. Look at gconf for a registry done right.

Re:Desktop Unity?

[Doc Ruby]

KDE version history makes me thing 4.0 might be years away:

• KDE One - Arnsberg, Germany 1997
  
• KDE Two - Erlangen, Germany 1999
  
• KDE Three Beta - Trysil, Norway 2000
  
• KDE Three - Nürnberg, Germany, 2002
  
• Kastle - Nové Hrady, Czech Republic 2003
  
• aKademy - Ludwigsburg, Germany 2004
  

It's been 3 years since 3.0, and we're only at v3.4. Why not another 3 years for another few 3.x versions? What makes you think it will happen so fast?

Re:Desktop Unity?

[Doc Ruby]

That's why you want KDE to meet the common spec at least as well as GNOME has. Of course you don't edit text files directly. You use some KDE version of the gnome-vfs object, which lets you call accessor functions. A commandline wrapper for the library would be a good addition, but Perl bindings are already around for GNOME-VFS. This doesn't need to create a single point of failure, any more than the /etc directory does, or any other configuration. Linux, like Unix, thrives of config data in "text" files, accessed by programs, but editable by the wily text editing programmer. This is not your "Windows" registry - Windows gave config files a bad name, and there's no reason for Linux to repeat their error. GNOME hasn't, and I expect no less from KDE.

Re:Desktop Unity?

[Jameth]

"It's been 3 years since 3.0, and we're only at v3.4. Why not another 3 years for another few 3.x versions? What makes you think it will happen so fast?"

KDE major versions happen with Qt major versions. Qt 4 is being released at the end of the year. The rest of the math should be fairly simple.

Re:Desktop Unity?

[Doc Ruby]

Well, that means that Qt 4 will be released no earlier than the end of the year, and KDE 4.0 sometime after that. It's the beginning of the year. Looks like any reasonable expectation for that major release will be about a year. I don't have any data on how long the lag has been for KDE releases, past their planned date as announced at the previous release. But, like any other open source project, I'd expect it to be late. So we're talking about 2 years after the KDE committment to supporting the shared MIME spec possibly seeing the first implementation.

Re:Desktop Unity?

[Doc Ruby]

No, I "predicted" years. Over a year is years. And that's the minimum - who knows how long it will take? That "3 years" you're throwing around was a timespan about which I said "why shouldn't it take that long, when it has already?".

I don't have the KDE slippage data, but of course I can make a guess. I've been writing software with other people for almost 30 years, and KDE is no different from other OSS projects. Because it's collaborative, distributed, and doesn't have a boss cracking the whip at risk of firing, OSS schedules are looser.

If you knew anything about project management, Anonymous flamer Coward, you'd know that release schedules are always wild-ass guesses, until they're done. So cut the crap, and save your typing until you have something constructive to add. Instead of strawman arguments, wild-eyed optimism, and other distortions. Why don't you try typing at the MIME spec implementation, and do something productive, instead of wasting everyone's time with your whining?

Ooooo...

[Will2k_is_here]

Support for text-shadow! Hope this will pressure Mozilla to do likewise.

486 introduced many new useful/fast instructions

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, this 486+ instruction speeds up TCP communication:

Byte Swap (bswap) [486]

bswapreg[16|32]
Example

Convert little/big endian to big/little endian by swapping bytes.

bswap %ebx

The equivalent 386 code would take 3 times as many cycles even on modern hardware:

simplified excerpt from a GNU C library header file:

/* To swap the bytes in a word the i486 processors and up provide the
`bswap' opcode. On i386 we have to use three instructions. */
# if !defined __i486__ && !defined __pentium__ && !defined __pentiumpro__
... use rorw $8, %w0; "rorl $16, %0; rorw $8, %w0 ...
#else
... bswap %0 ...
#endif

Re:Features...err..bloat

[stilborne]

> but all this seems to be is a few more
> appliKations thrown into the default KDE
> install

if you actually try it out, you'll find that there are many, many bug fixes and improvements in existing applications and libraries. it's much more than just "3.3. plus a couple new apps"

> Choose the best one, and if people like
> something 'different' allow them to install it
> themselves

this is currently something left up to the operating system vendor/integrator/distribution. most current mainstream distros of Linux do ship KDE broken up into applications. there has been an interesting amount of conversation within the development community on how to best aid in the process without losing the benefits of definition but possible improving selection and selectivity.

it's not a trivial issue to "solve". but i'm glad its seen as one of the more visible issues (apparently, anyways), since things could be much worse. notice how nobody complains about how DCOP or other core technologies don't work, for instance? ;)

Re:Why make it look like Windows?

[0racle]

Actually the difference is Xerox invited Apple to see it and Apple licenced it.

BTW my KDE looks like the Altimat desktop from the .hack games, superkaramba is a really interesting thing. KDE does not have to look like Windows, and from where I sit, Gnome looks just as much like Windows by default as KDE does. The only difference is that they have a bar at the top and the bottom of the desktop.

Re:Why make it look like Windows?

[Waffle Iron]

Why do all the Linux desktops emulate the Windows interface?

Buried in the bowels of my distro CDs are almost a dozen different Linux desktops, many of which are radically different from the Windows interface. The problem is that most people, including me, don't like them. So the interface that looks like Windows gets the most attention.

It doesn't really have as much to do with Windows itself as the fact that the vast majority of computer users have spent their whole lives using computers that work a certain way, and they expect them to keep working like that. Unless there is a huge compelling reason to throw out all of that experience, it's best to leverage it.

Is it safe to use?

[thehunger]

I can live with glitches, slight instability etc. as long as I know that then RC2, RC3 or release comes out, I can easily upgrade from this RC1.

Re:Why make it look like Windows?

[jayloden]

Yeah, where's that three-dimensional holograph display they have on Star Trek?

Seriously though...a desktop has only so many ways to go about being useful. Either you'd be copying OS X or copying Windows, or copying fluxbox or copying...you get the idea.

Personally, I dont think KDE is "copying" Windows, I think they're using good ideas like menus, context menus, icons, and the file-manager interface, and then adding bits and pieces that are unique to linux or using good ideas from other OSes of bygone times.

-Jay

Re:Why make it look like Windows?

[Knuckles]

all the Linux desktops

Really? All?

Re:Who cares about FreeDesktop.org !

[Doc Ruby]

You're a weirdo egotist who thinks "real" means "my personal Linux fantasy". Keep developing that software for its audience of one, while whining about how it still isn't "the year of the Linux desktop". That FD.o spec marks an essential agreement among desktop developers to interoperate, the key to integration that keeps Microsoft rolling in monopoly money. Getting the choice between preferred desktops, without the getting jailed in any one's limitations, is the "freedom" we need in Linux, so the platform isn't fragmented for app developers and the masses of users.

INTEROP

[Doc Ruby]

"probably"

So, Anonyous Coward, you have no answer to the question - just the same question as I posed, that you quoted. "Major release" doesn't necessarily mean "major version number". And if it does, then KDE's lag will keep an interop desktop standard behind long enough to help ensure the Linux desktop is a completely fragmented market, just as it's proliferating among a wide variety of personal devices.

Re:INTEROP

[pherthyl]

Please... Common mime system is a tiny issue. If it doesn't get implemented, big deal. 3 people will care, nothing will get fragmented.

Re:INTEROP

[Doc Ruby]

WRONG. I'm writing an app that hyperlinks the media items shown in its GUI. My app handles only one MIME type, but presents a navigation web for every kind. By using the MIME lookup, I can handle other types as exceptions, and hand their URLs or data to the appropriate app, without further ado. My app is *neither* GNOME nor KDE dependent. But until both desktops have a facility for MIME/app lookup, as they've agreed in the spec, I'll have to choose one desktop upon which to depend, or write the subsystem twice, or write it myself. Neither of which options are consistent with the main benefit of open source/standards/APIs: code reuse.

You don't know how important these standards are in growth and deployment until they work, and things really take off. Few people foresaw the transformation from addressing *all* Internet objects (without exception) by URL, or MIME-type (for HTTP) for that matter. The Linux desktop is *already* fragmented, and this desktop religious war thread is just another symptom. When we can really treat it as a tiny issue, by ignoring it, we'll have a nonfragmented desktop platform, and can get on with the real work that within the scope of our own apps and workflow.

Re:yay?

[davidstrauss]

Maybe if you got more benefites from windows updates other than patching holes.

I would say SP2 for XP was a significant update for functionality. The .NET framework is also a "Windows Update" with lots of added capability.

Re:Why make it look like Windows?

[davidstrauss]

You can make it look like anything you want, what's your beef?

Flexible interfaces like you describe are usually bad things. They create inconsistancy across systems, a high overhead of setting up a new box, and lots of support trouble. That's why Apple's GUI often feels so constrained. They try to choose the one best way to do something, implement it, and spare their users a glut of customization options.

So, my beef would be two fold. Not only do they choose a poor, inconsistant model for their GUI, they also let you change it in a bunch of different ways that increase inconsistancy.

Re:Who cares about FreeDesktop.org !

[Doc Ruby]

Anonymous asshole Coward:

1> KDE has agreed to the spec - that's reality.
2> *Your* post is the defensive logic of the fanboy - the rest of us are trying to get our software to work.
3> Descending deeper into cruel irony, every sentence in your obnoxious post has errors that make your talk about "idiots" and "halfassed crap" look like the words of hapless expert.

My opinion on KDE's interface

[bonch]

Personally, I think KDE's interface hasn't really changed all that much. Every year I try it out, it feels the same.

For instance, look at this screenshot from 3.4 RC1:

http://www.tuxmachines.org/gallery/view_photo.php? set_albumName=KDE_rc1&id=default3

That is one MASSIVE menu. The same redundancy I've been complaining about for years--"System," "Utilities," and "Settings"--is still there. Why are they even seperate menus? Why not remove all three menus and just have a link to the system configuration dialog? Oh, that's right, they have that too! That's four redundancies.

Why is there an "Edutainment" menu? Why is there an "Editors" menu? There should just be an "Applications" menu, and they let the user categorize their apps the way they want to. That menu is suffering from huge clutter overload!

And look at the apps. Basically, they have two names each. Instead of "AppName," you have "AppName (WhatItReallyIs)." Silly and redundant. If the original name isn't working well enough, rename it. Essentially, you're having to maintain two app names now instead of just one. When a name isn't descriptive enough, its icon should be--that's why Apple insists that OS X icons show the document type and some sort of action happening to that document or related tool, like the text editor showing a page with a pencil overlaid on it. Not all icons follow these guidelines, but they should, and the ones that do fit visually in the interface. Fishing through appnames with parenthetical descriptions is ugly and time-consuming.

Those are just a few examples. KDE is overloaded with buttons, tabs, sidebars, and input fields. A lot of that stuff is simply not needed but is only there because it seems like someone got happy with the form designer and stuck a bunch of stuff on all the forms to have multiple ways of doing things. You should have two or three really good ways of doing things, not seven ways that clutter up the really good ways.

Re:My opinion on KDE's interface

[archen]

Why is there an "Edutainment" menu? Why is there an "Editors" menu? There should just be an "Applications" menu, and they let the user categorize their apps the way they want to.

I have to disagree there. If there is one thing Windows does really BADLY it's the start menu. Instead of having Games, Office, etc you just have one huge disorganized clusterfuck. If people want to categorize their apps, they are already free to do so. I certainly agree that the "system/utilities/settings" stuff is really messed up, but I guess the question is it better to put it in multiple places so people are more likely to find it, or put it in one consistent place. That's usually not as easy as it sounds either.

And the two app names is a KDE fix for everyone elses problem, not neccesarily KDE's. What does GIMP do? How are you supposed to know? Is KDE going to rename it? If I install the GIMP and it shows up in my menu's as "Graphics Application" I wouldn't say that's very good either. But again this behavior is configurable - you can show one, or the other or both (default).

KDE is very much overloaded with "stuff" - but many of the menu's are actually pretty well thought out. That's not to say that they don't need work, but they've done a decent job so far.

Re:My opinion on KDE's interface

[Torham]

One nice thing about KDE is that you can customize the Menu however you like, also you can turn off the AppName (WhatItReallyIs) and show only one or the other. That said, I am not crazy about the default setup either.

Re:My opinion on KDE's interface

[nightski]

How about instead of parentheses KDE just provides a simple mouseover? Just seems better in my opinion. But then again, I use Gnome and am not particularly fond of KDE. It seems so cluttered. Most people don't want to spend 10 hours just to get their desktop to look good. But again, just my opinion.

Re:My opinion on KDE's interface

[bonch]

I have to disagree there. If there is one thing Windows does really BADLY it's the start menu.

Yes. Start menus themselves are poor interface mechanisms, as are taskbars. I don't know why both KDE and GNOME chose to clone both instead of making a new way.

Re:Why make it look like Windows?

[pherthyl]

They create inconsistancy across systems

Ok, but if you want to prevent this, you use Kiosk to lock everything down, no problem.

a high overhead of setting up a new box

No, defaults are defaults. Install a KDE box and it's set up.

and lots of support trouble

Perhaps, but not if you use Kiosk.

That's why Apple's GUI often feels so constrained

Bingo. This may be good for a lot of people, but it is NOT good for me. The OS X GUI drives me nuts (yes I use it quite a bit), it doesn't work the way I want it to work, the animations slow me down, there are not enough options for keyboard navigation, and I can't get things like focus follows mouse (I'd trade this for menu on top any day). Oh yeah, and I can't move or resize windows by holding down a button, clicking anywhere in the window, and dragging.

Not only do they choose a poor, inconsistant model for their GUI

Your opinion. Actually I find KDE apps quite consistant wrt keyboard shortcuts and style.

they also let you change it in a bunch of different ways that increase inconsistancy

Which makes me more productive, so I'm happy.

XFCE 4

[Nimey]

There's an XFCE 4.2 live CD here.

This is my sig. There are many like it, but this..

[Abreu]

Im afraid I missed the reference...

Re:yay?

[moosesocks]

KDE update: features which should've been there to begin with. plus hundreds of potentially useless features intruducing new bugs

Windows updates: patches for a flawed architecture.

Component Chooser

[hummassa]

don't forget to put

sensible-browser "%u"

so it starts firefox with the URL and not with the kio-supplied filename.

Re:Component Chooser

[Torham]

How come it start Konqueror first then loads it into my browser? Do you know how to fix it? Some apps work but Thunderbird does this everytime.

Re:Who cares about FreeDesktop.org !

[Doc Ruby]

Depends on the "others". When they're assholes, like you, I try to relate. My friends find it entertaining, and it validates their value. Why suffer fools like you gladly? Especially the faddish brand of fools who are so consistent, that arguments with facts are met with mere personal attacks - so easily dismissed on the Internet. It's really fun to make you dance your little inane dance.

Why?

[WindBourne]

do you think that /. will hold back on a linux, KDE, or Gnome release?

Re:yay?

[perbu]

Wow. Debian has updates? Then how come Debian Stable is still shipped with KDE 2.2?

New default theme?

[bcmm]

It seems from the screenshots that Plastik is now the default theme.

I think that is brilliant, as the previous default Keramic style was a bit overdone, and the buttons were slightly buggy. I think it looks much better, and will be great at not confusing new users.

Re:New default theme?

[andersa]

You will get my keramic theme when you pry it from.. etc..

Re:Why make it look like Windows?

[miyako]

Thought about modding you up, but decided to make a "me-too" post.
All of my Linux boxen run KDE 3.3 (well, the runs that aren't running headless), and I also have a couple of macs (an iBook running 10.2 and a dual G5 running 10.3).
While OS X's GUI certainly looks pretty when you first see it, and it does have some useful UI features (I love transparent terminal windows for coding), and after using OS X for any extended period of time, I find myself longing for KDE.
I'm not going to say that, technically, according to standard UI design, KDE is better than OS X, but one thing is that KDE has allowed me to customize it to the point where I can do things extremely efficiently. It doesn't "Just Work" but with some effort it "Eventually Works Really Really Well".

Re:Why make it look like Windows?

[Jameth]

You can make it look like anything you want, what's your beef?

Flexible interfaces like you describe are usually bad things. They create inconsistancy across systems, a high overhead of setting up a new box, and lots of support trouble. That's why Apple's GUI often feels so constrained. They try to choose the one best way to do something, implement it, and spare their users a glut of customization options.

The mistake you are making is thinking that KDE is for you, when it's really for the distros. True, most distros don't fiddle with it much, but KDE is designed to be a nigh-onto all-powerful desktop system that users and distros can make function how they want it to.

A distro can easily use KDE to build whatever clean interface they want, while still leaving in the possibility that a user can transform the system into whatever else they might need it to be.

Re:This is my sig. There are many like it, but thi

[Erik Hensema]

Go to your slashdot user page.

This is your User Info page. There are thousands more, but this one is yours. You most likely are not so interested in yourself, and probably would be more interested in the Preferences links you see up top there, where you can customize Slashdot, change your password, or just click pretty widgets to kill time.

Re:Why make it look like Windows?

[schleyfox]

Ever tried enlightenment? it emulates nothing, infact it is rather far ahead of anything else. An amazing amount of eye candy with *box like speeds, w00t its awesome

SP2=not so great

[Phil Urich]

As far as I can tell (and I'm wrong, but give me some leeway here), all SP2 did was break some things. Firstly, it caused my parent's anti-virus scanner to stop working. Yes, and it's no hopelessly obscure scanner, though I suppose most people haven't heard of Kaspersky Labs, even though in my tests it's far superior, in every way, to the "standard" options (Norton, McAfee, AVG). Then, once a worm (well, several) came and fucked up the computer (alas, I don't live in my parent's basement like the stereotypical nerd, so, being away from home, I had no idea the destruction that was being wrought on their brand-new Athlon64 system) I was unable to entirely fix it . . . oh, I got pretty close, but of course I couldn't fix it entirely, some core files were just gone. However, repairing from the XP cd (yes, it was even a legal copy!) wouldn't work because---aha!---it said "wrong version of windows, please insert the correct version" . . . with the way things had been fucked up, though, it seems impossible to uninstall SP2. So, the computer is working decently, but some things just won't be fixed, until I can get my hands on an SP2 install disk. Which will be illegal, I suppose, but you know, doing it the legal way doesn't seem to have worked that great anyways. With all my friends and their illegal versions of Win2k, though, they've been . . . okay, no, those have gotten pretty fucked up too, but I have some very careless friends, and Win2k is far from airtight (as with any version of windows, though by now you can put a box running Win95 on the net and have no fear . . . no one cares enough to try to attack it anymore! Trust me, I've tried. Obsolete is the way to go, if you're using windows!).

But anways, I could continue, but the bottom line is, look around, and you'll see alot of downsides to SP2. Yeah, there are some bonuses, but the bottom line is, my machine can currently run pretty much anything ever released for any version of windows, so I'm damn well keeping it SP1 until I actually have a reason to switch. I don't expect anything catastrophic to go wrong (for example, my own machine doesn't have a 64-bit processor, so it's okay as far as my Kaspersky AVP copy goes . . . ironic that SP1 works better with Athlon64s than SP2, innit?), but enough people have a hard enough time running older programs in XP, I don't want to press my luck. And my machine is secure to a seemingly absured level; I don't remember the last time I even picked up any malware, and never has it gotten anywhere other than "bam! deleted", so the "security improvements" in SP2 don't sway me one bit.

Perhaps I'm missing something? Perhaps SP2 is better than I've seen it to be? But judging from what I've experienced, there are little to no advantages that would actually matter to me. But, still, people, go ahead and try to convince me if you think I'm speaking like a raving lunatic.

Great new features!

[Chemisor]

I am so glad that KHangman finally got some usability improvements. I use this thing ALL the time!

Re:yay?

[coolGuyZak]

Well, you should investigate how KDE's versioning system works. Different numbers updating mean completely different things.

(For the sake of this post, the versioning is interpreted as Major.Minor.Release)

When the major number changes, it means that there has been an interface change and breaks interoperability between applications. Applications written for a 3.x release will not work with a 4.x release. New features are added in a major release, and bugs are fixed.

When the minor number changes, it means that new features added. These features will not break the API. Bugs are also fixed.

When the release number changes, it means that bugs have been fixed. (E.g. The release numbers are maintenance releases.)

Re:Why make it look like Windows?

[Doctor Crumb]

My KDE desktop looks like OSX; they emulate windows by default because that's what people are used ot. You won't get people to switch if you are using something "more original". The trick is that you can tweak the desktop until it looks nothing like windows.

Looks beautiful

[Axoiv]

Is this the new look of KDE?

I must say, it looks nothing but beautiful. Will surely make good first impressions.

Man, compared to their 1.x releases, they've reached another magnitude of beautiness .

Re:Not sure where to put this....

[Axoiv]

> You can burn or rip from withing amaroK Really? Wasn't amaroK going to be that neat tidy music app without unnecessary stuff in it? I guess they slipped on the keyboard.

Re:A guy I know at school uses KDE

[Just Some Guy]

Definitely mauve. It has more RAM.

Re:Who cares?

[WMD_88]

Let's hope you're not serious.
I did testing on Gnome 1.4 vs. KDE 2.2.2 today (Debian stable on a Dell p2/~300), and Gnome started up in about half the time. The gap closed a bit later on...I used both Gnome 2.4 and KDE 3.1 on a p1/166, and Gnome started up only a little bit faster. That all is moot though, because KDE has always had lag problems with icon drawing and stuff.

Look in the lower right-hand corner.

[Macrobat]

This explains everything about KDE development.

Re:i486? - i586?

[Nick Mitchell]

are you sure about that? i'd believe it if you replaced i486 with i586. the pentium was in-order issue, and had "typed" dual pipelines, so that, while it could execute two instructions in parallel, only if the compiler perfectly scheduled things to use the dual issue slots. the 686 was out-of-order, and had 5 (6?) pipelines, and more than one of each type. therefore, codegen for 586 wasn't particularly useful for 686. codegen for 486 should work fine on 686?

Re:KDE/GNOME

[stilborne]

> just means attention and effort is deflected

perhaps the user fanbase is. but the developers seem pretty focused elsewhere. i think, within KDE at least, we realize that Microsoft currently has 90%+ of the desktop market and that they define the bar (for better or worse) which means they are the ones to "compete" with. everyone else represents mostly friendly rivalry and cooperative efforts.

> I really think it's getting bad now

you weren't around 3-5 years ago, were you? ;) its gotten a lot better, and the next year or two promises to shove us ahead at least as far again.

> The division of effort and uncertainty on the
> layer underneath

the division of effort is not as big an issue as you might think. this has been covered time and time again previously, so i'll save everyone else's bandwidth here. but you may want to go out and do some reading on the matter.

> I don't think either of these systems have even
> caught up with current offerings

in terms of sheer number of applications, you're correct. that's mostly a function of user base, however.

otherwise, we're coming along pretty well. X.org is pushing our graphics capabilities forward nicely, Freedesktop.org is serving as a cooperative zone, and KDE is making good strides forward both on the core technologies as well as the apps (c.f. kpdf in 3.4, or amaroK 1.2 or Scribus as just three examples)

again, compare where we were 5 years ago when Win2000 and MacOS X came out. see where we were in relationship. now compare again against their current offerings on a cutting edge, properly set-up Linux/KDE/X.org system. now imagine us making the same amount of progress over the next 5 years and it becomes fairly apparent that Open Source desktops will over take closed source desktops in most metrics.

especially if we maintain the current rate of development effort growth.

Pathetic

[blackpaw]

KDE is my favourite desktop environment on Linux and they are only adding rich text clipboard support now !!

I like linux & KDE - run a headless mandrake box as my home server, its great - but the crappy clipboard support in *ALL* linux apps/desktops is killing it on the desktop - its a deal breaker.

Re:Why make it look like Windows?

[osho_gg]

I do not agree with the original comment that KDE just copies window's GUI and it has nothing original. However, I must say that your arguments against KDE not being original are quite lame. You refute it by saying that it can copy the look of a number of other OS/Desktop environment. Well, copying is hardly "original".

I have been using KDE for nearly 4 years now. And, I do think that KDE is highly original and it's interface/environment is really different than anything else out there. Here are my reasons:

1. Using the power of Karamba, SuperKaramba - some of the most interesting looks, original interfaces are possible in KDE. Just check out some of these at kde-look.org and kde-apps.org. For example, see Cool desktop. There are some other such desktops there too.

2. Network transperancy built into KDE using all KIO slaves create really unique and original interfaces - that is intuitive and available to all KDE applications. Try to "open a file for editing" on a remote machine via ftp/ssh from your favorite editor in windows xp and you will know what I mean.

3. Some of the newer features of integration of Kontact PIM suite with IM services and Konqueror and feeds are cool original features that I haven't found in other OSes - to the best of my knowledge.

4. Ksysguard's stand-alone application and also the panel applet is one of the cool "KDE-only" original feature that I have seen.

I can go on but I think the point has been made.

Osho

Re:Why make it look like Windows?

[cozziewozzie]

I do not agree with the original comment that KDE just copies window's GUI and it has nothing original. However, I must say that your arguments against KDE not being original are quite lame. You refute it by saying that it can copy the look of a number of other OS/Desktop environment. Well, copying is hardly "original".

That's all fine and dandy, but his argument wasn't that KDE wasn't original, it was that it was simply copying Windows.

I really love kioslaves, KParts and other KDE technologies, but his argument was that KDE was an exact copy of Windows.

Even with "%u"?

[hummassa]

Anyway, in T-bird you would have to set its default handling of URIs too... (T-bird would not use the setting in kcontrol)

Re:Why make it look like Windows?

[osho_gg]

Did you read his one-line post? It says (I quote)

"Why do all the Linux desktops emulate the Windows interface? Can't they come up with something more original?"

Now, What part of "Can't they come up with something more original?" do you need help understanding with?

Osho