KDE 3.4 RC1 Released

Kongratilations! by DrunkenTerror · 2005-02-28 02:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Ceep up the good worc.

i486? by idiot900 · 2005-02-28 02:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

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? by Erik+Hensema · 2005-02-28 02:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.

Constant Change by HeelToe · 2005-02-28 02:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by grasshoppa · 2005-02-28 02:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Re:Constant Change by Psiren · 2005-02-28 03:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by flithm · 2005-02-28 03:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by tommyth · 2005-02-28 03:21 · Score: 3, Informative

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 by SQLz · 2005-02-28 03:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by HeelToe · 2005-02-28 03:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by Coryoth · 2005-02-28 03:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Re:Constant Change by jayloden · 2005-02-28 03:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by Waffle+Iron · 2005-02-28 03:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by Coryoth · 2005-02-28 04:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Re:Constant Change by m50d · 2005-02-28 05:10 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
I am trolling
Re:Constant Change by TuringTest · 2005-02-28 05:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Re:Constant Change by stilborne · 2005-02-28 05:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

> 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 by Coryoth · 2005-02-28 13:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts

Re:yay? by schnits0r · 2005-02-28 02:49 · Score: 4, Funny

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

--

-------
Support Indy Music. Buy

Live CD's by IceFox · 2005-02-28 02:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

--
Do you changes clothes while making the "chee-chee-cha-cha-choh" transformation sound?

Obligitory KDE joke by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-28 02:52 · Score: 4, Funny

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:yay? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-28 02:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by sewagemaster · 2005-02-28 02:55 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
my blog

Re:3.4 changes by stilborne · 2005-02-28 03:01 · Score: 5, Informative

> 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 by stilborne · 2005-02-28 03:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by dracvl · 2005-02-28 03:51 · Score: 3, Funny

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 by Luke-Jr · 2005-02-28 09:27 · Score: 2, Informative

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

--
Luke-Jr

Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-28 02:57 · Score: 3, Funny

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

Live CD by Deaper · 2005-02-28 02:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:Not sure where to put this.... by chill · 2005-02-28 03:04 · Score: 2, Informative

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

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.

Typo in the title by cerberusss · 2005-02-28 03:06 · Score: 4, Funny

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

--
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?

Re:Why make it look like Windows? by TripMaster+Monkey · 2005-02-28 03:11 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

--
____

~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

Re:torrent anyone??? by nutshell42 · 2005-02-28 03:17 · Score: 2, Informative

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

--
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

Re:Why make it look like Windows? by cozziewozzie · 2005-02-28 03:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by BenjyD · 2005-02-28 03:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by friedmud · 2005-02-28 03:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by Knuckles · 2005-02-28 04:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Re:Funniest quote by stilborne · 2005-02-28 07:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by functor · 2005-02-28 08:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by lakeland · 2005-02-28 08:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

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:Why make it look like Windows? by OmniVector · 2005-02-28 03:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
- tristan

Desktop Unity? by Doc+Ruby · 2005-02-28 03:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?

--

--
make install -not war

Re:Desktop Unity? by Doc+Ruby · 2005-02-28 04:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

"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.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Desktop Unity? by Doctor+Crumb · 2005-02-28 08:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

486 introduced many new useful/fast instructions by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-28 04:00 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by stilborne · 2005-02-28 04:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

> 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? by jayloden · 2005-02-28 04:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

My opinion on KDE's interface by bonch · 2005-02-28 04:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by archen · 2005-02-28 05:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

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:Why make it look like Windows? by pherthyl · 2005-02-28 05:00 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

50 of 310 comments (clear)