KDE 3.4 RC1 Released

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

Ceep up the good worc.

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 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 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

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?

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: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: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?

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.

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

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.

14 of 310 comments (clear)