A Sneak Preview of KDE 4

An anonymous reader writes "In recent times, a lot of discussion has been generated about the state of KDE version 4.0 and as Linux users we are ever inquisitive about what the final user experience is going to be. This article throws light on some of the features that we can look forward to when KDE 4.0 is finally released some time this year. The article indicates that the most exciting fact about KDE 4.0 is going to be that it is developed using the Qt 4.0 library. This is significant because Qt 4.0 is released under a GPL license even for non-Unix platforms. So this clears the ideological path for KDE 4.0 to be ported to Windows and other non-Unix/X11 platforms."

Comments

great

[mrsev]

Ooooh... Kreversi, KMajhong.... both essential components of my desktop experience. The article is a little thin to say the least.

Less of the kitchen sink would make KDE better

[DrXym]

KDE is a very slick desktop, but it doesn't seem to know when "less is more". The control center is probably the worst, most confusing configuration application of any desktop I've ever seen simply because the options that 99% need to get at regularly are mixed in with options that only 1% / nobody ever needs to touch. Then you have various K apps such as Konq or KMail where you might have up to SIX different preferences menu items to choose from to configure the app.

I wish they'd follow GNOME or Firefox and realise that overloading the senses with tabs, buttons and checkboxes does not make for a pleasant desktop experience. I'd be happy if all KDE 4 consisted of was a rationalisation of the menus and prefs to slash out most of the crap, or at least move it into an advanced mode where only masochists could see it.

Re:Less of the kitchen sink would make KDE better

[DrXym]

Please, Gnome is a slim pick up and go desktop for new users, KDE is a customisable and flexible desktop for power, business or techie users. I like it this way, it gives everyone a desktop that they are comfortable with. As a techie, I want KDE to stay the way it is, please don't try to change it to something it is not.

No it doesn't give everyone a desktop they're comfortable with. If you put twice as many options in a user's face than they would reasonably expect or ever require they are going to get confused. They'll be scared of even opening prefs or menus for fear of trashing their app or desktop. As I said, if somebody in the minority absolutely needs all those options, create some tool for them to get at them or implement an advanced mode that shows them. For example, I can type about:config into Firefox and fiddle with all the options, without inflicting them on regular users. And Windows has TweakUI and regedit.

There is a very good reason that the likes of Apple, and to a lesser extent Windows & GNOME hide options - it makes the desktop more accessible, more productive and easier to use for everybody. Expecting the vast majority to wade through crap makes for a terrible user experience. Regardless of what advantages KDE might offer over GNOME in other ways I know which side my money would be on in a usability lab.

Re:Less of the kitchen sink would make KDE better

[Godji]

I understand your concern, but on the other hand, KDE is right now the only desktop which allows me to customize EVERYTHING I could ever want to customize WITHOUT going into config text files or the source code itself. This is exactly what I like most about it!

Have you ever had the feeling that "this program is awesome, but there's this really annoying tiny thing I wish I could easily change"? I had a couple of these with GNOME last time I tried it, and I've never had this with KDE 3.x.

GNOME is already a good, clean desktop. KDE is the good, customizable desktop. It's better to have one of each, rather than two of the same, don't you think?

Re:Less of the kitchen sink would make KDE better

[Octorian]

Windows doesn't hide all the advanced options. Many are still easily accessible from the GUI. MacOSX, however, hides them so deep that you need to drop to the command like to tweak them. (Heck, Apple's complete hiding/elimination of options is why I ditch Apple's packaged apps whenever I find a suitable alternative, even if I used MacOSX every day at work)

Likewise, GNOME hides the options so deep as well, that only a poweruser spending the day on Google is ever going to even figure out how to get to them.

At least KDE (and Windows) put the options where you can find them using just the normal flow of the GUI.

This whole "assume the user is a drooling moron or an ubergeek, with *nothing* in-between" really puts off a lot of "competent" Windows users.

Re:Less of the kitchen sink would make KDE better

[Chris_Keene]

"Please, Gnome is a slim pick up and go desktop for new users, KDE is a customisable and flexible desktop for power, business or techie users."

Disagree.

I use Gnome because I have a million and one things to do and so long as the interface isn't annoying, looks ok and doesn't get in the way, then it's good for me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a power, business and techie user. When KDE 1 came out I spent loads of happy minutes changing every setting just to how i liked it on my home PC. Partly because I could and partly because I found the default kde setup annoying.

I now use Ubuntu (at work) and have never felt the urge to change a single option. Now, the techie in me wants to do cool things at a PC, not change how the taskbar looks.

Re:Less of the kitchen sink would make KDE better

[Mjlner]

"I wish they'd follow GNOME or Firefox and realise that overloading the senses with tabs, buttons and checkboxes does not make for a pleasant desktop experience."

Hear hear!

You're so right! I wish the KDE team would realise that a pleasant desktop experience involves editing .gtkrc-2.0 by hand and adding stuff like

binding "gaim-bindings" {
bind "Return" { "insert-at-cursor" ("\n") }
bind "<ctrl>Return" { "message_send" () }
}
widget "*gaim_gtkconv_entry" binding "gaim-bindings"

This is Clearly preferable and more easily understandable compared to having to click a check box, as you had to do in the bad old days of Gaim.

Re:Less of the kitchen sink would make KDE better

[hamfactorial]

If you're sore about the CTRL+Enter to send option being removed from the GAIM preferences, perhaps you should send your grievances to the GAIM developers. They're in a much better position to consider your issue than the GNOME developers and the general unwashed slashdot masses.

Re:From dot.kde.org

[Wanderer2]

Also, the start menu isn't finalised yet from anything I've heard, that's the start menu designed specifically for Suse - it's been on Slashdot before.

Glad you mentioned that before I posted! I was about to rant about how much I hate the look of that start menu. It looks too similar to the Windows XP, expanding-to-fill-the-screen-with-icons-all-over-t he-place one which drives me mad. That said, I do occasionally have trouble finding seldom-used stuff within my KDE start menu (is $APP under Settings, Utilities or System?), so I know my current set-up isn't brilliant either.

KDE vs. Gnome

[Psychotria]

At the risk of being labelled a troll, I have a few obversations to make. I yearn to return to Gnome (I made the switch from Gnome--which I'd been using for 3 years--to KDE about a year ago. I'm not sure if it's a "feature" of Gnome, but when Gnome apps (at least on my systems) fail, they don't even give a reasonable error message. This may be a design feature, to make it "easier", but, in fact, makes things stupidly difficult. If something fails, then I want to know WHY (at least give me the option of more detailed error messages). KDE is consistent. Gnome isn't (yet). 3 years ago, I would laugh at KDE users, because I knew that "Gnome was best". These days I take a more pragmatic view. Ideoligally, Gnome may be better. In practice, KDE takes the cake.

Re:Kstill Ktoo Kmany Koptions

[kfg]

Is it really so hard to strike some middle ground between no options and so damned many you can't find the one you're looking for?

Yes.

KFG

Re:You know that...

[strider44]

Only when it means Amarok on Windows and Macs. That's a good feature of KDE 4.

Re:Still not there yet..

[Aladrin]

If by KDE you mean 'KDE, all the apps hosted on the KDE site, and all the features of KDE like the FISH protocol' then I am -so- with you. If apps like K3B would run also, nothing could stop me from buying it.

But if you mean just the window manager and such, and not Quanta/Konqueror/Konsole... I'd have to pass. KDE is useful to me. It's not about looks.

What is thin about it?

[WindBourne]

It shows some graphical pics of games that have been converted to SVG (nice to say the least). Then in the article, it talks about the various projects that are working on core libs. Once those are fleshed out, then more apps will come into focus. I would say that this is actually a pretty good preview of very unsettled work. As to the desktop, well, there will be more.

Re:Kool!

[WindBourne]

geah, gthat gis gsuch ga gpain.
MSPerhaps, MSthat MSshould MSstop MSeverywhere.
.netof .netcourse, .netI .netbe .netwrong.
ior imaybe iyour igrip is inothing.

Pardon my ignorance...

[camperdave]

Why are they McNamed (I'm coining a new word. McNamed: Named in such a way as to be associated with an organization, entity, or product) anyways? Aren't applications written to run on any desktop. I seem to be running gnome, because there is an "about gnome" item on my system menu. However I have several "K" applications, such as kpovmodeller, that run just fine. Clearly they don't rely on KDE, so they must be written to some generic desktop standard. So, why the mcnaming? (They can't all be written by the same people who are writing the desktop software, can they?)

GTD Anyone?

[soloport]

Agreed. Hard to understand what people are even talking about when it comes to "bloat". Gnome, KDE, Windows -- with today's hardware it's not like one has to wait for minutes for an application to load any more.

I use KDE for the sheer convenience and ease of use. Windows seems like it's virtually stood still in time for the last four or five years. KDE has far surpassed it, ease-of-use-wise. Gnome is still such a joke. I don't get it. How is it that Firefox, Thunderbird (at least on Linux) and other packages have to emulate Gnome when it comes to: finding files (GIMP and Firefox try to be so Gnome-like -- sucks!), the whole "Would you like to do this? No? Yes?" anti-natural-language (but oh-so geek-orthodox) OK / Cancel thing. Why do so many distros (Red Hat, Ubuntu) have Gnome as the default? Makes no sense.

I'll trade a little "bloat" for "getting things done" any time.
/rant

Re:GTD Anyone?

[soloport]

Guess what I'm saying is, the whole "bloat" argument used to be so pro-Gnome. Today, it's just a tired, out-dated argument. Can we at least get a better one going? ;-) I think the Gnome as distro-default makes sense from a political point of view. It's probably the case that more Gnome developers know Red Hat, GIMP, Firefox developers than do KDE devs. But from an end-user's perspective, I still can't understand Gnome's popularity.

It's like the Motorola 68020 architecture and Assembly instruction set vs Intel's convoluted silicon / Assembly instruction set. Why, oh why did the Intel processor have to become the most popular?! Well, back in the day, when board layout and Assembly code mattered, it mattered, OK? ;-)