Slashdot Mirror
Interview with Sebastian Kuegler, KDE Developer
invisibastard writes "Linux Tech Daily has an interview with KDE's Sebastian Kuegler. Sebastian talks about the KDE 4.0 release event, goes into detail about how KDE has improved its processes and much more. '[...] there are many easy ways to help. The most obvious is helping people installing KDE, answering questions on forums, IRC and other media. Lately, we're getting also an increased amount of requests for speakers. Often local LUGs are interested in talks by KDE knowledgeable people. It might sound a bit scary, representing KDE in your local LUG, but it's really what KDE is about. Everybody comes from a local community, that is where our grassroots are. People often don't think that they are entitled to represent KDE, but that's just not the case at all. In fact, the marketing and promo team have a hard time finding enough speakers for all events. Slides are usually available, so it doesn't need all that much preparation.'
Personally, I was skeptical about the KDE 4.0 release too, initially. But given the scope and size of the project it was unavoidable and did not turn out bad at all. You should compare KDE 4.0 with Linux 2.6.0. There too, the problem of chicken (stable finished code) and egg (large userbase) caused delays which led Linus to make a release. The label '2.6.0' finally got distros to shift to the new release and accelerated stabilization.
We are now seeing the same for KDE. Before the schedule became so strict, people were working on the libraries mainly. Since last November progress towards stable and compelling applications went very fast and currently KDE 4.0 is not complete in terms of ported applications, but is a very nice environment to develop for and is perfectly nice to use. This desktop has high potential for the well-integrated sexyness that is the hallmark of KDE.
DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
"The fact that the definition of stable varies widely within our userbase and the expectations of everyone doesn't make it any easier."
Unless your userbase consists of no one but fanboys, I would expect the userbase to define "stable" as not crashing every 20 minutes. Shame on KDE for redefining the meaning of a point oh release. I realize they want more people to test their beloved product, but misleading them into doing it was a mistake. In fact, the tradition in open source is in the opposite direction - not calling it a point oh until it's acquired the targeted features and destroys no data.
I've been using KDE for a long time and I really like it. There is one thing that annoys me though, I'll find a bug and try to report it, only to be told that I'm not on the latest version. I'll need to upgrade and see if it's still a bug. Well, as much as I'd like to help make KDE better, I'm not going to upgrade my entire OS just to test a bug. They're not very receptive to bug reporting.
dWe are now seeing the same for KDE. Before the schedule became so strict, people were working on the libraries mainly. Since last November progress towards stable and compelling applications went very fast and currently KDE 4.0 is not complete in terms of ported applications, but is a very nice environment to develop for and is perfectly nice to use. This desktop has high potential for the well-integrated sexyness that is the hallmark of KDE. Unfortunately releasing 4.0 like this makes KDE look bad. I really doubt distributions will include it as a default option until it becomes more polished. Granted, I never used KDE much before 3.0, but IIRC, 3.0 was a big improvement over 2.0 in functionality and elegance. No, it wasn't perfect, but it was much more polished than 4.0. The problem is that KDE did so well with the 3.5 branch that no users except for developers are going to want to switch over to something that is not as stable or as polished.
That's one of the same problems that Microsoft messed up with - how do you take something that people mostly liked (2000 and XP) and make it better? Microsoft came out with Vista (which is worse) and KDE came out with 4.0 (which is worse than 3.5 feature and polish wise). Now, in a year 4.1 and 4.2 will probably get close to the 3.5 branch, but I'm just worried that KDE's reputation might suffer in the mean time. Granted, I would rather see KDE 4.0 than Vista (at least 4.0 has a lot of very cool features that will make the desktop much better when they're actually finished), but I wish they had at least stated that 4.0 was a developer release and that users should not switch until 4.1 - it would make things much smoother in my opinion.
I like the dudes comment about KDE not neing a Linux desktop but just an open source desktop environment.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
To summarize: The closer something is to perfection, the easier it is to screw it up when trying to improve it.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Let me preface this by saying that I just downloaded and built KDE 4. I didn't get a prepackaged one, so, your milage may vary.
Having said that- is it just me or does KDE 4 look cartoonish? I mean, I love the K apps- Ktorrent, Konversation, and K3B, which is probably the best burner software anywhere, and now looks great to boot, but KDE itself looks like mickey mouse and mario got together over a few powerups and decided to bang out some code. I can't really recommend it to clients anyway- even the KDE team says its not ready for prime time- but I think I'd feel a little weird doing so even if it had all the kinks worked out. Am I way off base here?
Oh come on! Open early, open often is the mantra of open source, remember? All the problems with KDE 4 being "unprofessional", "incomplete" etc. are only coming from people who expected that KDE 4 will be awesome and revolutionary. Although it has a lot to do with marketing (the same kind of marketing that is being discussed in TFA), but also the fact that KDE is THE desktop environment for Linux newbies.
Or do you want them to follow enlightenment release cycle instead? "Until everything is finished" - tada! They even have different release cycles for libraries and applications. And they have yet to release 0.17. I mean, at this rate, even Duke Nukem Forever will get released before they reach 1.00
Really, what happened to Slashdot. I'm surprised there hasn't been any mention of Nokia buying Trolltech. Pretty big news, I think. http://dot.kde.org/1201517986/ Maybe it's been posted, but I haven't seen it.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
i switched because i found that gnome limited me too much (although this was before i was confident with the CLI) and xfce was well ugly ( having tested it recently i realise that this isnt true but i still think that kde looks nice *disclaimer* for me *disclaimer* )
also i recently suggested kde over gnome to a newer newbie and he felt that gnome was better, i think its not a question of newness but taste. ( although stupidly i said that xfce probably wasn't worth trying, should have encouraged him to try everything like i did)
I have tried a few light DE/WM and found that fluxbox was nice but i never spent the time to set it up, maybe id like it more if i was a 'pro' and had set it quickly?
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
I just didn't like it. When I used OpenSUSE Linux, I installed KDE. Right when I started using KDE, I noticed how cluttered everything was. Instead of a nice bar at the top with 3 items, one for Applications, one for Places, and one for System, you must navigate through endless start menu items to get to where you want to go.
The file manager for KDE was also a little quirky. By default, single clicking a file opens it? And the icons weren't that good either...
GNOME has much more to offer...
The term "Linux" serves more or less as a buzzword, but I think calling KDE "The Linux Desktop" is harmful.
So is calling GNU/Linux, Linux, yet he doesn't seem to care. Also, no mention of Qt at all. Was this interview done before the Nokia acquisition, I wonder.
:wq
IIRC, 3.0 was a big improvement over 2.0 in functionality and elegance
You're looking back with rose coloured glasses. KDE 3.0 had a hideous default look and wasn't terribly stable. The only reason it was reasonably featureful was because not a lot of the core changed from KDE 2. But then it turned into a great series, just like KDE 4 will eventually.
All the problems with KDE 4 being "unprofessional", "incomplete" etc. are only coming from people who expected that KDE 4 will be awesome and revolutionary.
The KDE developers themselves have flat out stated that KDE 4.0 is not intended for end users as it is incomplete.
Or do you want them to follow enlightenment release cycle instead?
No, I expect them to be honest with their release processes. The reasons stated for releasing KDE 4.0 in an incomplete state was that the framework was complete and that it gave developers an opportunity to complete development of their code on the new frameworks. If that is the case, why not have separate version numbers and releases for the "Framework" and "Environment" components? They could have released "KDE Framework 4.0" while "KDE Environment 4.0" waited until it was complete. No confusion, no problem, no mucking with version numbers and endless rubbish where they bluff and try to redefine the words "stable", "release" and "Beta". It isn't that hard.
Enlightenment is a strawman. It's problems stem from lack of manpower and an anal retentive development model. Why is it so hard to understand that perhaps a middle-ground between the KDE and E release processes might be best?
Aside from the thousands you'll spend on Windows licenses, Visual Studio licenses, and pre-built closed source components and other developer tools. Don't fool yourself into thinking that developing for windows is cheap.
One thing is release early, release often. Another thing is trying to bluff that this more stable and complete than it really it. I saw many wonderful cases of rationalization going on when KDE4 was released. If you want "KDE 4.0.0 final" to mean "somewhat working compile" then that's fine, Microsoft does it all the time. Just don't ever blab about Microsoft's or Google's devaluation of "beta", "release candidate" or "release" if we're going to be worse ourselves. It's the inverse of crying wolf, it's crying stable and people will eventually go "pfffffffft installing a x.0 version, are you crazy? I'll at least wait for x.1/SP1". Just be honest about what you're really delivering, perfect or not.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
KDE 4.0 can better be compared with KDE 2.0 and GNOME 2.0. Now, in a year 4.1 and 4.2 will probably get close to the 3.5 branch, but I'm just worried that KDE's reputation might suffer in the mean time. Does GNOME's reputation suffer because of the 2.0 release?
This has already been fixed: http://vizzzion.org/?blogentry=806
The full quote is "Release early. Release often. And listen to your customers.", it's directed at getting code out there in the open rather than waiting until it is perfect before letting anybody see it. It doesn't mean that you should label anything you can compile as a stable release, just that you shouldn't do all your work behind closed doors until it's perfect. Not to mention the fact that the advice was garnered from the Linux kernel, something significantly smaller than KDE and not anywhere near as directly exposed to end-users. And if that advice is so useful, how come the KDE project doesn't follow two-thirds of it? They have very long release cycles, ignored anybody who told them that it wasn't ready to be called 4.0 and told anybody asking where the missing features were to wait until 4.1.
I'm a KDE user myself, but I would not go so far as to say that. KDE is for power users, and almost all the distributions default to GNOME, which is quite a bit simpler.
The problem is that they are too much like the enlightenment release cycle. KDE tried to do too much in one go. I remember when KDE 4 was supposed to be a short release cycle that was nothing but a straight port to Qt 4. Somehow they decided to totally rewrite everything important and invent major new subsystems that everything critical is based upon — while porting to Qt 4 at the same time! There is simply no way a step that large is compatible with "Release often" or "Listen to your customers", because it's an incredible amount of work just to remain where you are.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
No seriously, by now there are sooo many programs for KDE for every possible use. I just checked for a gui program for creating bibtex files: kbibtex was the first one I stumbled over. KDE 4 will run under OSX as well as Windows. Personally I also dislike the MS Office / OpenOffice.org approach to Office tasks. OpenOffice.org might be great for people coming from MS Office, but I rather like the KOffice way of doing stuff. Though there are a couple features I am still missing.
The user also doesn't care about the os their programs and their guis are running on. They only care about what they are looking at while using the programs they want to use. So I think it is rather KDE vs. Gnome vs. Luna vs. (whatever Apple calls their desktop) vs. "that new thing in Vista.
Yes. It does.
I loved Gnome back in the days of 1.4, which was the last good version in my book.
Ever since 2.0, Gnome has started turning into a confining environment, restricting more choices with every release.
First they made a new window manager; I'm sorry, but until this day I don't see what Metacity has that Sawfish did not. But I immediately noticed all the options it did not have.
Then they started dropping options from various configuration dialogs, basically turning applications from tweakable tools to one-size-fits-no-one crap.
I know I'm not the only one who hates what Gnome is turning into, and while I do keep trying out different UIs (and I'm very partial to E17, BTW), KDE 4 may prove to be interesting and comfortable enough for me to convert.
Then again, I'm less likely to mind the "yeah, sorry, we haven't had the time to implemet $OPTION properly, but we'll have it in the next version" attitude than the "it was confusing some users, so we removed it" one.
Ignore this signature. By order.
KDE developers did state that.
Quote:
# KDE 4.0 is only expected to be used by early adopters, not every KDE 3.5 user (and IMHO KDE 4.0 shouldn't be pushed onto other user types like planned for Kubuntu ShipIt [btw said to have only 6 months support for its packages]).
# KDE 4.1 development will not require the same amount of time as the big technology jump 4.0, expect 4.1 later this year.
Erik Dalén
4.0 to port, 4.1, 4.2 to stabilize, 4.3 major rework, 4.4 -4.6 to stabilize
For end user products it makes more sense to have a change, and stabilize model (what kde have done) than a constant change model (kernel), so given that big changes are a must its best to fit them into this model instead of wedge them in to produce a never finishing product.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Windows Vista = ~200.00 USD Visual Studio Express 2008 - 0.00 USD
I personally haven't tried Gnome much. Everytime I wanted to use it, I felt like my productivity is being hindered.
All my friends have used KDE exclusively. Those who know, install kde as first thing when they get Ubuntu. Those who know more, install kubuntu.
Ofcourse there are people using Gnome, and rise in Ubuntu means a lot for Gnome users, but look at these results from linuxquestions.org:
1) http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/2006-linuxquestions.org-members-choice-awards-76/desktop-environment-of-the-year-514945/
2) http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/2005-linuxquestions.org-members-choice-awards-69/desktop-environment-of-the-year-409028/
3) http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/2004-linuxquestions.org-members-choice-awards-62/desktop-environment-of-the-year-272100/
4) http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/lq-suggestions-and-feedback-7/2003-linuxquestions.org-members-choice-award-winners-133391/
5) http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/2001-linuxquestions.org-members-choice-awards-winners-15903/?highlight=LinuxQuestions.org+Members+Choice+Awards
KDE all the way.
Are you saying I am not the only one who feels that way? I liked gnome 1.4 It could be configured to how YOU wanted it as a desktop. It also played nice with most window mangers (at that time). I wonder if the code base could be updated.
I just got this response from OO.org for a bug I filed. I'll check when I next upgrade but in common with most users don't have time to "upgrade and see if it's still an issue".
Then again, I'm less likely to mind the "yeah, sorry, we haven't had the time to implemet $OPTION properly, but we'll have it in the next version" attitude than the "it was confusing some users, so we removed it" one.
That's the key right there. Features missing in KDE 4.0 aren't there because although the devs tried their best, they just didn't have time to add everything. Most of these features will be added back in due course.
Their naming convention for version numbers is know, and has been discussed to death on Slashdot everytime someone says KDE 4.0
I am no fan of KDE 4.0 myself. I have been hearing the hype about it since what, end of 2004? That is 3 years ago. They had something on kde-look.org where users will be posting mockups of what they want and other users would look and say, wow, KDE 4 is going to be so great. They promised Kopete which will have proxy support (WTH is it not a priority for Thiego is something I could never understand. Long time ago he said he has already written a report. One time he scolded another user to write the code himself...). Oxygen was something so "secret" than looking at it would destroy your experience!!!!111!!
But the thing is, they are still following their release cycle, much the same way enlightenment is following its own. They did this when they released 3.0. Until they changed the process for 4.0 specifically, you cannot blame them.
But I kind of agree to you. They are hell bent on marketing for some reason, and getting the bugs fixed for core libraries is just a PITA even now.
Good thing he didn't use the Microsoft speech recognition software, or he wouldn't have spoken to Kuegler, but Freddy who hangs around on Elm Street.
Carbon based humanoid in training.
Sure, if you're a hobbyist that'll be enough. But no serious software development company uses Visual Studio Express. Then if you're building a big projects you need access to libraries, and you'll have to buy software components to accomplish certain tasks.
So yes, if you're wanting to write a little shareware utility, then Windows will be a cheaper target (not to mention that there is about zero point in writing that kind of stuff for Linux), but if you're at all serious about getting into the business, the development overhead is insignificant and about equal on the various platforms. If you're paying for Qt then you get cross platform compatibility and integration for free. If you really can't stand it, then use wxWidgets or C# or XUL or something. It will still run just fine in a KDE desktop.
I've got to agree... 4.0 really disappointed me. I guess it's a balancing act -- do you delay the release and risk people losing interest, or do you release unfinished product and risk people getting a bad impression? Personally, I wish they would have waited. I looked at 4.0 and there's some cool stuff in there, but it's definitely not good enough for me to use regularly. I would have gone to check out 4.0 even if it came out in January of 2009 instead of January of 2008.
What features is VSX 2008 missing?
A friend tells me that Visual C++ Express has no Windows app library support (MFC, ATL) or resource editors, and also no 64 bit compiler. Also something about debugging and breakpoints being crippled?
Visual Studio Express consists of the following separate products: * Visual Basic (.NET) 2008 Express Edition * Visual C# 2008 Express Edition * Visual C++ 2008 Express Edition * Visual Web Developer 2008 Express Edition * SQL Server 2008 Express Edition (to be released in the first half of 2008) Microsoft Visual J# 2005 was not updated for this release and is currently not planned. The version shipping with Visual Studio 2005 will be supported until 2015 as per the product life-cycle strategy. [edit] Visual Basic Express Despite the fact that it is a stripped-down version of Visual Studio, some improvements were made upon Visual Basic 2008 from Visual Basic 2005. Visual Basic 2008 Express includes the following improvements over Visual Basic 2005 Express: * Includes the visual Windows Presentation Foundation designer codenamed "Cider" * Debugs at runtime * Better IntelliSense support o Fixes common spelling errors o Corrects most invalid syntax o Provides suggestions to class names when specified classes are not found The Express Edition has the following limitations:[2] * No IDE support for databases other than SQL Server Express and Microsoft Access * No support for Web Applications with ASP.NET (this can instead be done with Visual Web Developer Express, though the non-Express version of Visual Basic allows both web and windows applications from the same IDE) * No support for developing for mobile devices (no templates or emulator) * No Crystal Reports * Fewer project templates (e.g. Windows services template, Excel Workbook template) * Limited options for debugging and breakpoints. [edit] Visual Web Developer Express The Visual Web Developer Express is a freeware web development tool that allows developers to evaluate the web development and editing capabilities of the other Visual Studio 2008 editions at no charge. Its main function is to create ASP.NET websites. It has a WYSIWYG interface, drag-and-drop user interface designer; enhanced HTML & code editors; a (limited) database explorer; support for other web technologies (e.g., CSS, JavaScript, XML); and integrated, design-time validation for standards including XHTML 1.0/1.1 and CSS 2.1. Visual Web Developer 2008 Express includes a new integrated HTML designer based on Microsoft Expression Web. Being an Express IDE, it lacks certain features, such as the Accessibility Checker, the ability to create standalone Class Library Projects (which can be done by the other language-specific Express Editions), the extensibility support necessary to load third-party add-ins and macros and some other features. [3] [edit] Visual C++ Express Due to the popularity of this freeware compiler, numerous popular programming libraries have been or are being modified to compile under this, including Irrlicht and Valve's Source engine.[citation needed] The Visual C++ 2008 Express Edition can be used to compile .NET as well as Win32 applications immediately after installation. However, natively compiling 64-bit applications through the IDE is not supported. If the freely available Windows SDK is installed, 64-bit applications can be built on the command line using the x64 cross-compiler (Cl.exe) supplied with the SDK. [4]
Visual C++ 2008 Express does not include MFC, ATL, OpenMP support, or 64-bit compilers, nor does it include a resource editor. The higher-end commercial editions of Visual Studio, specifically the Professional and Team Suite editions have these features.[5]
[edit] Visual C# Express
The list of breakpoints where the user could control the breakpoint features has been removed, so that now the user can only toggle breakpoints.
The following refactoring modes were also removed:[6]
* Encapsulate field
* Promote local to parameter
* Reorder parameters
* Remove parameters
* Extract interface
This effectively reduces the refactoring capabilities of Visual C# Express to Renaming and Extracting Methods.
Developers state the reason o
Trying that again.
.NET as well as Win32 applications immediately after installation. However, natively compiling 64-bit applications through the IDE is not supported. If the freely available Windows SDK is installed, 64-bit applications can be built on the command line using the x64 cross-compiler (Cl.exe) supplied with the SDK. [4]
Visual Studio Express consists of the following separate products:
* Visual Basic (.NET) 2008 Express Edition
* Visual C# 2008 Express Edition
* Visual C++ 2008 Express Edition
* Visual Web Developer 2008 Express Edition
* SQL Server 2008 Express Edition (to be released in the first half of 2008)
Microsoft Visual J# 2005 was not updated for this release and is currently not planned. The version shipping with Visual Studio 2005 will be supported until 2015 as per the product life-cycle strategy.
[edit] Visual Basic Express
Despite the fact that it is a stripped-down version of Visual Studio, some improvements were made upon Visual Basic 2008 from Visual Basic 2005. Visual Basic 2008 Express includes the following improvements over Visual Basic 2005 Express:
* Includes the visual Windows Presentation Foundation designer codenamed "Cider"
* Debugs at runtime
* Better IntelliSense support
o Fixes common spelling errors
o Corrects most invalid syntax
o Provides suggestions to class names when specified classes are not found
The Express Edition has the following limitations:[2]
* No IDE support for databases other than SQL Server Express and Microsoft Access
* No support for Web Applications with ASP.NET (this can instead be done with Visual Web Developer Express, though the non-Express version of Visual Basic allows both web and windows applications from the same IDE)
* No support for developing for mobile devices (no templates or emulator)
* No Crystal Reports
* Fewer project templates (e.g. Windows services template, Excel Workbook template)
* Limited options for debugging and breakpoints.
[edit] Visual Web Developer Express
The Visual Web Developer Express is a freeware web development tool that allows developers to evaluate the web development and editing capabilities of the other Visual Studio 2008 editions at no charge. Its main function is to create ASP.NET websites.
It has a WYSIWYG interface, drag-and-drop user interface designer; enhanced HTML & code editors; a (limited) database explorer; support for other web technologies (e.g., CSS, JavaScript, XML); and integrated, design-time validation for standards including XHTML 1.0/1.1 and CSS 2.1. Visual Web Developer 2008 Express includes a new integrated HTML designer based on Microsoft Expression Web.
Being an Express IDE, it lacks certain features, such as the Accessibility Checker, the ability to create standalone Class Library Projects (which can be done by the other language-specific Express Editions), the extensibility support necessary to load third-party add-ins and macros and some other features. [3]
[edit] Visual C++ Express
Due to the popularity of this freeware compiler, numerous popular programming libraries have been or are being modified to compile under this, including Irrlicht and Valve's Source engine.[citation needed]
The Visual C++ 2008 Express Edition can be used to compile
Visual C++ 2008 Express does not include MFC, ATL, OpenMP support,
I remember when I first started playing with Linux. I wanted to use KDE 2. So I had to download it and install it myself. This was when you installed Linux and got a command prompt. Of course, this was after I defragged my Windows 3.1 pagefile and used FIPS to partition the drive. I was proud of myself that I got it to work.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
... which is why many people here bitch about them releasing the 4.0 version.
While I do understand the sentiment, I feel this release was kind of jumping in the cold water — not very pleasant, but now it's done, it had to be done either way, and let's please move on. The product is here, bugs are being taken care of, features are being added, just keep swimming... You had been warned anyway.
Ignore this signature. By order.
You listed some of them. But also reusable software components on windows need to be purchased. You get all the KDE libraries for free once you have a Qt license. MFC and its ilk are not comparable, so then you have to go to .NET which brings its own set of restrictions. Just look at software development companies and see how much professional tools cost.
Right, I was only speaking to the C++ part of VS. But it looks like there's a whole bunch of crippled stuff. Still, it's probably enough for small projects and learning, which is just what MS intended it for.
Well, the move to qt4 was the perfect opportunity to bring change, all the apps had to do a rewrite anyway.
And the KDE4.0 release _is_ stable, for the core libraries. As the developers have said again and again.
Did you even read what you wrote?
Mac costs a Mac, and Windows costs a Windows license. So that's an up-front cost right there, unless you already have both. In addition, Windows, at least, is going to cost you Visual Studio, and KDE/Qt is hardly the only framework that will cost you money.
And you can always use Python -- if I remember, the Python-Qt bindings don't require that your Python app be GPL'd. Or you can use any of the other toolkits for Linux, or write your own.
However, depending on how popular your commercial app is, you have to consider TCO here. How much is it going to cost you to license Qt, versus how much development time will it save you? Adobe, Skype, Opera, et al seem happy with it. What's your hangup?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Its the libraries which are mostly finished.
;)
The actual bits of the UI are actively being developed.
I like being on the bleeding edge and its stable enough for me.
Few graphic glitches and stuff like that but nothing really bad.
Okular makes it all worth while.
Fact is, you can configure KDE to work pretty much the way GNOME does, if you really want to.
The reverse is not true. Maybe the GNOME people have better defaults, according to you. But they have a nasty habit of removing functionality because it might confuse someone. Classic example: In KDE, I can configure what clicking my title-bar does. Or double-click, or middle-click, or right-click, or mouse-wheel. In GNOME, well...
Here, Linus said it best.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Microsoft didn't really mess up with Vista, at least not in the way you said. Their goal is to get people to pay for the upgrade and new installs of their OS. Though they may not have the adoption level they wanted, eventually many people will likely upgrade to Vista or buy a new computer with Vista. (Sad but true) Either way Microsoft has their money, even if those people decide to go with XP. I've heard some noise about people switching to nonMS OSes, but I doubt Joe User even knows any reason to choose something besides Microsoft, so he will just buy whatever is put in front of him. ...and with the DRM, Vista has a good lock in strategy too. Maybe DRM will die, like most other severe copy protection, but who can say.
As for KDE 4.0, there is always room for improvement. I personally think both Gnome and KDE suck bad, but I have been using a few KDE apps lately. If they just make things more efficient, I might reconsider and use KDE more. I haven't tried 4.0, but it sounded like they were going in the right directon...however, I don't like how they basicly built the whole thing to be a clone of the horrid Win98. Isn't there a better model for the core structure of a GUI?
I have been using Debian's experimental packages.
I miss being surprised by new features like this after a daily compile.
A similar thing happened with FreeBSD 4->5. FreeBSD 4 was at some point the fastest, most stable and most administratively sane operating system for the x86. Linux 2.4 was already ahead in SMP scalability, but since this did not affect many users back then, not many people cared.
Then FreeBSD 5 was planned to include a major architecture shift to modern parallel programming, which required changing almost all of the kernel code sooner or later. FreeBSD 5 was downright unusuable until the 5.3 "stable" release, which was tolerable but still performed a lot *worse* than FreeBSD 4 for many workloads because it was half way between the very well optimized uniprocessor code and the very raw and experimental multiprocessor code.
FreeBSD 5 was looking so bad even early on, that Matthew Dillon predicted (incorrectly) that it would become unmaintainable and fail to modernize to new usages. He forked FreeBSD 4.8 into DragonFly BSD, and developed it with more clever, innovative and forward-thinking designs.
However, FreeBSD 6 and finally FreeBSD 7 polished things up to the point that a slightly reconfigured FreeBSD 7.0-rc1 will compete with and often outperform Linux 2.6.22 for database throughput, with comparable responsiveness to CFS in 2.6.24. FreeBSD 7 is stable and fast, and still includes as many features as the old FreeBSDs did, including running well on old hardware. FreeBSD 7 humiliates the current DragonFly (and in fact, all of the BSDs) in throughput and scalability alike. Here, have some numbers: http://www.slideshare.net/sim303/7020-preview/
An exceptionally bad 5.x branch did not kill FreeBSD. So I don't suppose KDE 4.0 will kill KDE either, or even significantly reduce its mindshare. Especially if 4.1 comes out by the end of the year and improves significantly, KDE might gain even more adoption than it has now in 3.5.
Sam ty sig.
In a time when companies are trying to patent a mouse click, I wonder at why MS never patented the Task Bar. That is, "an interactive strip, positioned on the desktop, displaying running programs and facilitating control over program windows" or something like that.
Sounds like something that could have been be patented, since (I assume) MS first came up with it, for Windows 95.
Mod Parent Up! Mod Parent Up!
I used to love KDE (v3 this is) but I found myself constantly redesigning and reworking my desktop layout, themes etc. because I could be happy with what I had.
After a while I figured out that KDE itself just lacks any artistic style at all, and no matter how much work you put into it, it doesn't look good.
There are a few reasons for this:
1) Everything is too big. Way too big. GNOME is the master of unobtrusive interfaces (which is exactly what an interface should be), but KDE give me a 64 pixel high bar at the bottom with all sorts of gizmos attached. When you shrink these down to a sane size, you quickly discover that KDE does not scale well to small sizes, and many of the applets begin to look cramped or strange. Fonts, buttons, widgets and icons are also, by default, too big. When I have a 1280x1024 screen I don't want most of it taken up with non-application content.
2) Menus, menus, menus, menus - Practically all the functions for an application can be found in huge menus that take up most of your screen. A couple of additional toolbars or maybe some dialogs would help in the application design.
3) Widget Spacing - No GNOME app ever seems to have difficulty with this, but KDE seems to fail horribly. GTK has default settings that allow you to space widgets not only evenly, but also with decent amounts of padding and spacing that remain even across the application. Qt must lack this sort of thing because Dolphin, Konqueror and amaroK (for example) lacks sufficient widget spacing.
4) Whoever made their icon theme was on crack - Everaldo's Crystal theme was (in my opinion) ugly as hell, and shiny for the sake of it (I much prefer matte icons), but at least it was consistent. Oxygen just sucks.
5) All the Qt skins suck, and I think we should be blaming Qt itself for this - hell, even Klearlook doesn't look as good as GNOME's Clearlooks, despite the obvious thematic similarity.
GNOME offers clearlooks (and its derivatives), tango icons, and a decent set of theming. Post-2.0 it has become alot more configurable (in fact there is little that I can't change in GNOME that I can in KDE3, and my GNOME is more customizable than KDE4)
Remember: I want my computer to be good and functional, and its interface needs to unobtrusively shift into the background while I'm working - I don't want to be distracted by this cool new skin or these fancy icons or desktop widgets. KDE had this simplicity in 2.0, and they've gone downhill ever since.
It is, as a friend of mine called it, "programmer's work". They have taken a perfectly decent looking DE and turned it into something only a programmer can produce.
GNOME is a dream by comparison.
That said, as Sebastian points out, expecting feature parity in a point zero release is hardly justified. We shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking we'll know our way around immediately, either. For example, dragging and dropping widgets onto the panel after removing one too many was non-obvious to me at first, but the elegance of it becomes one of those all-too-familiar epiphanies that makes you wonder how you managed to get confused at all. I'm still undecided on the new Kickoff menu, though. I can see me removing that and putting the traditional K menu launcher in its place. Fortunately, that functionality is there in the initial release. Oxygen is stunning, Dolphin looks promising (but I'll be keeping Konq, simply because it's what I'm used to) and even little things like the default wallpapers seem well thought out.
All in all, not a bad point zero at all. Certainly, given the complexity of KDE, a success in anyone's book.
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
Stats are a funny thing. For example, the 2007 Desktop Linux survey showed more people using GNOME than KDE.
:P)), so I can't really put a lot of stock in your anecdotal evidence, either.
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS8454912761.html
I know way more GNOME users than KDE users (I prefer GNOME myself (I guess I don't know
Meh, just use whatever you prefer.
The "release early, release often" mantra is great for developers, but potentially terrible for end users.
If I evaluate KDE 4.0 with developer's eyes, I see a ton of potential, and I KNOW it will be incredible in a year or so. But as an end user? It's appallingly incomplete.
This should have definitely been marked "for developers only", but the KDE team were so eager to make their already-rescheduled deadline that they seem to have said "fuck it" and released anyway. When your release comes with "reviewer reminders", you know something's wrong.
Why, have I just been honoured by a reply by Miguel de Icaza himself? Looking at your profile, I'd guess not, but a nice troll anyway.
FWIW, if backgrounds and colour schemes were all there is to desktop environments, we'd all still be using fvwm, which I recall as being way better than Metacity.
And while I haven't used Gnome in quite a while, I don't recall being able to put different background images on different viewports, which is a very quick and convenient way of telling them apart visually. Not since 2.0, anyway.
Thanks for reminding me.
Ignore this signature. By order.