A Screenshot Review of KDE 4

billybob2 writes "PolishLinux.org has an extensive screenshot review and commentary on the development version of the Free and Open Source KDE desktop. Highlights include the ability to run any desktop applet prepared for Mac OS X inside Plasma, on-the-fly annotation and rating of files from within the Dolphin file manager. It also has an improved GUI for the Amarok music player, flexible 3D eye candy configuration in KWin, and improved support for both accessing digital cameras via the Solid hardware layer and the DigiKam photo manager."

Comments

Poor server

[DaveV1.0]

It's a smoldering ruin and not a single post.

Re:Poor server

[cgenman]

Does anyone else find this image ironic?

http://www.chriscanfield.net/Offsite/slashdoterror.gif

It's like heading out on a romantic interlude while whispering "my wife will never find us here." This page simply could not have been served, by basic comedy rules of the universe.

Re:Poor server

[Nitewing98]

Seems to be /.'d as of 3am CDT.

Re:Poor server

[Two9A]

And now, of course, in a recursive Slashdot effect of doom, the server hosting that error GIF is a smouldering ruin.

Good attempt, though ;)

Re:Poor server

[cgenman]

I should have seen that one coming from a mile off. I pretty much painted a target at it and sang the ancient Danish love song "I would like a good trampling and your mother is fat."

Re:Poor server

[caluml]

I'm sure you're a nice guy, and all, but no, it's not ironic. The performance alluded to is within KDE 4, not the web + sql server combo Polish Linux is using.

"Error establishing a database connection"

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the oddest screenshot I have ever seen. Is the applet that it is running designed to fail to establish a database connection?

Re:"Error establishing a database connection"

[gardyloo]

Now that KDE4 runs on Windows too, I don't see why you have to *duck* :)

Expecting more..

[LingNoi]

...from the first April 1st news post on Slashdot this year..

Re:Expecting more..

[Brian Gordon]

3 more hours until 4/1 sweeps across America..

Re:Expecting more..

[Kelson]

Yeah, but in the past they've started at midnight GMT.

Remember OMG Ponies?

Re:Expecting more..

[T-Bone-T]

That was really funny! I definitely remember that!

Re:Expecting more..

[Scottar]

I don't know if I can handle that again. If this years topic is Lolcats then I'm going to have to top myself

Re:Expecting more..

[r_jensen11]

I don't know if I can handle that again. If this years topic is Lolcats then I'm going to have to top myself No need to worry. I'm predicting a resurgance of goatse

Re:Expecting more..

[bcmm]

Ssh. The screenshots probably all show a tasteless pink theme with default "Pony" backgrounds.

Seems to be up now.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

But here's the coral cache link to save their server...

Re:Seems to be up now.

[spacefiddle]

nyud.net = smoldering ruin in T-minus 5, 4, 3...

Re:Seems to be up now.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

I'd like to see some originality, but once again OSS disappoints.

If you want to see where OS X has borrowed from OSS, simply look at spaces (predated by Virtual Desktops), Dashboard (predated by Konfabulator), Spotlight (predated by Beagle), etc.

I'd like to see some OS X fanboys who have a clue about the way OS development works; hint: all the majors copy concepts from each other & rarely come up with original features (they mostly come from research projects), but once again, Apple fanboy disappoints.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[TheSpengo]

Google cache works too.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

But, "Dashboard (predated by Konfabulator)" ... I seem to remember 1984, which might be a little bit before your time. They both seem to look a little bit like Desk Accessories don'tyathink?

No. I don't think Dashboard is anything like Desk Accessories - the only similarity between the two is that they're both small apps.

And Beagle? Apple hired Dominic Giampaolo in early 2002, who knows if he started working on Spotlight right from the get-go?

Oh FFS. Do you think you're adding anything to your case by speculating that Apple may have been developing Spotlight prior to Beagle's first alpha?

Even if you had concrete evidence rather than pointless speculation, you'd still not have shown Apple to be the innovator - how about this from 1987.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[dh003i]

No, you're wrong! Apple invented everything good and pure in the OS world. They invented the GUI, not Xerox. And they invented computer cases with front vents to provide for better cooling, not companies in the server market, or even (gasp!) Gateway in 2001 with their old computers. Apple also invented hot-swapping -- err, no, it's called slide-in storage. Apple invented memory riser cards. Apple invented columnar file-browsing. And Apple invented the dock. It's all about Apple, Apple, Apple. ;-)

Re:Seems to be up now.

[dosius]

You prolly *can* run xfce on OSX. Might need to compile it though.

-uso.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[IntlHarvester]

Desk Accessories were a particular kludge because the Mac couldn't multitask. The idea of quickly pulling up a calculator or notepad wasn't invented by Apple.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh, I keep seeing this time and time again. Spaces? That's a given and a total rip off, I'll agree. But, "Dashboard (predated by Konfabulator)" ... I seem to remember 1984, which might be a little bit before your time. They both seem to look a little bit like Desk Accessories don'tyathink? And time and time again, Apple apologists keep bringing up Desk Accessories as if it's basically the same thing as Konfabulator/Dashboard. (It's not.) Desk Accessories was a hack to get quasi-multitasking (special small apps only) in a singletasking OS (early Mac OS). Desk Accessories was phased out when Mac OS became a multitasking OS because this hack was no longer needed.

OTOH, Konfabulator and Dashboard are basically the same freakin' thing. They're both a runtime engine for creating/running markup-based (e.g. XML, HTML) mini-programs (widgets) with JavaScript code. The format for creating widgets is open and users can create their own widgets which they can share on Konfabulator/Dashboard widget sites.

Dashboard was so much different (and more significant) than Desk Accessories that Steve Jobs introduced Dashboard at the World Wide Developers Conference. Many developers in attendence were confused because Jobs seemed to be describing Konfabulator, which already existed and Jobs pretended didn't exist.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[iminplaya]

They invented the GUI, not Xerox.

"I was the Walrus - Paul wasn't the Walrus! I was just saying that to be nice, but I was actually the Walrus!"

Re:Seems to be up now.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

If you're going to claim that Dashboard is a ripoff of Konfabulator,

No, I didn't claim that - I said Konfabulator predates Dashboard.

then it's utterly disingenuous to claim that K-ator is not a "ripoff" of Desk Accessories in exactly the same sense. To anyone with a functioning brain, K-ator is much more similar to Desk Accessories than to Dashboard. If you disagree, I invite you to explain why rather than trotting out troll talking points.

Konfabulator could fetch information from a network & was easy to develop for, but again - I don't claim that anything's ripping off anything.

And Spotlight a ripoff of Beagle? A laughable, intentional lie. Again, if those two are similar enough to call Spotlight a "ripoff", then Beagle is a ripoff of every indexed search project since 1935.

But I do think Beagle has borrowed from every indexed search project since 1935 - I even said (in the post you're replying to): "

all the majors [os makers] copy concepts from each other & rarely come up with original features (they mostly come from research projects)"

Sorry fanboy. You're wrong.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[ruyon]

Just nitpicking, but Konfabulator was a shareware, not OSS. Spotlight was predated by Sherlock 2 which was released as a part of Mac OS 8.5, years before beagle's 0.0.0 release.

I agree with your point, Apple 'borrows' ideas and code from anywhere regardless of their origins, but at least get the facts straight and don't guess if you really don't know. It only undermines your claim.

and Apple usually does it right more often than others when it comes to UI.

You can call me an Apple fanboy.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Just nitpicking, but Konfabulator was a shareware, not OSS. Spotlight was predated by Sherlock 2 which was released as a part of Mac OS 8.5, years before beagle's 0.0.0 release.

You are correct about Konfabulator, but I'm not sure Sherlock 2 is a good example - its indexing wasn't really any different to AppleSearch (did it search your browser history, mail, pdf content - ie all things we mean when we refer to 'desktop search' apps?).

FWIW, I don't think Beagle started the desktop search frenzy - all desktop search apps are a natural evolution of indexed search going waaaaaaaaaay back to at least the early 90s

I agree with your point, Apple 'borrows' ideas and code from anywhere regardless of their origins, but at least get the facts straight and don't guess if you really don't know. It only undermines your claim.

My point is that everyone 'borrows' ideas (not code) from anywhere regardless of their origins. I used Apple to make that point.

and Apple usually does it right more often than others when it comes to UI.

They do - particularly with integration.

You can call me an Apple fanboy.

No way - you're far to reasonable to be a true Apple fanboy - try again with more mouth-frothiness.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[Al Dimond]

FVWM a clone of Win95? This shit is getting modded up?

There was an inexplicably popular mod of FVWM called FVWM95 that tried to emulate the Windows 95 GUI. FVWM unless similarly modified isn't going to look like MacOS at all. Maybe someone has done that? If so, I've never heard of it. I doubt it represents the majority of FVWM users today, at any rate. FVWM is highly modular and ridiculously flexible (without recompiling it can be made to emulate the major functionality of just about any other window manager), but without very heavy customization it shows mostly influences from various early Unix window managers.

Yeah, the whole GNUStep project was out to clone NextStep. And a lot of the ideas for KDE and Gnome are inspired by the very successful GUIs of Windows and Mac computers. If you're going to accuse FVWM of copying something, though, your list shouldn't be Windows and Mac, it should be TWM and Emacs.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[HTRednek]

KDE predates OSX and that Vista thing, As if there are things that don't predate that Vista thing... Ok, I guess there's the requirement for obscene amounts of storage (both in Memory and Hard Disk) just for the operating system. It seems that whenever Micro$haft announces a new release, you pretty much need to take the top system requirements of today and double them just to meet the new minimum requirements. (Boy, the memory manufacturers must love them...) However, to stay on topic, KDE is making significant strides, and I prefer the look of KDE 3 or 4 to that stupid foot thingy...

Re:Seems to be up now.

[MichaelSmith]

fvwm = Win95 back in the day, now more like Mac OS.

FVWM is configurable to the point where it can look, or not look, like pretty much any desktop environment you want to name. There have been windows 95 setups for it but thats not the fault of fvwm itself.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[MichaelSmith]

Its a fair bet that code from fvwm was used in most subsequent window manager projects. While it is still my environment of choice for serious workstations I think it serves as kind of a living code library for others to use.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[hotfireball]

If you want to see where OS X has borrowed from OSS, simply look at spaces (predated by Virtual Desktops), Dashboard (predated by Konfabulator), Spotlight (predated by Beagle), etc.

The point is who actually get it right...

Re:Seems to be up now.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

The point is who actually get it right...

The context of the discussion is innovation, not who got it right. Taking someone elses idea & putting it in your OS is called integration, not innovation.

However, Konfabulator got it right - or do you disagree?

Re:Seems to be up now.

[not flu]

The point is who actually get it right... Virtual Desktops were got "right" long before Apple copied the concept. Personally I always hated Dashboard/Konfabulator/etc. but I guess it doesn't bother me since I don't have to use it. I was playing with a friend's macbook with OS X 10.5 earlier this winter. Spotlight managed to freeze the whole machine to the point where a forced reboot was the only way out in less than 15 minutes. I'll just stick to normal searching and QuickSilver, thanks. For an example of Apple getting something right, how about Exposé?

Re:Seems to be up now.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If you want to see where OS X has borrowed from OSS, simply look at spaces (predated by Virtual Desktops), Dashboard (predated by Konfabulator), Spotlight (predated by Beagle), etc.

I think it is pretty clear that Apple has been listening to their user base, many of who are old Linux/UNIX users (as well as a good chunk of new employees) and implementing things people miss from other platforms. Apple has also done some serious innovating in OS X: expose, ubiquitous zeroconf, system services, launchd, etc. What I find interesting is that major Linux developers don't copy those features from OS X. I have several theories as to why this is.

• It may be that most of these features are useful for a desktop OS, and most linux developers are focused on Linux as a server and, in fact, will try to block anything not useful for use as a server because for their purpose it just adds bloat and/or instability.
• Linux desktop developers may have never used OS X and are unaware of what these features are or how they work. Many Linux users who do use OS X, seem to become switchers and no longer need to scratch that itch since they get the features just by using OS X.
• Linux desktop developers have a Not Invented Here syndrome and are not willing to even consider technologies from Apple, instead concentrating only on Windows as an alternative they need to keep up with.
• Many of these features are major architectural changes and/or are not backwards compatible and it may be that no one Linux distro has enough momentum that it can make such major moves that might make it less compatible with other versions of Linux and attempts at advocating such standards via groups that span distros is simply too complicated. Linux has no Steve Jobs to make a decision and push it through (which is very good in some cases and very bad in others).

I'd like to see some OS X fanboys who have a clue about the way OS development works; hint: all the majors copy concepts from each other & rarely come up with original features (they mostly come from research projects)

Some of those research projects are internal to a given OS vendor. In any case, there is a difference between copying a unproved new technology from a research project and copying a mainstream feature in use from another major OS. The latter takes less effort and is less risky.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[yo_tuco]

"Spotlight - Fucking utter crap. Why can't it show WHERE files reside? "

It DOES via Finder. The problem is the thing between the chair and the keyboard.

Finder->Veiw->Show Path Bar

At the bottom of the window is your path when using Finder and when using Spotlight, click on the file of interest and it will show the path too.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[godawful]

Finally, _someone_ who gets it!! ;)

Re:Seems to be up now.

[dubbreak]

They invented the GUI, not Xerox.
I assume by Xerox you are referring to the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), which was staffed by a bunch of Stanford Research Institute people (their funding was drying up). SRI is the home of the mouse and they pioneered things such as scrollable windows and remote sessions etc. The term GUI may have been coined or attributed to Xerox, however the original development was elsewhere (SRI).

Re:Seems to be up now.

[prockcore]

They both seem to look a little bit like Desk Accessories don'tyathink?

No. Desk Accessories were small apps that you could run in System ROM. It was a hack to "multitask".. they had to be small because System ROM was non-reentrant. You couldn't call any ROM functions from within a DA.

Desk Accessories have more in common with TSRs than widgets.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[toddestan]

He's essentially correct though, as development stopped once they could do multi-tasking better, rendering it obsolete. The only reason they kept it around until OSX was for backwards compatibility.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[dh003i]

Thanks for the correction, I was thinking I might be a little off on that one.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Apple has also done some serious innovating in OS X: expose, ubiquitous zeroconf, system services, launchd, etc. What I find interesting is that major Linux developers don't copy those features from OS X. [emph mine]

Let's have a look at your examples.

Zeroconf - Avahi
Expose - Kompose
System services - errr, that's been replaced by Launchd on your list.
Launchd - ReplacementInit - Considered Apple's LaunchD and Sun's SMF amongst others, but none were quite the right fit.

I have several theories as to why this is.

Out of the three feature examples you've given, two are implemented in linux, your premise is incorrect, your theories are utter bollocks.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Sigh. Why is explaining deficiencies in Linux like pulling teeth? Seriously, why are Linux users in general so opposed to understanding ways someone else has done better and trying to improve based upon them? I'll go through your bullet points one by one.

Zeroconf - Avahi

Yes, there are certainly zeroconf implementations on Linux. My point was "ubiquitous zeroconf." You now what 'ubiquitous' means, right? Both Pidgin and Kopete support zeroconf for discovering local chat clients. Aside from that and a general zeroconf browser in Ubuntu, they don't make use of zeroconf for much of anything else. They don't use it to discover terminal servers or remote GUI sessions or shared streaming music. Niether Ubuntu or Kubuntu finds my printer, despite it advertising itself via zeroconf. About the only Linux distro I know of that makes what I'd refer to as ubiquitous use of zeroconf is the XO laptop. Seriously, all major Linux distros I've used have ignored the potential uses. I don't even know of a multi-user text editor that uses zeroconf on Linux. For servers, I can see firewalling it off by default, but for the average desktop, on the local network, it makes sense for the huge functionality win.

Expose - Kompose

Yes, somebody cloned Expose for KDE. It even works fairly well (at least on my Kubuntu box). I still had to go out and search for it and then add the package by hand. That simply isn't going to happen for most Linux newbies, or even Linux users who haven't seen it on OS X. It is nice that I can add such a thing, but this does nothing to convince me the Linux on the desktop developers are willing to adopt real innovations from OS X. Ask me again when it is enabled by default on a major distro.

System services - errr, that's been replaced by Launchd on your list.

You see. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't even know what "system services" are on OS X. How can I believe you are making an informed comparison, when you obviously have never taken the time to learn what OS X's real strengths are. I've had this same conversation with a baker's dozen Linux on the desktop developers. None of them knew what this feature was and once explained they all agreed it would be useful... but too much work to try by themselves.

System services on OS X allow functionality to be offered by plug-ins and applications to other applications, universally, without the developer of the other application doing any additional work. It is how OS X offers system wide functions like spell checking and grammar checking, but also allows the user to add arbitrary functionality on par with those. For example, I long ago added a service to translate between german and english, and now it is a key combo away in my mail client, chat client, and web browser. When I installed Graphviz it offered its service to other applications so in any other program (terminal, textedit, excel) I can just highlight data and hit a key combo and it sicks it into Graphviz and creates a graph of the data, which it loads into my copy/paste buffer. I don't have to bother wasting time opening the program and copying and pasting data and rendering it. I probably use a dozen different system services in my average work day for spelling, grammar, bibliography auto-formatting, dictionary/thesaurus/wikipedia lookup, text manipulation scripts, etc. When I did development work more, I used a different set of them. The whole point is it allows the user to customize the functionality in programs, without having to write any code and recompile, or even have the source to a given application. No Linux distro I've tried comes close and no KParts is not "just as good" or even the same concept.

Launchd - ReplacementInit - Considered Apple's LaunchD and Sun's SMF amongst others, but none were quite the right fit.

Yes, every distro has such a project and as far as I know none of them are compatible (except as backward compatible mode

Re:Seems to be up now.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Let me preface my comment by reminding you that your original line was:

"What I find interesting is that major Linux developers don't copy those features from OS X."

Not:

"What I find interesting is that major Linux developers don't copy those features from OS X - and instantly have working implementations"

Sigh. Why is explaining deficiencies in Linux like pulling teeth?

*sigh* Because some of your deficiencies are imagined. For instance:

Yes, somebody cloned Expose for KDE. It even works fairly well (at least on my Kubuntu box). I still had to go out and search for it and then add the package by hand.

Kompose is only one of the expose-type features on linux. Another is the expose-like feature in Compiz, enabled by default in Ubuntu. Kubuntu is a community-supported distro & doesn't develop as quickly as Ubuntu.

Now, to the rest of your comment.

Yes, there are certainly zeroconf implementations on Linux. My point was "ubiquitous zeroconf." You now what 'ubiquitous' means, right?

So - according to you, 'linux' developers aren't interested in zeroconf, but you even point out in your own post that the XO linux developers do support ubiquitous zeroconf.

You don't even know what "system services" are on OS X.

I misread that as SystemStartup - my apologies, linux indeed does not have something like system services - this is the consequence of being a bazaar rather than cathedral project.

[on Launchd] Yes, every distro has such a project and as far as I know none of them are compatible (except as backward compatible modes) and none of them are finished and in production use in default installs.

Oooookay? Again - you said "What I find interesting is that major Linux developers don't copy those features from OS X." - not "What I find interesting is that major Linux developers don't copy those features from OS X - and instantly have working implementations"

So they're trying to implement it, but thats still not good enough for you.

The closest I''ve actually come to people with real experience using both is from recent switchers to OS X, or people who use Linux as a server

Recent OS X switchers tend to come from Windows via Linux (for a month or two) & don't really have 'real experience' with Linux. People who use Linux on the server? In a desktop software discussion? Yeah they'd know heaps about Avahi & Kompose.

Furthermore, if we're swapping anecdotes, the closest I've come to people with real experience using both are people who actually use both daily. I'm one of them (along with windows).

Yes, OS X & Linux are completely different in their approach & style. Mac's have a single source for hardware & software, which is great for integration, but bad if you want flexibility.

Try pointing out the deficiencies in OS X if you really want to know what pulling teeth feels like.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[hotfireball]

The context of the discussion is innovation, not who got it right. Taking someone elses idea & putting it in your OS is called integration, not innovation.

*sigh*

1. Integration is combining parts so that they work together or form a whole. Nothing common with refactoring the ideas.
2. Virtual desktops: you mean "Stepping Out" feature that has been available in old Mac OS that has been created by Wes Boyd in 1986?
3. Konfabulator: OK, you are one of those, who claims Dashboard is a rip-off, ignoring the fact of different code base, engines and markup. But probably you also have to remember "Desk Accessories" that has been available in Mac OS yet in 1984, and has been written as a device driver, conforming to a particular programming model.

However, Konfabulator got it right - or do you disagree?

I like real WebKit and ability to extend JavaScript with Objective C. The rest you can find here: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10-4.ars/17

Re:Seems to be up now.

[hotfireball]

Virtual Desktops were got "right" long before Apple copied the concept.

Arguable. You dislike Spaces? OK, it is your right. But having everything accessible and visual -- very good idea.

Personally I always hated Dashboard/Konfabulator/etc.

Nobody enforces you to use them.

Spotlight managed to freeze the whole machine to the point where a forced reboot was the only way out in less than 15 minutes.

If I do not own 4 macs and home with Leopard installed, then I would probably believe you. But even on iBook G4 Spotlight works fine. You know, there is a thing, called "index". All you have to do, is to give Spotlight reasonable scope and properly index that. :-)

For an example of Apple getting something right

Everything you can see on desktop. Including your iPod. :-)

Re:Seems to be up now.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Kompose is only one of the expose-type features on linux. Another is the expose-like feature in Compiz, enabled by default in Ubuntu. Kubuntu is a community-supported distro & doesn't develop as quickly as Ubuntu.

Really, you can activate an expose like feature in a default Ubuntu install. Do tell me how, since I recently switched to Ubuntu as my main Linux desktop. What mouse button do you press? What key combo do you press? I saw no mention of this anywhere in the help system and have not yet got around to searching for a 3rd party solution.

So - according to you, 'linux' developers aren't interested in zeroconf, but you even point out in your own post that the XO linux developers do support ubiquitous zeroconf.

XO is not a mainstream Linux distro. None of the major Linux distros has made ubiquitous use of zeroconf. Sure, a few developers on a special project aimed at kids did. Everyone else has largely ignored it. Why isn't it used in Ubuntu and Fedora and Suse? Because most Linux on the desktop developers did not bother to copy OS X in this regard. That is a serious failing. Unless you're suggesting that the XO laptop constitutes a viable choice for me to use as my desktop, my point stands.

I misread that as SystemStartup - my apologies, linux indeed does not have something like system services - this is the consequence of being a bazaar rather than cathedral project.

As I said, there is no one person who can push major changes, so in general they don't happen. This is both a strength and weakness for Linux. Pointing out where it is a weakness should not require me to go through several revisions of comments with people who claim to know enough to compare said strengths and weaknesses.

Oooookay? Again - you said "What I find interesting is that major Linux developers don't copy those features from OS X." - not "What I find interesting is that major Linux developers don't copy those features from OS X - and instantly have working implementations"

The point is, while someone is "working on it" for many major distributions, we have no idea if those projects will ever be integrated into the mainstream distributions. There are 10 projects on sourceforge for every one that becomes usable. It has been 3 years since Apple shipped a working version of LaunchD and made the code available. None of the major Linux distros has managed to copy or create their own and ship it in their stable release. At this point, I have my doubts that any will for a long time.

So they're trying to implement it, but thats still not good enough for you.

That is correct. I want there to be enough linux developers familiar with OS X features such that they realize the advantages of those features and prioritize them. Sadly, I see just the opposite. I know a lot of Linux developers, but a good portion of them now use OS X as their desktop and actually oppose cloning OS X features in Linux, not because they aren't useful (they use them daily) but because they aren't useful for a server, which is what they want to use Linux for.

Recent OS X switchers tend to come from Windows via Linux (for a month or two) & don't really have 'real experience' with Linux.

Yeah, that is not at all my experience. I've spent the last 8 years working in various companies that make heavy use of Linux and *BSD in making servers and routers. 8 years ago I knew one or two Mac users. Last year I left a small company of a few hundred developers and more than half were using OS X as their desktop to develop Linux and software that ran on top of Linux. All of them had significant experience with Linux or we would never have hired them.

Furthermore, if we're swapping anecdotes, the closest I've come to people with real experience using both are people who actually use both daily. I'm one of them (along with windows).

Gee that's gr

Re:Seems to be up now.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Let me summarise the thread for you:

Me: OS makers borrow ideas from each other all the time.
You: Linux only borrows from windows - why doesn't linux borrow ideas from OS X like x, y & z.
Me: But linux does have x, y & z.
You: But they're not implemented everywhere! Turned on by default!
Me: *Shrug* Linux is a little slower - takes a while for the good ideas to percolate down.

I can't really be bothered having a discussion about various features in linux vs OS X. Yes, OS X is superior in many ways to linux, particularly in respects to integration. If that's the point you're trying to make, well done.

Your line however that Linux copies only from Windows & not from OS X however is horseshit - pure & simple. Most of the examples you chose are being implemented by various linux vendors and not one linux vendor is implementing say a windows-style init or vista-style expose.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

1. Integration is combining parts so that they work together or form a whole. Nothing common with refactoring the ideas.

OK, I'll concede that there's some small amount of innovation in taking an idea from somewhere else & integrating it into your product.

2. Virtual desktops: you mean "Stepping Out" feature that has been available in old Mac OS that has been created by Wes Boyd in 1986?

No. Think multiple virtual desktops the same size of your real desktop, rather than a single desktop larger than your real desktop.

The ideas are similar, but neither idea originated from Apple.

3. Konfabulator: OK, you are one of those, who claims Dashboard is a rip-off, ignoring the fact of different code base, engines and markup. But probably you also have to remember "Desk Accessories" that has been available in Mac OS yet in 1984, and has been written as a device driver, conforming to a particular programming model.

As I've stated repeatedly through this thread, I don't think anyone's ripping off anyone - just that Konfabulator predated Dashboard.

As far as Desk Accessories go, from the link you provided:

This misconception [that Konfabulator is actually just a rip-off of Apple's Desk Accessories] stems from the fact that many widgets perform functions similar to those of some well-known Desk Accessories.*snip*

When Konfabulator was introduced, it was (rightfully) seen as a new kind of thing on the Mac platform. *snip*

This couldn't be more different from the "big idea" that spawned Desk accessories. *snip*

While Konfabulator's primary innovation has nothing to do with Desk Accessories, the "big idea" behind both Konfabulator and Dashboard is the same: to provide a runtime environment that enables the creation of simple applications using widely-known "Internet age" technologies: XML, HTML, JavaScript, etc. No compiling is necessary, and widgets have a completely open format that encourages users to learn from the work of others. *snip*

The worst part of the misconception that Konfabulator and Dashboard are both obvious derivatives of Desk Accessories is that it adds nothing to the debate, regardless of its validity. The not-so-hidden agenda of the Desk Accessories connection is that "Apple did it first," therefore Dashboard did not copy Konfabulator.

Your own link disagrees with you fanboy.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[coleridge78]

Heh. I've spent money on exactly three Apple products in my life (a G3 tower ten years ago, an iPod mini, and a nano to replace it so it'd fit in the pocket better). Fanboy, not so much. Just pointing out the facts.

More to the point, saying "I didn't say ripoff, I said predated" is hilariously inept bullshitting. If you didn't mean it was a ripoff, why did you bring it up? What was your point?

Even more to the point, I'll just refer you to this:

http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/dashboard_vs_konfabulator

Try to look at it impartially, without knee-jerking about the author. Honestly, can you dispute anything he says? The only thing that you could even begin to claim Konfabulator introduced to the table was art direction, which itself (rounded corners, drop shadows, etc) was only "new" in this particular micro-niche of software; it's been increasingly commonplace for a decade now.

Again: Konfabulator not only brought nothing new to the table, but wasn't even a new combination of things except the art.

If you can dispute this with facts, I'd be interested, sincerely.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Christ, I can't believe I'm having the same conversation with two different fanbois. Please read the thread before replying again - all of your questions have been answered already. Anyway:

More to the point, saying "I didn't say ripoff, I said predated" is hilariously inept bullshitting

Have you read the thread you're replying to? I was saying that Apple doesn't always invent - sometimes the ideas come from elsewhere. I don't believe any O/S vendors 'rip-off' each other.

Try to look at it impartially, without knee-jerking about the author. Honestly, can you dispute anything he says?

Yes, yes I can. He thinks that that Dashboard / Desk accessories / Konfabulator are the same because they're all small apps. That's bollocks. Konfabulator's value was in using XML / scripting / rendering engine to make writing small, networked applications trivial. Desk Accessories did nothing of the kind.

Read this ars commentry on this issue & see if you can dispute what he says.

Including this gem:

The worst part of the misconception that Konfabulator and Dashboard are both obvious derivatives of Desk Accessories is that it adds nothing to the debate, regardless of its validity. The not-so-hidden agenda of the Desk Accessories connection is that "Apple did it first," therefore Dashboard did not copy Konfabulator, therefore Arlo and Perry have no reason to gripe. [emph mine].

Re:Seems to be up now.

[hotfireball]

As I've stated repeatedly through this thread, I don't think anyone's ripping off anyone - just that Konfabulator predated Dashboard.

My point was that only Apple got it right (well, it is not under context of your thread, but what the hell). E.g. as for an developer, Dashboard is more lovely and better done in its architecture. It is not really cross-platform, but in this case I do not really care. Same with Spaces: the topmost implementation that is actually usable. And yes, you are free to love/hate anything you want (which I do not care at all).

you fanboy.

Nope. Your own webpage says you are. :-)

Re:Seems to be up now.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Let me summarise the thread for you:

Gee, it sure does seem easier for you to make up a fictionalized "summary" of our discussion rather than answer the questions I asked or respond to the many points where you were factually incorrect.

Your line however that Linux copies only from Windows & not from OS X however is horseshit - pure & simple.

I never said "Linux" doesn't copy from OS X. I said Linux on the desktop distributions have not only failed to successfully copy OS X, but in many cases seem to intentionally avoid including such features. I also suggested that OS X developers have done a reasonable job of copying Linux features. I further suggested that most people trying to compare OS X and Linux on features are ignorant of one or the other.

You've done nothing to convince me otherwise, especially given the number of mistakes you've made in trying to assert otherwise and your refusal to back up your assertions. Claiming that "features" which aren't actually able to be used without installing third party software or compiling your own code using experimental projects should "count" is bunk. I don't count third party package managers in OS X's favor, because for the most part they are not very useful (because they are not included by default). The same goes for Linux.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

What you said in your most recent post:

I never said "Linux" doesn't copy from OS X. I said Linux on the desktop distributions have not only failed to successfully copy OS X, but in many cases seem to intentionally avoid including such features.

What you said in your first post:

What I find interesting is that major Linux developers don't copy those features from OS X. I have several theories as to why this is.

And then you have the gall to accuse me of fictionalizing.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[coleridge78]

Except that you skipped the part where he gave an example of another app that hit that niche before Konfabulator, if that's the way you want to break it down.

In a larger sense, however, that's just silly. These are all the same, differing in their implementation details. None of those implementation details are innovative, all of them, especially Konfab/Dashboard/etc, were drop-dead obvious (which is why they were done by so many people and teams in a similar time frame). They're simply a refactoring of the "applet" with the tools that current programmers use, as always happens.

Obviously, Apple did not "invent" dashboard. To say that Konfabulator was something new is both literally wrong (as you ignored in that article, others did the XML/scripting thing first), and conceptually silly.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[dubbreak]

If you are interested in the history of the personal computer, I enjoyed What the Dormouse said by John Markoff. Some aren't fans of John due to the whole Mitnick thing.. but his writing is decent and the subject material holds its own.

Re:Seems to be up now.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Obviously, Apple did not "invent" dashboard.

We agree. Finally.

Obviously, Apple did not "invent" dashboard. To say that Konfabulator was something new is both literally wrong

I didn't say Konfabulator was new - I said it predated Dashboard. I was using it as an (incorrect) example of where Apple uses ideas from OSS. (incorrect because Konfabulator is not OSS).

There's still hope

[alx5000]

I hope PolishLinux.org has an extensive backup server, too. And a fire extinguisher or two.

Dashboard Support

[MBCook]

I've recently been able to do some widget development for OS X (nothing complex, just some HTML, JS, and AJAX calls). It's a neat little environment but the error reporting left a lot to be desired.

That said, I really appreciate the ability to open Dashboard widgets in KDE. The interface isn't that magical, and except for the ability to call native code shouldn't pose much of a problem for the developers. I was wondering if they were going to do something like this and I'm glad they have.

The little widget I developed could be used by users of one of our applications. I think a fair number of them would like it. For various reasons, 30% of the users of this application are using Macs, so that doesn't pose a problem. But when I pitched the idea (with a mostly complete widget) to my superiors they weren't that interested. I was basically told "that's quite neat, but it needs to work on Windows."

Ignoring my minor "let Mac users have something first" attitude, there is a very serious problem with providing the Widget on Windows. I can't (reasonably). I researched the options and here is what I found.

1. Vista Gadget - Only works on Vista, about 20% of our users... and I don't have a copy of Vista to develop on
2. Google Widget - Depending on how you write it, works on Google desktop or only Google Homepage (and other sites). Google Desktop runs on Windows, OS X, and (I think) Linux
3. Yahoo! Widget - Used to be Konfabulator. Runs on Windows and OS X.

That list ignores whatever GNOME uses, and the 5-10 smaller engines that very few people use. Who knows how many people use Google Desktop or Yahoo! Widgets. None of the widgets developed on these systems works with any of the other system. Even if the widget is a simple as a "Hello, world" HTML file and image(s), the markup between Dashboard and Google is quite different. From the quick look I put into it, the same thing is true with Vista and Yahoo!. Google Desktop widgets can be loaded into the Dashboard, if you have Google Desktop installed on your Mac, because it performs some kind of translation.

So I can't develop a widget. The only user base I can promise is Vista. That's a big headache and only 2/3s the side of the Mac users we know of. Asking users to go install Google Desktop or Yahoo! Widgets just to be able to view our little widget is a little tough. Making the application native would take quite a bit of time. Integration for a custom Google homepage is probably the best option for us, but still not worth it due to the inability to predict the number of people who would actually use it.

So the project (which was just a side project of mine) is basically dead. Unless they decide that providing the widget to only Mac users (I find this very unlikely), the time isn't judged to be worth it (and I don't blame them). Until Vista takes over (probably by this time next year due to MS phasing out XP sales to OEMs) there are just too many widget engines. Targeting any decent sized group of users is nearly impossible. It's a quirk of our market that Macs have the market share they do.

This kind of consolidation is a very nice thing. As a KDE user, instantly getting so many widgets available (since outside of native code and possibly running shell commands, there shouldn't be porting) is a very nice thing.

Re:Dashboard Support

[dreamchaser]

Hmmm, it would be great to have an OSS widget engine that ran on Windows, OS X, and Linux. I wish I had more time to code these days.

Re:Dashboard Support

[MBCook]

At this point, that's basically what WebKit is. If someone just makes a Windows front end, we'll be set. Getting Google to adopt it for Google Desktop would be great, but at this point I find that unlikely due to momentum. Dashboard is just little Safari windows, hiding things like the title bar, with a special Javascript object to let you do things like set preferences, flip sides, and know when your widget is shown.

This this version of KDE is supposed to be able to be compiled and run on Window much easier than the giant mess that used to be necessary (my understanding is that this is due mostly to QT4), we may even be most of the way there. All that is needed is to get the users. Being able to say "use Apple Dashboard widgets" would be a major plus in getting the users.

If it wouldn't cut into one of Apple's argued advantages, they would probably release Dashboard for Windows.

But as it stands, there doesn't seem to be any way develop a widget and have it run on any decent fraction of the Windows computers out there. Like it or not, that's a large market.

Re:Dashboard Support

[michaelbuddy]

just out of curiosity on widgets, has anyone created, 1. a TV Card playing widget that will play a cable TV coax coming into the video TV card, and 2. a ticker that could scroll any kind of information, such as RSS feeds where the headlines scroll left to right, top to bottom, or other data.

if not, would it be a nightmare to program these?

Re:Dashboard Support

[Excelsior]

Sounds to me like you might be interested in Netvibes' Universal Widget API. It allows you to write widgets that will work on NetVibes (of course), Mac, Windows Vista, Windows Live, iGoogle, iPhone/IPod Touch, Opera, and Yahoo Widgets (not the same as My Yahoo). I just found out about it today, so I haven't had a chance to try it out, but I will be trying it soon.

Re:Dashboard Support

[zsau]

I hate it when people add superfluous or unnecessary words to their posts. That said, it makes it very annoying to have to read "that said" in hundreds of posts on Slashdot where it adds nothing. That said, it's superfluous because of course having said that, you've said it! In other words, I can tell you've said something by the fact that you've said it; you don't need to say "that said".

That said, "that said" can occasionally be useful when you're contradicting an earlier point. But it shouldn't be the usual way to do that, because it's way too overused and has lost all meaning, at least here on Slashdot.

That said, I've used it myself in that context. I immediately said ten "Hail Marys" and five "Our Fathers" to make up for the sin.

Re:Dashboard Support

[cgenman]

A widget is basically a shell-integrated, usually web-aware program, created in a series of simple high-level scripting languages.

What you're asking for, then, is a java-style cross platform language, but one that has been well integrated into the shell. I can't really see that coming from 1st parties (well, one in particular). So you'd need to turn to 3rd party support... which as you've seen is difficult to get an IT department to agree to, but means that your best bet currently is probably google.

Re:Dashboard Support

[smurfsurf]

As for no. 1: Not sure. Widgets can link to Objective-C libraries, so it might be possible. (There are games widgets that use a Obj-C engine)

No. 2: No problem. Well in the realm of moderately complicated Javascript / HTML / CSS.

Has anyone written them already? Check yourself: http://www.dashboardwidgets.com/

Re:Dashboard Support

[dunkelfalke]

vista sidebar does work on windows xp, although it is a hack.

Re:Dashboard Support

[Jugalator]

Hmmm, it would be great to have an OSS widget engine that ran on Windows, OS X, and Linux. I wish I had more time to code these days. Mozilla is kind of there with Prism but not quite. Here's the user interface where most of the UI controls can be disabled/hidden. So I think you could actually get just a plain window left in the end, if you want to. But you'd still have the window frame and things like that, I guess.

Otherwise, it has a lot of what one is looking for: builds on all open source components, platform support, a proven and established renderer (the Gecko engine), and a goal with the project to provide web applications in a desktop environment "outside" the browser.

Re:ok...

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

I tried it and quickly switched back to Gnome. I have a session chock full of eye-candy and effects to show people what Linux can do. But when it comes down I'm a minimalist and tend to turn the fluff off to save my battery life and to get all of the cycles I can when I'm rendering. That said I do like the leaps and bounds that KDE has been taking to modernize itself.

Re:ok...

[jeffreymsmith]

The review is (was) about the upcoming release of KDE 4.1.

As the KDE people are often quick to point out, the release back in January was KDE 4.0--the first of many "KDE4" releases.

Re:ok...

[karbonKid]

If you want a lightweight, minimalist windowmanager, why on earth would you use GNOME? It has, admittedly, come on in leaps and bounds in terms of speed, but there are much more lightweight and 'minimalist' alternatives available, many of which I personally think look a lot nicer too - Fluxbox is great imho, or XFCE if you still want a little more eyecandy...

This is especially interesting

[XNine]

to us OS X users. A free OS with these abilities really begs that Linux be given another look by the general public for a main desktop (and with the announcement of Adobe coming to the Linux arena, this just emboldens it's abilities). Unfortunately, until audio/video and graphics apps become powerhouses on the Linux platform, I'm afraid OS X will remain my main OS of choice.

Re:This is especially interesting

[theLime]

I think you would be very, very surprised at the state of Linux pro audio (esp. Ardour.) Graphics apps (Gimp, Inkscape, Maya, etc) have been very mature for several years. Unless you need to stay with your current programs (and play Games For Windows(TM),) Linux is ready for you now.

Re:This is especially interesting

[marsu_k]

I think you would be very, very surprised at the state of Linux pro audio (esp. Ardour.)

I really really wish this were true. While ALSA supports quite a large selection of pro hardware nowadays, I still find Ardour lacking. I know it's very capable as a multitrack recorder, and can be hacked to support at least some VST effects, it's still missing sequencing and VST instruments. I like OSS and use Linux almost exclusively, but until I can get Kontakt, Battery etc. working properly under Linux I'll have to continue booting into XP when I want to do some music.

(but please do correct me if I'm mistaken, I'd love to get rid of my Windows partition for good)

Re:This is especially interesting

[richlv]

i have no experience with music (or related software), so i'm just blindly asking whether http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/ (that i have heard is quite advanced) does anything you need ? :)

Re:This is especially interesting

[marsu_k]

Not quite - it is a MIDI sequencer, yes, but it lacks multitrack recording. I know one should be able to use it along with Ardour, but that doesn't quite fit the bill. While many OSS programs are very functional and in some cases excel commercial offerings, VST virtual instruments sound so much better that their free counterparts, ditto for VST effects vs. LADSPA. Despite my liking for OSS it really can't compete with the likes of Waves or Native Instruments. At least not currently, hopefully this will change sometime.

Re:This is especially interesting

[Zemplar]

No, KDE doesn't beg that "Linux" gets another look. KDE is a X window manager, suitable for Solaris, BSD's, or even that GNU/Linux system.

There's a lot more to free operating systems than GNU/Linux!

And in this case, the credit should goto the KDE developers, not Linux-only developers.

Re:This is especially interesting

[TractorBarry]

Sorry. Linux is most certainly not "ready for you now".

There is absolutely nothing on Linux that has fully integrated audio and MIDI sequencing with full professional capabilities and (crucially) that works in such a synergistic whole as, say Cubase or Reaper on Windows or Logic on Apple.

Not to mention the fact that there is not full easy to use, support for Steinbergs Virtual Studio Technology (VST) plugins (i.e. run installer, use VST).

I know as I'm almost desperate to move off my aging Windows setup (Emagic Logic 5.5.1 - no longer supported) However this lets me get my work done so I'm sticking with it until something under Linux will do the job. Having had the rug pulled under me by Apple/Emagic I will not be giving those bastards any more of my hard earned cash.

As an aside having the rug pulled two months weeks after I'd just handed over a good deal of money for an upgrade is the main reason that I'll never again pay for software that isn't open source. No source code included ? No sale.

Now Ardour is a splendid audio workstation but until it gets full MIDI support, including the ability to run all VSTs, it still doesn't compete with my old copy of Logic Audio. And things like Rosegarden, Muse, Anthem etc. are good efforts but they all feel a bit "80s" in their feature sets.

Don't think I'm knocking the efforts of the developers (after all if I could do any better I would) as eventually I expect the apps will get there. I'm just not hopeful it'll be any time soon.

Until that time I'm afraid it does a disservice to Linux to say that it's "ready for you now". This just leads people to try it get dissapointed and go elsewhere - never to return.

Audio only work it's possibly o.k. (as long as you don't need any unsupported VSTs). MIDI only is o.k. But as soon as you want to integrate the two the amount of configuration necessary means that, for the vast majority of audio professionals, the effort isn't worth it. After all on Windows/Apple you just install a coupe of programs, RTFM and you're off. In Linux it's all RTFM and no play...

Re:This is especially interesting

[Techman83]

ubuntu studio is your friend!

Re:This is especially interesting

[domatic]

As long as you absolutely require proprietary VSTs, you would still be in danger of "having the rug pulled" from under you even if Linux in all other ways could meet your needs. With the requirement for low latency and high throughput for high bit multitrack, no form of emulation would ever cut it. You'd have to be able to trust the closed VST developers to the same extent you could trust having the source to everything else on your system.

I think you're stuck for it one way or another no matter what you run.

Well, I suppose you could dedicate a box strictly to running old software and use it as a midi black box but still.....

Re:This is especially interesting

[RocketRabbit]

"Graphics apps (Gimp, Inkscape, Maya, etc) have been very mature for several years. Unless you need to stay with your current programs (and play Games For Windows(TM),) Linux is ready for you now."

As a professional photographer, I can assure you that Linux is NOT ready for me now. The Gimp is hardly more useful to me now than it was in the 90s - OK for web graphics, pitiful for production color critical work. If I was willing to compromise on the quality of my finished prints, and my time was worth nothing, then I could see using the Gimp for my graphics work.

As it stands, I own a Mac. Best color management in the world.

Re:This is especially interesting

[theheadlessrabbit]

as a frequent photoshop / gimp user, i will tell you that the gimp is clearly NOT ready for the mainstream market.

while the tools work, the interface is not nearly as fluid and user friendly as photoshop.
with the gimp, whenever the program selects something, a layer, window, tool, etc. it always gets it wrong. it may offer the same functionality, but feels like im fighting the program the whole time just to fet my work done.
photoshop seems to just read my mind, the tool and layer i want to use next is selected after i finish what i'm doing.

if i want to rotate, distort, stretch, whatever, i do not want to type in a numerical value, i want to rotate and distort the freaken' picture untill it looks right.

I am sick of FOSS fanboys telling me the gimp is ready. I am an artist, i use both programs frequently, and I am telling you, as an artist, it is not ready.
(note: I am a FOSS fanboy my self, typing this on firefox through ubuntu, with gimp running in the background)

I won't go into audio, but I am still looking for a linux equivalent of audiomulch to use with my m-audio sound card i haven't been able to find linux drivers for.

if you are an computer user for email/youtube/instant messenging/skype/writing/powerpoint, etc. Linux offers a better experience than windows. but for professionals, its just not there yet.

Re:Great, when is it actually going to be useable?

[SanityInAnarchy]

My understanding is, the "release" was of the underlying tech -- things like KDElib, QT4, etc.

I have no idea when the actual K Desktop Environment is due, though I'll probably be switching to the experimental Hardy KDE/4 version when Hardy itself is released. Mainly, I can't wait for Konqueror to not crash several times a day, and I suspect Webkit will help with that.

I've been running -dev

[xrayspx]

It's still way too unstable for me day to day, but it's tempting enough to keep trying anyway. 4.0.66 lasted a week before I fired it this morning. My main problems are with multi-head related (it really doesn't work very well from my and others experience, especially non-Xinerama multihead), but it keeps improving. Good work KDE Team

Re:Tragedy Strikes PolishLinux.Org Admin Team

[Rod Beauvex]

Wait, what?

Shouldn't they be outside jumping into the basement window?

What was that wooshing noise?

Re:Tragedy Strikes PolishLinux.Org Admin Team

[pugugly]

Thank God I wasn't the only one going "There's a bad joke there just begging to be made" - {G}

Pug

Why is KDE still not the mainstream?

[bogaboga]

I see KDE as a very good, highly configurable and modern desktop environment but still wonder why it is not yet the desktop environment of choice for the "major" distros. Why? Is is because it is mainly European based and all the so called major distros are American based? I hope not.

Re:Why is KDE still not the mainstream?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that it has a lot to do with the fact that when KDE was getting started, Qt wasn't "free." GNOME was started to provide a fully-free alternative, is official GNU software, and attracted the support of companies like Red Hat because they could work with it without having to pay royalties.

KDE is the BSD of Desktops.

Re:Why is KDE still not the mainstream?

[dbcad7]

Distrowatch.. Top 10

Ubuntu...................Gnome
PCLinux..................KDE
Suse.....................Your Choice at install
Fedora...................Gnome
Mint.......................Gnome
Mandriva.................KDE
Sabayon..................KDE
Debian....................Gnome
Damn Samll.............Joes Window Manager
Mepis.......................KDE

So default installs... 4 with gnome, 4 with KDE, 1 your choice... and of course on any of these you can add the other manager anyway.. I don't see any conspiracy against KDE... people use what they want.. There is Kubuntu, same people, but it's not in the top 10 (it's 15th).. If done right, I am sure it's a great window manager.. My experiences with it have been ok, but I prefer gnome.. BTW gnome can be done wrong too.. I tried an alpha release of Suse with gnome, and hated their menu.

Re:Why is KDE still not the mainstream?

[toejam13]

That is exactly the reason.

Even though KDE is, IMHO, better than GNOME, issues surrounding the license model of Qt kept it from being wholly adopted by all parties. As a result, a GNU version came about.

This is not unlike how GNU/Linux came to be due to the lawsuit surrounding BSD/OS from BSDi.

Re:Why is KDE still not the mainstream?

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides the lingering effects of KDE's former nonfreeness, I think many Linux users care a lot about the "mainstream" success of Linux. People who have invested a lot of effort into becoming Linux adepts naturally want to incorporate Linux as a major positive aspect of their social identity. This is a real puzzle.

As a programmer and Linux nerd I have put a lot of thought into this :-)

I don't think it can be done, but there are two ways to try. They both sound pretty stupid, but keep the following in mind:

• People don't think straight when they're teenagers, especially about their relations with other people.
• Linux nerds tend to be socially even more stupid than regular teenagers. (I said "nerd," this this is tautological.)
• For Linux nerds, the teenage years continue until the age of 25 or so. (Maybe I'm just projecting.)

So, with that in mind, there are two major ways to try.

First, you can regard Linux as a powerful tool for the initiated. Linux makes you powerful, and you have to be smart to master Linux. This would not bias you towards either KDE or GNOME, but it might tilt you towards a leet-looking window manager-based environment such as Enlightenment. This has the advantage of having a kernel of truth, but it has the disadvantage that it only works within your peer group and inside your own head. This does not raise your status anywhere else. From the point of view of a young nerd who gazes longingly across the chasm separating him from "real" people, and looking with mild disgust at the plump, pimply, faintly mustachioed people of the same or opposite sex on his or her side of the divide, this approach is completely useless.

Second, you can regard Linux as a force that will shake up the world and become a major part of everyone's life. You understand these things; you saw the writing on the wall; you jumped confidently on the Linux bandwagon while everyone else pooh-poohed it, and soon you will be vindicated as a master of the new world order. Of course, as you gaze longingly across the chasm, you realize that nobody IRL gives a shit about the server market, and your clever plan (wishful fantasy?) depends the success of Linux on the consumer desktop. So you fight for the consumer desktop, and you try to get people to try it, and for those purposes you promote the user-friendly Linux desktop made by usability experts for Mom and Pop. You use GNOME.

None of it ever pans out, of course, but a few years later it doesn't really matter anyway. The faintly mustachioed people have lost weight, cleared up their skin, and started shaving. You realize that you can finally let go of your fear of wedgies and other public humiliations imposed by third parties. (Just like everyone else, you only have to worry about the first two parties.) You make enough money to buy nice dinners for the smooth-cheeked person who sleeps next to you, and you have plenty left over to build quad-core boxes for your Netflix Prize weekend dilettantism. All is well.

(Personally, I'm not passionate about KDE. I'm with KDE just because KDE and I get along. I felt the same about GNOME, but we kept having these awful fights. I wanted to try something, and it felt like I wasn't respecting its usability, and I'd be like, "I don't give a damn about your usability. Why can't you be less uptight? KDE was never like this," and it was like, "You're a monster! I'm leaving you!" and I was like, "Fine!" Then one day I realized KDE was exactly the same except without the fighting. Anyway, even though KDE is very accomodating and efficient and cooks a nice lasagna, it doesn't really excite me. Every time I see another guy using Enlightenment, the danger calls to me... unwholesomely lean, tats all over -- a little bit scary, and I always look for tracks, even though I know they won't be there. When it catches me staring and fixes me with that neglected, wild look in its eyes, I start breathing fast and

Re:Why is KDE still not the mainstream?

[Vertigo Acid]

Where are you getting that top 10 list from?
From http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major

Ubuntu (Gnome, although you might argue that since kubuntu is official and not really a fork, that this could be either)
openSUSE (either)
Fedora (Gnome)
Debian (Gnome)
Mandriva (KDE)
PCLinuxOS (KDE)
MEPIS (KDE)
KNOPPIX (KDE)
Slackware (KDE)
Gentoo (either, neither. same with sabayon)
FreeBSD (not a linux distro, I know. anyway, either, neither)

So, conservatively, I see 3 Gnome, 2 either, and 5 KDE

Re:Why is KDE still not the mainstream?

[toejam13]

Let me rephrase... GNU/Linux might never have become popular had BSD taken hold first.

Re:Why is KDE still not the mainstream?

[ajs318]

Debian comes "out-of-the-box" in console mode (no desktop at all!) but it certainly supports KDE.

About the time of "Lenny Plus One", I expect KDE4 will just be coming into Sid.

Re:Why is KDE still not the mainstream?

[dbcad7]

From the front page of www.distrowatch.com based on 6 month history

But I looked at your page also (good find).. I actually agree more with your list, and I'd substitute Xandros for FreeBSD to keep it all Linux.. and you would have the major players.

Strange...update.. I think early april fools, but the list of Linux distros at distrowatch,... is just weird.. see for yourself.

Re:Why is KDE still not the mainstream?

[sydneyfong]

Because GNOME is comparable?

Another reason might be because of licensing issues. KDE is based on Qt, which is GPL'ed. Some commercial distros might not want to GPL everything in which case GNOME might be a better choice.

Re:Why is KDE still not the mainstream?

[Andrei D]

I see KDE as a very good, highly configurable and modern desktop environment but still wonder why it is not yet the desktop environment of choice for the "major" distros. Why? I think one of the top reasons is that some distros appreciate that Gnome has a stable release cycle. As I understand, KDE will follow this model as well (releasing a stable version regularly) so hopefully more distros will include it by default. We'll wait and see.

Re:Why is KDE still not the mainstream?

[xSauronx]

last time i installed Debian with a desktop environment, it defaulted to Gnome. a server install comes to a console, sure, but if you use their installer and want a desktop, Gnome is what they give you.

Re:Why is KDE still not the mainstream?

[analog_line]

You may see KDE as good, highly configurable and modern. Plenty enough people don't. I am currently using KDE 3.5 because I'm effectively forced to (long freaking story), and I hate it. Konquerer as file system browser was as stupid a call as Internet Explorer was for Microsoft. The requirement of using Kwallet to save passwords for Kopete and KMail is crap for more reasons than I can go into right now. The prepending of the letter "K" to EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION NAME makes me want to scream every time I open the KDE start menu. It makes the "i" fixation of Apple look like a passing fancy. "It's not Free Software unless it's K!" Picking a default web browser other than Konqueror is more obscured than even Windows and MacOS. The useless eyecandy enabled by default drives me insane, and none of the four default options at setup was even close to how I wanted it to act.

One might as well ask why Linux hasn't become the operating system of choice for major corporations. The answer will be the same, "lots and lots of reasons."

Re:Why is KDE still not the mainstream?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Is is because it[KDE] is mainly European based and all the so called major distros are American based? I hope not.

Lets see, the highest market share distributions using Gnome are:

• Ubuntu - developed by Canonical, main offices in London.
• OpenSuse - developed by Novell but Suse development branch is in Germany. Doesn't really count since it is KDE/Gnome agnostic.
• Fedora - developed by Redhat in the US.
• Debian - distributed development and KDE/Gnome agnostic.
• Gentoo - distributed development, but centered in US

It looks to me like there are as many KDE users as Gnome and it doesn't really correlate to where the company is based.

Re:Why is KDE still not the mainstream?

[coolsnowmen]

It is ignorant to use Distrowatch as a distribution rating system.
It rates the number of visits to distowatch's page, which really only describes the ignorance of the people who use or are interested in that distro. As in, if you really knew what you were doing, would you goto distrowatch?!

From Distrowatch.com
"The Page Hit Ranking statistics have attracted plenty of attention and feedback. Originally, each distribution-specific page was pure HTML with a third-party counter at the bottom to monitor interest of visitors. Later the pages were transformed into plain text files with PHP generating all the HTML code, but the original counter remained unchanged. In May 2004 the site switched from publicly viewable third-party counters to internal counters. This was prompted by a continuous abuse of the counters by a handful of undisciplined individuals who had confused DistroWatch with a voting station. The counters are no longer displayed on the individual distributions pages, but all visits (on the main site, as well as on mirrors) are logged. Only one hit per IP address per day is counted.

The figures in the third column of each table represent the average number of hits per day for the specified period. The tables are updated daily at around 40 minutes past midnight GMT."

Up again!

[kernowyon]

The site seems to have recovered from the initial onslaught of /.ers now. Some nice screenies - KDE4.x certainly looks good. However, perhaps I am one of a minority, but I prefer my computing power to be used for something other than eye candy. I don't run Compiz (well, maybe just to impress the odd Windows user!) and removed Dolphin and the searchy thing straight away on my KDE. Cue the good old KDE vs Gnome arguments, with the XFCE/Fluxbox brigade picking away in the background any minute now. Wonder what those who are stuck with Windows only make of all this? Personally, I run KDE on my day to day machines, with XFCE and Fluxbox on a couple of other older boxes, plus of course a command line only server. We should be grateful that we have the choice in Linux to choose rather than argue which desktop environment is teh best! Each has its advantages and disadvantages - try them all and pick which you prefer.

Re:Up again!

[bestinshow]

Surely if you run Compiz, you are moving a lot of the work from the CPU to the GPU? Given that the experience with Compiz (apart from the rather dumb wobbly windows) is far smoother and nicer than without, this is a no-brainer to enable once you've self-flagellated with the nVidia or ATI driver installers.

However I do think that eyecandy should be about improving desktop efficiency and usability, not just because it can be done. Compare Mac OS X's Expose with Vista's 3D alt-tab thing.

KDE4.1 looks like it will be very nice. I've been running Gnome on Ubuntu for a year, and I find it quite limiting, but otherwise good enough. I dislike the dual-panel configuration but at least that can be changed. I do now have a FreeBSD box set up with KDE3.5 and that's nice (although why it has a dependency on PostgreSQL Client amongst other things is beyond me, but I think that's a FreeBSD KDE install thing) and I was impressed by how mature the KDE software packages are now.

On the other hand, will KDE ever get that clock panel looking nice?

Re:ok...

[bogaboga]

XFCE is what I use.. my desktop environment loads blazing fast.

My problem with it is the lack of a decent printer configuration tool and its ugliness. It looks damn ugly!

Mirror with screenshots, text in Polish

[billybob2]

Here is a mirror of the article containing the same images, but written in Polish: http://www.jarzebski.pl/read/kde-4-rev-790000.so

Re:ok...

[Brian Gordon]

Nah, I have it skinned to look better than any Gnome setup I've ever seen. Mine looks sort of like this with the striped toolbars and transparency, but it's themed to look like Human.

What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[NitroWolf]

Maybe it's just me... but is anyone else really tired of the Fisher-Price trending in desktop operating systems.

It started with Windows XP, but it wasn't *too* bad... but then Gnome showed up with full blown Fisher-Pricey-ness. KDE has always been halfway there, and with KDE 4, it looks like they have completed their journey. OS/X showed up to the party with the Teddy Ruxpin of desktop graphics. A little more sophisticated, but still clearly for kids.

So, we have all the major operating systems/window managers fully in the Fisher-Price camp. Clearly this is what the consumer wants (or is it?) - but what I don't understand is why. Am I the only person who wants my OS Desktop to look "cool" and not "cute" right out of the box? I realize "cool" (and "cute") is subjective, but I think some themes that cater to both camps out of the box would be a welcome addition.

Now, I know Gnome does not have anything of which I speak, and KDE 3 does not. I don't know about OS/X, but I've never seen a "stock" theme for OS/X that looks like something a working person would use, just the Fisher-Price-esque desktop.

I realize there are third party applications and themes to correct this... but I have yet to find something I like; They always look like something a teenager designed or something a kid would use. I have absolutely no doubt something "cool" and "utilitarian" is out there, but I have yet to find it.

The whole point of my post, though, is why the Fisher-Price trend in Desktops? What is so appealing about making the desktop look like a toy?

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[Hal_Porter]

So, we have all the major operating systems/window managers fully in the Fisher-Price camp. Use FreeDOS. I use it on my 8GB USB flash disk, and I still have 7.999GB free.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[rtb61]

You just have to adapt to the modern market. The never grow up, teenagers for the rest of your life market. Although that is technically a mass media market, buy everything now it and must look good before being good, it still will survive for some time to come before being supplanted with the new independent media market.

So it should eventually shift back to, no matter how good it looks if it don't function right it sucks and the minimalists life style, only have what you need, work to live don't live to work, if you were happy with out it yesterday, chances are you would be happy with out it tomorrow.

That minimalism then reflects in a neat clean interface and keeping it simple and relevant.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[zullnero]

Make your desktop manager. Seriously, there's a market for a desktop manager where all applications are bound to an elaborate set of keystrokes, and if you mess up and get the keys out of sequence, an image of Denis Leary pops up out of the desktop and glares at you like you're an idiot. If you fail a login to your encrypted volume, your background turns into a graphical sound wave representation of Sam Kinison screaming. In fact, I think a considerable amount of that is going into the next Emacs rev.

Desktop managers are designed and made for people who can't use command lines and want something graphically cute. They are designed by people whose minds work in ways that most real engineers can't fully understand. They are designed by the same folks that really want their computer to match the color scheme of the rest of their office, as well as reflect the color that they best associate themselves with.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[GumphMaster]

Maybe it's just me... but is anyone else really tired of the Fisher-Price trending in desktop operating systems.

You are not alone. First thing that bites the dust on my machines is all that flowery crap that seems to so enthrall some.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[GumphMaster]

Ratpoison is on the way there

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[Cadallin]

I disagree strongly. Windows XP Luna and Vista Whateverthefuckitscalled are by far the worst offenders in this regard. What's wrong with XFCE after a little tweaking to personal preference? Xubuntu and Zenwalk are both pretty tasteful out of the box. OS X really isn't bad either, Panther and Tiger (and leopard after the latest patches) are solid, and have high contrast UI elements. It's convenient.

Speaking of which has anybody noticed all the websites going to a light gray text on white background? Even the BBC gone to this, its horrible, and nearly unreadable.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[sholden]

colour depth went up. As soon as you could essentially assume a universal 24-bit colour everything went fisher-price.

I expect it's what most people wanted all along, I remember netscape used to grab all the colours on my X terminal so that as you moused in and out of the netscape window the screen would flip between the netscape window and the rest of the screen showing random color goodness.

Like people want borders on their windows... crazy...

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[duck0]

And pwm and later ion has been there for a long time. I ran pwm when I still had a PC laptop, to my amusement when any of my friends tried to use it.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[PitaBred]

Cartoons are for kids, too. Real men watch sports, and that's it. Or a skin flick if it's Friday night.

Get over yourself. It's a clean, functional, nice-looking interface. You can tweak it how you like (KDE has some very minimalist themes if you'd like), or just don't use it. The appeal is that you have to use the thing 8 hours a day at least, so you may as well have it not be harsh on the eyes. As long as it doesn't get in my way (I don't feel that it does), then I'd rather have something nicer to stare at than plain gray, square window borders.

Or do you think a stock racing car has all the interior niceties that are necessary for any driver? I mean, it's enough to control your car, right?

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[amirulbahr]

Don't have much Windows eXPerience, but I don't think its fair to lump MS in there. I think they've generally done well to provide a cool hacker looking desktop... what with the white monospaced text on a blue background and all...

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you explain what you're talking about in actual terms? I'm not sure if you're trying to troll, or trying to use hyperbole, but "Fisher Price" and "Teddy Ruxpin" and "clearly for kids" are not exactly standard computer terms.

As for why to make GUIs more toylike in general, that's easy: to increase the user success rate. That's it. (What did you think the purpose of a GUI was?) I know a bunch of old-school UNIX geeks are embarrassed by having to use something with color icons, anti-aliased fonts, and accelerated graphics, but I don't know that anybody has ever found these features to *reduce* your ability to do whatever it is you want to do. In comparison, when computers look geeky, a lot of people are afraid to do anything. These features do increase the success rate for a lot of people.

I worked in tech support for a while, and if you haven't, you really wouldn't believe it. It's not that people are stupid; they just have a completely different outlook than you (if you've ever read slashdot). I remember asking one person (a tenured university professor who'd been programming since punchcard days, who we were basically teaching how to use a mouse) why he didn't try clicking something that looked like an obvious (to me) thing to try. His response shocked me: "I would be afraid to click that". It wasn't in the manual, you see.

If you're not used to it, a computer can be an intimidating place. Imagine asking a random person to do something under the hood of his car, or in the cockpit of an airplane -- even something simple. *I'd* be afraid to do anything! It's foreign territory. These things are built to look industrial and scary (compared to, say, the inside of your car, or the passenger seats on an airliner) precisely because they're not for normal people to operate.

A toy, OTOH, is built to look inviting. It's plastic or metal, so you can't possibly break it, even if you tried. Things are rounded and move smoothly, which mean no pain and no surprises. These things make people feel more comfortable trying things. I know *you* don't need comfort when using a computer, but you'll use a computer (successfully) anyway. Nobody's afraid that drop-shadows will cause you to be unable to type "grep" in your terminal.

And if you don't like colors, choose the "Graphite" theme on your Mac (one menu choice), or an old GNOME theme, or even a different window manager or whatnot. (GNOME is highly configurable, despite initial appearances -- just not in the main menus.) If you want your computer to look geeky, it's not exactly hard.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[jjohnson]

Because while an extreme ability to customize the smallest thing is great when 1) I want to customize small things, and 2) I know how to customize it, the rest of the time I want Fischer Price. I want a simple, direct interface. I don't want to spend time clicking through multiple tabs or unfolding tree menus or visually selecting one from many icons.

90% of my time is spent doing very few things that implicate the interface--terminal, browser, IDE--and are best taken care of with a very slick, minimalist interface. It's not only best for unsophisticated users; most of the time, it's most functional for power users too once they've bothered to get things the way they like.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[Hal_Porter]

Actually, almost all user interface actions in Windows can be controlled with keys. Back in the Win95 days you could see this easily - hotkeys were underlined in UI items. Now the quest for style of substance has caused them to be hidden by default. But hold down the Alt key and most Windows applications will be full of keyboard accelerators. E.g. in Opera Alt F opens the file menu. Alt+F, S will save for example. Most applications have Ctrl key combinations like Ctrl+S to do the same thing. Accelerators are part of the OS, but developers need to add & characters to their .rc files to say what shortcuts they want. E.g in the .rc file the File menu title is &File. This and the hidden by default status of accelerators does mean that inexperienced developers can forget to do this of course. Which is a shame - there are people who can't use a mouse and thus won't be able to use these applications.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[Eivind]

I noticed, and I dislike it.

Also, did you notice the trend where it gets harder and harder to run a negative desktop ?

I belong to those that think dark-text-on-brigth-backgrounds is for paper whereas I find the reverse much more readable on a computer-monitor.

Even high-clue applications for technical users, like Eclipse, make it a chore to configure them that way, and I don't get why.

The single exception is CAD-programs. For some reason those all come with easy dark themes, in many of them it's even the default.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[flip314]

Actually, you probably have 7.45GB free.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[nephridium]

I guess the rationale behind it is that the theme designers believe the broad mass wants computers to be fun (ready: flashy, omgpwnies), not remind them of work (read: efficient/useful design). I always wondered myself why Gnome/KDE icons need to be so huge, when recognizing and aiming for 32x32 pixel icons is just as easy.

Fortunately the window managers allow for some tweaking (*heavy* tweaking if you really want to spend some time on it), so why not spend an afternoon or so making it look "cool" and then be happy for the next couple of years ;)

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[VENONA]

I'm thinking the same thing. At some point, desktop developers the world over decided that buttons should look like radioactive throat lozenges, etc. I want small, distinctive, contrasty icons. I want one display, so I can keep everything the same between a laptop and a desktop. I use a very small panel, then add a second just above it, which contains my pager and taskbar. The total size is about the same as the panel alone on a default installation. The best icons I've seen for this purpose are KDE Classic.

I use 9 desktops, and keep things pretty rigidly sorted by habits I developed long ago. Kontact is always on 1, chat is on 2, etc., all the way up to music on 8, and Konsole (usually half a dozen named ssh sessions open) on 9. So going pretty much anywhere is just a CTRL-n away, and maybe an ALT-TAB or two. It happens by reflex.

My other quirk is the taskbar setup. I'm right handed, and scroll bars are on the right anyway. So I keep the KDE button, application buttons, and a couple of menu packages (editors and utils) on the right. I keep the clock in the center as a divider, and the system tray, which I use comparatively little, on the left. My mouse usage is predominantly lower right, or upper left, since you can't change that in apps. I'd reverse app toolbars if I could, and my pointer would very seldom leave the right side of the screen. As it is, I'm not darting the pointer all over the screen half as much as many users.

I'm not into beauty. I want to hammer work out. It's just as well, because things that some users seem to really appreciate, such as file previews, I've no use for. I use a detailed list view to get the details I need (mod times, etc.) on directory hierarchies that are often both deep and stuffed. Spacial file managers are obviously a complete non-starter for me. How pretty can you make previews of text files, anyway? 90% of the files I'm looking at are text.

I'm almost always either writing code, testing code, or documenting code. I want a desktop that stays out of my way, and lets me Get Stuff Done. End of story. To me, beauty is just a distraction, leads to larger icons for equal clarity, etc. Overall, less information density. To me, beauty on a computer is in the code, the algorithm, the data structure, the architecture--solving the current problem. When I want beauty of other sorts--well that's what that whole 'non-work' thing is for. No computer required or desired.

I know I'm a corner case, but I hope the authors of coming versions of KDE don't forget us worker bees. If so, I'd have to at least look into switching to one of the simpler desktops. And lose the benefits of a lot of really productive habits that I've spent several years consciously developing. I was bummed when KDE decided I had to have Documents, Pictures, Music, (including the caps) etc. directories, and apps that open file selectors into what it thinks are the correct locations, but aren't, and which setup won't let me change! I can lay out my own damn directory structure, thank you very much.

There again--the habits of years. I use directories like 'projects' and 'reference'. One directory named 'personal' contains a sub-directory for 'audio' (it's not all music--which is a sub-directory within 'audio'), etc. My home dir is kept pretty tidy, by choice, and I don't want KDE or anything else to clutter it up. What's next? 'Drawings' and 'Taxes'? Or full-on 'My Computer' and 'My Documents'?

I designed what, to me, was the perfect layout, better than ten years ago. I must have done a good job, because there have been almost no changes to rsync scripts, etc. It sane. It ain't broke. As I routinely develop on a couple of machines with no GUI, I don't like letting a GUI lay this stuff out for me. I wanted to scp, rsync, or whatever between them, without having to remember that this machine has no GUI, so it has no frapping ~/Documents/projects. Just ~/projects. So that damned ~/Documents folder never gets used, even on KDE. It's just something I'm always backing out of when I op

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[Louai]

How about this?

That's all default KDE4 svn trunk stuff, the wallpaper and color scheme both come with the default install. The only custom thing is the clock font.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[Mr_Whoopass]

So what you are saying is you prefer this...
http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/CDE/_PROGMAN.GIF

over this?
http://www.istartedsomething.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/iconfactoryvista.jpg

Because if you live in anything like this...
http://www.seeing-stars.com/OC/Julie&CalebMansion(400).jpg

I would love to trade you something like this just so you could be happy.
http://www.shunya.net/Pictures/NorthIndia/BodhGaya/ShantyHouse.jpg

Also open to trading (ex)girlfriends. And do I have one you will love!

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[Hal_Porter]

You have out geeked me, because I don't understand why that is funny.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[Hal_Porter]

... but you'll notice I said Gigabytes, not Gibibytes.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[bestinshow]

Tell me about it. "My Documents" "My Music" "My Video" "My Skype Downloads", etc, are the worst ideas for experienced users with their own systems of file management. Windows is the worst offender (although at least Vista has got rid of /Documents and Settings/User), but then Windows never really had a terminal worth using unless you liked frustration. Oh, and why does loads of Windows software still create application settings folders in ~ instead of ~/AppData or ~/Application Data? Thanks for messing things up more - the AppData folder is a good idea, please use it. KDE applications are happy to use .kde, I imagine there is a .gnome equivalent too.

At least on the Mac applications didn't all decide that it was a great idea to have their own folders. There is a Documents folder, but you can ignore it because it's not the default folder to be opened in Finder, or just use it as the base of your own personal file system. A per-project filing system is far more logical than a filing system arranged by application, so please, no more "My Adobe Acrobat Files" kthx.

I don't know about you, but I like having a ~ with just a few folders, so I can drill down quickly to what I want to find but not get that cluttered feeling straight away. Indeed I try to avoid hitting the file system on my work Windows box, I hide within Eclipse's sane project view.

On the other hand, I quite like some of my data to be managed - iTunes for example does manage my music files so I don't have to. Luckily it also does it in a mostly sane manner, and it is configurable.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[VENONA]

"Real men watch sports, and that's it. Or a skin flick if it's Friday night."

Actually, real men watch whatever they like.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[MrNemesis]

Some of us are acutely sensitive to colour, and randomly coloured crap and needless animation is enough to send me round the bend. I use colour inside applications to draw attention to things, I don't want colour clustered around the application drawing attention away from it. I personally find the default theme in KDE4 ugly beyond words.

Posted from a bleak grey desktop, and proud of it.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[MrNemesis]

If I hadn't already posted I'd give you all my mod points.

But then I guess you're preaching to the choir - your setup sounds like it mirrors mine in a great many ways (although I keep my "here's where I start apps and look at the systray" panel on autohide at the top and have one long taskbar panel that spans the screen at the bottom. I too require contrastyness, multiple desktops and a window manager I can configure the hell out of to keep all my apps nicely segregated (although I do run two 1920x1200 desktops on my work Linux box, I find the real estate invaluable).

To me, the clean, grey lines and (more or less) subdued icons of a default KDE are a thing of simple, elegant beauty (default GNOME was too until they decided users hated choice) and the default KDE4 has been such a radical departure from the KDE3 philosophy that I'm not sure I'd call them the same environment at the moment

FTR I'm a sysadmin, whereas I imagine you're a developer but I typically spend about half my life in a konsole window. As a KDE "power user" (in my book that's someone who actually uses the extensive window class placement functionality), KDE 4.0 is such a colossal step backwards in missing features, pointless gloss, huge, flashy icons and basic usability horror (don't make me rant about kicker's replacement again, I grind my teeth whenever I have to use it) that I really, really can't believe they had the gall to release it without an alpha label, and the .0x releases have done precious little to redress the balance, to the extent that I don't think 4.1 is going to come close to approaching KDE 3.5.

Where's my KDE "blackjack and hookers" edition?

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[Winckle]

Have you considered a macintosh?

The accesibility options include a negative option, you can hit ctrl+alt+cmd+8 to activate it at any time.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[Wizard Drongo]

I think the "fisher-price" you refer to started as a reaction against the mind-numbingly dull themes from windows98 and NT, where the main colour schemes were "grey" or "grey with with hints of grey".
I think both XP & OS X were supposed to get away from this; studies show that the grey actually inspires boredom and a loss of productivity.
Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant, since the UI developers at Apple and Microsoft both do.
Personally, I like Aqua. It is, like it's name suggests, refreshing in a "cold-water-to-face" kinda way.
XP was god damned awful though. It is where your "fisher-price interface" comes from, not OS X.
When you look at it, what Aqua does is colour all the inconsequential stuff (window frames, menu backgrounds etc.) grey, white or black; something that doesn't hurt the eyes. Then the important things are all bright and easy-to-see.
Since no UI is going to have more controls than backgrounds (or shouldn't at any rate) then this will not over-colourise the UI, and at the same point will provide a counterpoint to the grey-with-slightly-different-grey UI of NT et al.
Of course, Microsoft saw the early builds of OS X and turned XP into a LSD-inspired mess, missing the point as ever.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[demallien2]

Oh come on! OS/X is at least a Pleo! :-)

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[Dasher42]

I don't get why, if your tastes are so specific, you need worry about the default desktop looks. Come on, themes are available all over the place!

I like the OSX balance, where it's clearly visible what's a button and what's just a pane or widget, which is not the case with simply embossed looks. KDE and even Windows have decent setups available, too. But hey, if you really prefer something else, where are the screenshots?

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[couchslug]

"Use FreeDOS. I use it on my 8GB USB flash disk, and I still have 7.999GB free."

Your post is worthless without screenshots!

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[value_added]

Maybe it's just me... but is anyone else really tired of the Fisher-Price trending in desktop operating systems.

Yes.

The unwashed masses, however, are attracted to bight and shiny colours, and those trying to get real work done most likely have learned to ignore the issue. To make matter worse, most people commenting on the issue assume that the choices are between crude and ugly (circa 1997), on the one hand, and flashy, on the other. The dichotomy is patently absurd to anyone with even a minimal background or appreciation of design. Steve Jobs' own taste may be refined and sophisticated, but what you get with a Mac is still tarted up for broader appeal.

Subtlety, it seems, is too much to ask. Or presents too great a challenge for the average user.

So, if it helps, yeah, XP's default Luna theme is insulting to my intelligence. The 'noir' theme is better, but that's not saying much. The plainness of Gnome is preferable to the circus known as KDE, but Gnome is hardly a choice I would make if there were real options, to say nothing of its painful lack of configurability. The available themes for either typically range from crude to goofy to goofier still. Face it. They all suck.

My own approach is to use Fluxbox and do everything in a terminal. In those cases where I need a GUI app, I hide all the toolbars or at least keep the icons as small or as unobtrusive as possible. Ironically, on a Windows system, running something like Litestep in combination with a carefully chosen Windowblinds theme may yield better results, but then, you're crippled by using Windows.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[Provocateur]

All these window managers... ...and NOT ONE Cindy Crawford window manager! Have you guys been listening? What's up with that?

Seriously.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[Eivind]

Sure. But negative is overdoing it; that makes icons and pictures look ridicolous.

Full negative I don't really want. Only a general theme of light on dark background rather than dark on light background

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[VENONA]

I like KDE a lot. There are points that bother me, but they're often offset with things that I truly appreciate.

Take tabs. In Konqueror, I've added icons to move tabs left and right. But the icons consist of an empty page. Why no arrows? It's a quibble--their positions never change, so I know which is which. But it wouldn't surprise me learn that the KDE team gets feedback that this is confusing for new users. That would be a valid point, at one level, but I don't think of things that way.

A simple UI can often only do simple things. A more complex UI, done at all correctly, allows you to do more. A UI isn't new forever. I'll gladly trade a steeper learning curve for more power all along the long tail of actual usage. I certainly don't think KDE 3.5 ever reached a point of too much complexity. I've added a couple of things to the Actions sub-menu I get when I right-click a file in Konqueror, for example. If that isn't enough, Konqueror's Tools menu lets me open a terminal at that location. Perhaps Gnome would as well. I don't know, as Gnome drove me away a long time ago, as they drained away configurability.

Back to Konq Web browser--I love having a button to clear the location window. Most browsers will accept a URL of several thousand chars. Apache would accept around 4K before it spit up an error message, last time I checked. URLs certainly aren't getting shorter. It's a lot easier to hit a button than do a complete delete from within the location window. If I want to move up some sites hierarchy, it's nice to select the bit I need to keep, hit the clear button, then middle-click the bit I want back in. I keep wondering why I've not seen that in Firefox. You can arrive at the same thing by opening and closing tabs, but a clear button is more elegant.

Another thing that's nicer in Konq is a longer list of right-click options on selected text--search Webster, etc. I extended that too, on earlier versions. Now everything I need is available from the default dialog box. Maybe I could do that in Firefox. A Google search is an option, after all. But configuring Firefox simply isn't as easy as Konqueror. Nor does it start as fast, etc. I tend to use Firefox only for those sites which simply won't work correctly in Konq--a shrinking list.

OK, back to tabs. Konsole is always running on my KDE machines. Anyone that hasn't used it--give it a try. Look through the menus. I'd like to be able to configure the toolbars though, the way I can in other KDE apps. I'd have added those blank-paper icons mentioned above to move tabs left and right. It was probably possible to hold the middle mouse button and drag a session tab well before I decided there must be a way to reorder tabs, and found it. OTOH, it's nice to keep session tabs at the bottom. That's far more likely to be where your prompt is, if you're a very active Konsole user, which I am.

Some things just make more sense from the command line. Getting details on a process is often easier than finding it in top, much less launching KDE System Guard and switching to the process table view. Though I do like, and often use, System Guard. Being able to save worksheets is sweet.

If I want to see whether a program has an executable stack, 'eu-readelf -l PROGNAME | fgrep STACK' and look at the second to last column. RW Good, RWX Not So Good. Example:
$ eu-readelf -l /bin/ls | fgrep STACK
    GNU_STACK 0x000000 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x000000 0x000000 RW 0x4
$
Package management from the command line, via yum and an occasional rpm command, is generally faster and easier than the couple of GUIs I've tried. I rarely use any GUI system config tools, actually. I do use a couple of GTK apps, such as Wireshark (packet sniffer), pretty regularly.

Like most of us, I use whatever works best for me. I wish KDE had fixed a few things in 3.5. Assuming that they haven't fixed them, and it's just not in the Fedora packages. :). For business reasons, I generally need to be on either Fedora, Red Hat, or a Red Hat clone.

Do I like KDE? Oh, yeah. 3.5, anyway. The above is just the tip of the iceberg. I like it a lot. I hope 4.x doesn't drive me away.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[DMUTPeregrine]

And XMonad is fast, stable, supports plenty, and very minimalistic. A mouse is not needed. The full source is ~16KiB.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[NitroWolf]

Thanks! You pretty much summed up what I was trying to say. All the current choices suck (old and tired, new and flashy) - I want something in between.

I'm sure I could cobble together something with applications and themes out there... but why can't there be one out of the box? That's pretty much what I'm asking.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[PitaBred]

And MOST of us aren't. You'd rather piss all over everyone else's enjoyment simply because yours don't match?

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[Risen888]

It's all coming. KDE 4.0 is a "almost-feature-complete" release, but a lot of the customization options aren't in the stable version yet. All this stuff will be in with 4.1. 4.0 is a rough draft. Give it time.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[MrNemesis]

If you think catering for people like me means pissing all over everyone else, you're mistaken. Isn't KDE meant to be configurable?

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[PitaBred]

Go for it, configure it. Why bitch about the default when most people don't care? You're complaining about the default being gaudy, which is you trying to piss all over everyone else's senses. If you don't want it, take it out. Most people DO want it, hence, why it's the default.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[try_anything]

Desktop managers are designed and made for people who can't use command lines and want something graphically cute. They are designed by people whose minds work in ways that most real engineers can't fully understand.

You're so right! All of those incredibly bland and straightforward themes could not have been produced by an engineering mindset. I'm sure the first thing Dilbert does after installing KDE is say, "Man, this thing needs some pizazz! I'm gonna make it look moody and dangerous!" Or maybe it's nerdy teenagers who do that. I don't remember.

Re:What's with the Fisher-Price trend?

[MrNemesis]

...which brings me back to my original point: KDE no longer give a crap about the power users, they just want their DE to look the blingiest and to hell with usability.

KDE isn't the default on Debian based distros

[Gazzonyx]

Slackware proper only ships with KDE (and fluxbox, and XFCE, IIRC - they're in the 'extras' discs). You can get Gnome on Slackware via other projects, but Slackware doesn't support Gnome. So, that's one distro that is straight out of the box KDE. In fact, that's why KDE is my favorite desktop environment; Slackware was my first distro, and I just got used to it.

Although, I do appreciate Gnome for what it is, but it just doesn't feel as familiar as KDE. So, yeah, the main distros these days are debian derived and that's why Gnome is dominant, IMHO. Whatever a user is subjected to first, they'll find to be more comfortable with.

Still waiting for KDE 4 to be ready

[leamanc]

As a long-time KDE fan, I have been waiting for what seems like forever for KDE 4. I've been using 3.5 every day, along with OS X Tiger/Leopard, for the last couple of years. I love the apps, I love the environment and, in general, KDE's sense of style. The beauty that is Oxygen has had me stoked since the first screenshots came out.

I've been trying to use it as my regular window manager since a repo became available to Kubuntu users. I have been fully prepared to sacrifice some functionality and applications to use the latest and greatest, but yet still can't use it on an everyday basis, by a long shot.

Besides just general bugginess, there are some issues with the user interface that need fixing ASAP. First and foremost is speed. KDE has always been snappy for me, even on PowerPC G3/G4 hardware. On my Dell Inspiron with a 1.83 GHz Core Duo, things take forever to launch. It feels like OS X Public Beta all over again to me, in terms of application launch speed. (KDE 3.5 is super snappy on this same box.)

Next on my hit list are the widgets. We need to be able to hide the widget launcher in the right hand corner of the desktop. I've always been able to keep a super-minimalist desktop with KDE, and this menu is nothing short of distracting. And why is the panel now a widget that can only accept other widgets (of which there are a very small amount)? Where are the great little applets and buttons from KDEs past? Why can't I add an application launcher icon to the panel, like in any other desktop environment out there? For that matter, can I even create a custom application launcher anywhere? Why can't the panel be made to be a custom size?

KDE 4 has the potential to be truly revolutionary, but at this point, it's all good looks and severely lacking in functionality. Here's hoping 4.1 will actually be where 4.0 should have been.

Re:Still waiting for KDE 4 to be ready

[toejam13]

KDE 4 has the potential to be truly revolutionary, but at this point, it's all good looks and severely lacking in functionality.

That's not necessarily such a bad thing.

This allows for the new framework to get out into public hands as a stable environment. More conservative users can continue to use the older v3 branch until v4 is brought up to speed.

Besides, not everyone needs all of those extra features, so why should they wait? You can see this with several KDE "lite" compiler packages available.

As an example, I have an old AMD K6-2/500 (384MB PC100 mem, Nv5700u grfx, 80GB Seagate 7200.6 disk, ALI Aladdin-V bridge) running FreeBSD 6.3, KDE 4.0.1 and Firefox 3.0b4. I keep it around as a toy for the nostalgia factor. Amazingly, KDE4 runs very well under it. It is just a hair slower than the quite spartan Xfce4 window manager. Running through various menus and configuration options is quite acceptable, if far from zippy. This compares to KDE3, which was borderline unusable on the same system.


--
Disclaimer: my entire FreeBSD environment (kernel, userland, xorg, kde, firefox, qt and the like) were built from source using the -march=k6-2 -o2 -ffast-math options
Precompiled binaries are for gnubies. ;)
Cheated and compiled it using my K8/3800+

Re:Still waiting for KDE 4 to be ready

[nutshell42]

Next on my hit list are the widgets. We need to be able to hide the widget launcher in the right hand corner of the desktop. I've always been able to keep a super-minimalist desktop with KDE, and this menu is nothing short of distracting.

Yep.

And why is the panel now a widget that can only accept other widgets (of which there are a very small amount)?

Because there's no reason to have half a dozen different classes and types of little doodads that are fundamentally identical.

Where are the great little applets and buttons from KDEs past?

Currently being rewritten.

Why can't I add an application launcher icon to the panel, like in any other desktop environment out there?

You can by now.

Why can't the panel be made to be a custom size?

Because they probably shouldn't have called KDE4.0 4.0.

KDE4 is a major rewrite the way KDE2 was. And if you think back KDE2 didn't become usable until KDE2.1/2.2 either but the code they wrote then was the basis for KDE all the way through the 3.x series. Linux 2.6, Gnome 2.0, none of them were ready for primetime and inclusion in distributions. But with OSS you have to release at some point because otherwise you end up with Enlightenment 0.17.

At least they 'fessed up and told us that the lack of functionality was caused by a lack of time and not by some brilliant vision for a new simpler, "more usable" DE. =P

Re:Still waiting for KDE 4 to be ready

[spyfrog]

One annoying thing with 4.0 is that they seam to have removed some parts that existed in 3.x and that was good. One exemple is kprinter, the printer tool.
This is to make a comeback in 4.1. Since I love kprinter, I am waiting for 4.1 before switching to a 4x codebase.

Re:ok...

[Enderandrew]

Minimalist? What do you mean by that?

The KDE 4 design is considerably cleaner than KDE 3. It uses less memory, and runs faster, and when KDE 4.1 hits with QT 4.4, it should improve significantly again. There is a known issue with QT 4.3 that forces some hackery in screen rendering that is resolved in QT 4.4

I'm not sure how Gnome is more minimalist, unless you mean fewer options and features. Then again, I'm not sure why people don't like having choice.

Unoriginal?

[Enderandrew]

Since when did Mac OS and Windows have stuff like Sonnet, Strigi/Nepomuk, Solid, Plasma, Decibel, etc?

Oh wait, they didn't.

It really irks me when people look at a window decoration, and assume that fully encompasses the work of KDE 4.

Re:Unoriginal?

[2nd Post!]

What are you talking about?
Sonnet: System wide spellcheck has been a part of Mac OS X since 2001, a part of NeXT since 1986 (I think)
Strigi/Nepomuk: System wide search/index and metadata has been a part of Mac OS X since 2005
Solid: Isn't this I/OKit, a framework for managing drivers, power management, driver loading, and configuration of devices?
Plasma: Isn't this a combination of CoreGraphics/Quartz, Dashboard, the Dock, the Finder, et al?
Decibel: This sounds unique :)

So a lot of things already exist in the Mac that are being written up for KDE4, some things look like an evolution of existing Mac technologies, and some things are new.

What is your point? No one develops in a vacuum.

Re:Unoriginal?

[Enderandrew]

Sonnet - It isn't simply spell check but a bevy of language tools including language recognition and grammar check.
Nepomuk - This is FAR more than search. http://nepomuk.kde.org/
Solid - I don't know anything about I/OKit, but Solid provides an easy API for apps to interact with hardware.
Plasma - In many ways it offers previous functionality (panels, dock, widgets, etc) but it brings them all together under one library and framework, however the real innovation and advantage of Plasma is the ability to generate apps easily in most any language. And while widgets have existed for a while, most widgets are useless toys. Plasma provides powerful data engines to create actual useful apps.

Re:Unoriginal?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I'm always saddened when people who have obviously not really used both OS's being discussed try to argue the superiority of one over the other. Seriously, don't even bother unless you actually know both OS's and what they can do.

Sonnet - It isn't simply spell check but a bevy of language tools including language recognition and grammar check.

Yes, it is an API as well. It is also still worlds behind OS X's very innovative system services which has allowed users to plug in arbitrary functionality via a simple plug-in or offer functionality contained within an application. With Sonnet, you can add functionality like grammar checking and application developers can then alter their programs to take advantage of it. With OS X, all cocoa apps can automatically use these functions, even if the developer never even considered a use. I dropped a grammar checking service into my Services folder in 2001 and have been able to use it in Safari, Terminal, MS Word, TextEdit, Mail.app, iChat, etc. ever since. I also dropped in some text manipulation scripts, language translation services, automatic bibliography formatting, etc. When I installed a payware professional thesaurus it offered itself for use in all the other programs as well. KDE is ahead of OS X in a number of ways, but this definitely is not one of them.

Nepomuk - This is FAR more than search. http://nepomuk.kde.org/

Actually OS X does have tools to do the same sort of thing, but they don't ship with a GUI, although there are several freeware GUIs. That said, I hope Nepomuk helps to bring this sort of functionality into the mainstream with more ubiquitous, standardized use across program UIs, in a default install.

Solid - I don't know anything about I/OKit, but Solid provides an easy API for apps to interact with hardware.

I've never used Solid, but I don't see anything to imply it is revolutionary, or even a best of breed solution.

Plasma - In many ways it offers previous functionality (panels, dock, widgets, etc) but it brings them all together under one library and framework, however the real innovation and advantage of Plasma is the ability to generate apps easily in most any language.

Even Windows Vista offers this these days.

And while widgets have existed for a while, most widgets are useless toys. Plasma provides powerful data engines to create actual useful apps.

There are certainly some very useful Widgets and it is nice that KDE can use ones designed for OS X (even if I will probably never use them). Nothing prevents Widgets from having the functionality of full fledged apps and on OS X they can plug into the normal APIs like CoreData.

For quite some time I've been maintaining a large list of the advantages each major OS has over competitors. Maybe I should expand that into a full-fledged comparison and submit the article to Slashdot. Then at least users can have an informed list they can use as a basis for comparisons. It just seems like most arguments turn into emotionally charged messes with very few people arguing from the position of actually having used on a regular basis the OS's in question. The only thing holding me back from writing it right now is that I've ditched Vista for the time being and am on WinXP for my Windows needs (until Vista stabilizes).

Re:Great, when is it actually going to be useable?

[DarkProphet]

Just, curious, because its not clear from your post -- What version of KDE are you running in which Konq crashes on you? I run Kunbuntu 7.10 and have never had any official KDE apps die on me. Are you running KDE 4.0 or the prereleases or something?

Re:ok...

[cheater512]

Just yesterday I tested my laptop (Pentium 3, 512mb ram) vs a Turion laptop with a gig of ram.

Mine started KDE 4 far faster than KDE 3 on the superior computer.

Re:ok...

[routerl]

I'm not sure how Gnome is more minimalist, unless you mean fewer options and features. Then again, I'm not sure why people don't like having choice.

Because more choice is not always better. Gnome does what I need it to do, and is as customizable as I need it to be. Given that, my pre-existing comfort with gnome, and my never having used KDE for any extended period of time, I have no desire or need to switch. And this is independent of whatever advantages KDE might have, when it comes to what you need it for.

The first public alpha, you mean.

[Iowan41]

Is it even usable yet?

If you are just looking for eyecandy

[cyberassasin]

you can go here . The original Blog in Polish that was translated... be nice to the server. maybe someone can mirror...

Re:slashdotted already

[DJCacophony]

That's okay, here's a copy of the article text:

Re:ok...

[timmarhy]

i'm curious how it performs compared to xfce? KDE was dog when i tried 3, but it was hellish nice to look at.

Re:ok...

[cp.tar]

I'm not sure how Gnome is more minimalist, unless you mean fewer options and features. Then again, I'm not sure why people don't like having choice. Because more choice is not always better. Gnome does what I need it to do, and is as customizable as I need it to be. Given that, my pre-existing comfort with gnome, and my never having used KDE for any extended period of time, I have no desire or need to switch. And this is independent of whatever advantages KDE might have, when it comes to what you need it for.

On the other hand, I consider myself a former Gnome user.
The last version of Gnome I was happy with was 1.4, though I have continued to use it through 2.18 or even 2.20. Every single revision took some options away — some options I had been using, too. I'd never much liked KDE (admittedly, mainly because I found Gnome to be prettier, i.e. more themeable), but as far as Linux is concerned, I'm switching to KDE. The tipping point for me was when Gnome ruined the dictionary applet, BTW.

KDE 4 seems to have many of the things I like about OS X, which has recently become my primary OS. Not to mention that in the near future I should be able to put KDE on my Windows install, thus making my life with Windows easier. I just wonder whether there is a decent OS X-like dock for KDE now; taskbars annoy me.

My father and several other Linux newbies (and computer newbies, for that matter) just love the new KDE menu, so I switched all their computers to KDE-based distros (still 3.5, though).

And it looks good now.
The only environment whose looks I like better is E17, but I have no time to play with alpha software. It's a pity those guys don't do something more with their project, as it would be just perfect for older systems (their graphic library is amazingly fast IME).

Re:Oh nos: Appleface!

[ajs318]

Run Debian and use the Window Maker desktop. It doesn't look or behave a blind thing like Windows. Perhaps as a consequence of this, it's blisteringly fast.

very cool..

[Adult film producer]

i'm not a kde user but there seems to be a lot of excitement in their community... moving forward and building new desktop apps. Not sure whats happening to gnome... if the novell/decaza's are still mired in microsofts patent shadow or what, but it seems like its dying, thats just my impression. gnomedesktop.org is basically dead, press releases posted up once in a while for the sake of procedure but whatever. doesn't help that the developers in irc (irc.gnome.org) are combative with new users.. whatever.

Not satisfied

[pleasenopuffin]

I switched over from Suse to a Mac Mini, and have been there for over a year now. I have been eagerly waiting for KDE 4 to be released, having been stalking it since Nov, 2006. I have to say, I am sorely disappointed with it. I first started with Suse 10.3, and I used the 1-click install and it only installed about 30 percent of the files. After hours of tedious work, I finally got it working enough to the point where I decided it wasn't worth it. I then chose to go with Kubuntu, just to see if it was easier to install, and I ended up with the same result. In the end, after working hard to get KDE4 installed, I never got it to the point where I could settle in and use it regularly. I think it should still be KDE4beta. Has anyone else had anything similar? I can't wait until the day when you can download a simple install application (like .exe or .dmg) and have everything done for you. I think that is one of Linux's major weaknesses.

Amarok 2, no thank you

[MrNemesis]

I know it's not a "true2 part of KDE and I hate to make another rant about this, but I've been unable to see anything but a horrific downturn in amarok, both in terms of usability and basic visual appeal and the developers are convinced their "content-centric" way of doing things is The Right Way. In my experience this translates to:
Making it look like superficiallyiTunes whilst continuting to ignore the ability to have the user decide where to put things like the playback controls and position slider
Seemingly ephemeral "content window" taking up greater than a third of the main app real estate so I can repeatedly read the wikipedia articles on my bands, or something. Why would I want to do this all the time? Oh right, because it's plasma
Aforementioned content window gets in the way of dragging things from the tree browser on the left to the playlist on the right
Playlist has been severely gimped compared to amarok 1.4 IMHO. Devs have been telling users like me that keep several thousand items in their playlist are stupid (the only valid reason I ever saw was because it increases startup time - something I'm not particularly worried about with my current amarok uptime being about fifteen days) whilst failing to provide me with a convenient way to listen to my music in the way I liked (generally on random/semi-random unless I want to listen to a particular album or artist, in which case I use the boolean filter)

Maybe I'm horrifically sad and very much music 1.0 or some such crap, but I use amarok because it makes managing and quickly picking out music from a massive collection really, really easy. Amarok 2 just seems to me to be a catalogue of style over usability and change for changes sake. Pretty much every criticism I've seen of the new UI on the blog from the very first mockups has been shouted down with either "these aren't even alpha yet, shut up, the final design will look nothing like this!", "you're wrong, this way is prettier", "we think it's more usable even if you don't, no we won't provide that as an option, it goes against our philosophy" or "can't change it now, we're too close to release". Seriously, how much time to /.'ers spend staring at their music application (not counting pretty visuals like projectm)?

Since the site seems slashdotted, here's the latest dev image posted to the amarok blog: http://amarok.kde.org/blog/uploads/Newtheme.png

On a more KDE-centric level, I'm not enjoying the low-contrast Qt themes with the insistence of rounding every possible corner, and I've yet to come across any themes that give be the beautific simplicity of Plastik
The new XP-style kicker replacement is an absolute abomination to use. Too many clicks, practically impossible to browse the program hierarchies quickly. Everyone says "use the search!" - sorry, I shouldn't have to use the search function because you neglected basic functionality
Still doesn't like working across multiple monitors
Panel and window configuration options are still severely lacking
Seeming enforcement of "the desktop is the application!" metaphor with the proliferation of widgets replacing apps. The desktop, in my way of working at least, is visible for about three seconds after login until an app or five autostarts and covers it. Thanks to KDE's fantastic setup of multiple individually configurable panels and/or kb shortcuts I was able to do away with all of that tiresome minimising of windows. If you're going to make us use widgets, at least give us the option to make them use the window manager so they get an entry in the taskbar, please. The lets-have-windows-without-taskbar-entries philosophy is annoying enough on windows, as anyone who's spent time trying to find that security dialog box that took a minute or two to appear will testify
Speaking of the taskbar, the icons are still huge and it still doesn't play very nicely with having lots of windows open
Last time I checked, those somewhat confus

Re:Amarok 2, no thank you

[LiquidFire_HK]

On a more KDE-centric level, I'm not enjoying the low-contrast Qt themes with the insistence of rounding every possible corner, and I've yet to come across any themes that give be the beautific simplicity of Plastik How about the Qt 4 version of Plastik, called "Plastique", which ships with Qt 4 by default?

Many (if not all) of your other complaints, while valid, are things that have simply not yet been fixed, or features that have not been implemented. It was just that KDE 4.0 was somewhat rushed (it probably should have been still beta, but at least this way it got lots of development attention).

As for Amarok, you really don't need a playlist of all your music just so you can listen to random stuff or stuff based on a filter - that's what Smart and Dynamic Playlists are for (I should add that I have not tried recent versions of Amarok 2, but I use Dynamic Playlists even in 1.4).

Re:Amarok 2, no thank you

[Library Spoff]

I agree with the two many clicks on kicker. First time i cam across it was with an open-suse beta. It's really putting me off kde4. Which i want to like! Apparently you can install the old type though...

As for the new amarok gui. I hadn't seen that yet.

Re:Amarok 2, no thank you

[MrNemesis]

For one thing, I don't want to have to be continually defining new playlists (I have about twenty that I use for when I want a specific subset of music but that's about it), and secondly how do you script "play random stuff from this folder, this folder, this folder, this folder and this folder until I decide I want to listen to some Tori Amos"? I'm used to just switching to amarok, typing in "tori" and leaving it. I'm not aware of any method in amarok 2 that allows me to do this quickly. Like I said, I don't spend much time looking at my music player - that's what movie players are for.

For some reason I hadn't come across plastique - I've just checked again and it is available in ubtuntu whereas I'm pretty certain it wasn't at first. At last some sanity from all the low-contrast roundiness! Cheers for the prod.

The whole release management thing for KDE4 has been done to death, but I'll restate my position on this - if they call it a 4.0 instead of a 3.99, then I'm going to treat it like a 4.0 and bitch about bugs and missing features. I didn't cut Vista any slack when it was released in an only semi-usable state, and I don't really see how KDE 4.0 is much different. To say I'm looking forward to KDE4 becoming usable is true, to say that I'm a bit narked with the progress and methodology so far is also true. Time will tell I guess.

Re:Amarok 2, no thank you

[domatic]

With a dynamic playlist, you aren't "continually defining new playlists". If you add or take away a bunch of stuff, you just find "All Collection" in the Dynamic Playlists and Load. Once that is done, the search bar works like you say. At least, that is what this Amarok 1.4 user does. If they took that functionality out of Amarok 2 then I'll join you on the Hater Wagon.

As for 4.0 Must Be Perfectly Cromulent Or I Will Be Really Mad, the same thing happened with KDE 2.0. They called it 2.0 because the underlying APIs and frameworks were done and the rest wouldn't follow unless there was a release to get the distros on board. They did a pretty good job with the the 2.0 underpinnings because they have lasted to the current KDE 3.5.9. On the other hand, I remember what running 2.0 was like at first and am waiting until 4.1 or 4.2 shows up as a Kubuntu default release (having a depo doesn't count. When it is a default then I know it will be polished enough not to annoy me). The KDE devs have done this exact thing before and it didn't take long for it to make a good desktop. So just chill and gently extricate yourself from the bleeding edge. All will be well.

Re:Amarok 2, no thank you

[logixoul]

The plasma view can get out of sight if you simply drag the grippie and shrink it to 0.
Yes, the central view sucks. No, I'm not convinced we've seen the complete potential of it yet.
Yes, Amarok 2 lacks basic visual appeal. I believe that once there's a dot-oh release, the devs will grow out of playing with their toys, and are going to revert to a more standard visual theme, ditching most use of SVGs in the process.
Re gimped playlist: putting a thousand songs in your playlist because you want to listen to random music is not a targeted usecase. Use dynamic playlists.
Re roundey Qt themes: try Skulpture and Plastique.
Re kickoff: it's undergone usability studies by Novell. But yes, people have been whining about it from day one, so once the ad-hoc experiments Raptor and Lancelot get usable, the devs might just be shouted into changing the default.
Re plasmoids under windows: check this out. http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2007/07/plasma-and-mac-dashboard.html
Re lickable shininess: there's a shitload of work going on under the surface. A lot of it is visible in commit digests, a whole lot more goes unnoticed.

Re:ok...

[c0p0n]

I'm not sure how Gnome is more minimalist, unless you mean fewer options and features. Then again, I'm not sure why people don't like having choice.

Because more choice is not always better. Gnome does what I need it to do, and is as customizable as I need it to be. Given that, my pre-existing comfort with gnome, and my never having used KDE for any extended period of time, I have no desire or need to switch. And this is independent of whatever advantages KDE might have, when it comes to what you need it for.

I'm sorry, but I don't see your point. Are you saying that, as Gnome does what you need it to do, choice ain't better? But then you say "it comes to what you need it for"?

How is it having choice worse than no choice at all? That defies common sense, buddy.

Because KDE crashes more

[oldbamboo]

As a Windows gimp, I have been trying to install and use Linux for ten years. I always used KDE and it was always the same two things that killed it as an experience for me:

1. RPM (What is up with that, way to go to differentiate your product for Enterprise, make all software pretty much uninstallable and unmanageable)
2. KDE, I installed it each time, and each time, the desktop was great for a day, then slipped irreversibly into a quagmire of wierd bugs, or horrible configurations I couldn't rescue.

OK, I'm noob. But that's my point. Ever since I first installed Ubuntu a year ago, I have been thrilled by the stability of the Gnome Desktop, and the reliability of apt-get. There is no comparison.
I'm really stoked about what has happened with KDE4, but I'm also depressed, it's just more of the same, it's a UI that is virtually promising that it will be horribly unstable, on account of it's bleeding edge. I wish KDE would just get out of the marketplace altogether, and stop scaring people away from Linux, which is, from my experience, exactly what they have been doing for years now.

Re:Because KDE crashes more

[oldbamboo]

OH, BTW, I know RPM is in no way part of KDE, so don't bother pointing that one out. Just thought I'd take a sideswipe at RPM too while I was at the keyboard.

Re:Because KDE crashes more

[MrHanky]

KDE 3.5.x hardly ever crashes for me. Sometimes, KMail's IMAP sort of hangs so that I have to restart the app to be able to check for new mail in whatever folder it's hung up in, and sometimes Konqueror will crash when browsing the web (it's not significantly less stable than Safari, Opera, Firefox/Iceweasel and IE, though), but I've never noticed any slowdowns. I've had some botched (but fixable) configuration files a couple of years ago (2004, probably), related to KMail's filters. Oh and Kopete has crashed a few times as well, but I use it almost all the time. I use Debian Sid.

Perhaps your problem is using Kubuntu or Fedora. KDE in Debian is solid.

Re:Because KDE crashes more

[try_anything]

In my usage since 2002, I've never seen any instability or weird bugs out of KDE, except some of the KDE applications that were in early stages of development. You must have had the bad luck to try it on a distro that had poor support for it, forced you to install and configure it yourself, or installed alpha KDE apps instead of stable non-KDE alternatives. If you want a desktop that just works, you're better off trying KDE as packaged and configured by a decent distro, such as SUSE (in the old days) or Kubuntu (these days).

I agree with you about RPM. Incidentally, for several years RPM was the package management system used by the vast majority of the polished, user-friendly, point-and-click distros. The GUI front ends presented by Red Hat and especially SUSE were state-of-the-art. If distros had applied your "get out of the marketplace" attitude to package management systems, wouldn't RPM have taken over? Superior polish doesn't always mean the best long-term choice for usability.

it's a UI that is virtually promising that it will be horribly unstable, on account of it's bleeding edge

People who value stability should avoid alpha releases, beta releases, and maybe even first public releases if they're paranoid. It's just a fact of life with software. If GNOME is a temporary exception to this because they're concentrating on polishing the UI instead of making technological progress, that's fine, but it's just where they happen to be right now. No consumer-oriented desktop can afford to sit still and polish for too long, because their users would desert them.

Re:Because KDE crashes more

[oldbamboo]

Mmmm... Choice is good, for people of a certain technical ability, but I want Linux to break through on the desktop, so I don't have to use Windows any more, and you have to admit that the introduction of so many choices of Vista (what was it 7?) was one of the key reasons people did not upgrade. Linux is being hurt badly by this business of two main desktop flavours. Looking on from the outside, it bothers me immensely. I'm ignorant, but again that's the point. If there is any uncertainty about GUI based apps on Linux being able to run on the desktop each and every time, as they do with Mac and Windows, then it holds back adoption. There is not a standard for the Linux desktop, and that's terrible. The question of which is the better GUI is almost academic. And Gnome, for a desktop which is just being polished, blows Vista out of the water in terms of user experience and sophistication, KDE is richer, but it doesn't need to be. All we need is something that takes away MS market share, and Gnome is capable of that. I showed Gnome to my wife a few months ago, and her response was a very genuine "wow!", and this is someone who isn't normally impressed by IT in any form. I appreciate your comments, but I have to re-iterate, KDE, installed during install, made Linux unusable for me each time. Gnome and Ubuntu is the first Linux distro I've used regularly for more than a fortnight. I'm keen to give KDE another try, because it looks amazing but I'm worried it will be bad again. The most important feature of a UI is that it does everything it can to not get in your way surely?

Re:Because KDE crashes more

[try_anything]

"Linux" will never be ready for anybody; only individual distros will. I don't think this is an unreasonable way to handle it. If you look at the desktop market as a whole, there's no standard. People manage to figure out whether they want Windows or Mac. (A few decades ago they had a bunch more choices, and grown-ups these days have fond memories of the Commodore 64, TRS-80, or Apple IIe they had growing up.) We just have to add Ubuntu in there as a third choice, and add in other Linux distros when they become ready.

Anyway, how could we establish "Linux" as a brand even if we tried? It would be a lie! What happens when some poor user tries to download and install uClinux? Or a server-only distro? (Or, God forbid, Debian stable. "Why are all my apps three years old?!")

No, better not to promote "Linux" as a desktop brand. We would have to exterminate all the wonderful and useful non-consumer-friendly Linux distros, or we would have to explain them all. Neither one is even possible. You can't force embedded systems developers to use Ubuntu, and you can't explain to Joe Consumer that there's a single thing called "Linux" that runs on supercomputers and cell phones and the thing on his desk. Better to let people think, "Mac, Windows, or Ubuntu?" And then in a few years, "Mac, Windows, Ubuntu, or OldBamboox?"

If there is any uncertainty about GUI based apps on Linux being able to run on the desktop each and every time

There is already no question about this with well-packaged software and a decent package management system. Bad software and bad systems will always be floating around, though, unless we go on a crusade to purge the net of amateurish software. It's up to distros to steer users toward vetted and well-packaged software.

I have to re-iterate, KDE, installed during install, made Linux unusable for me each time

And I have to reiterate that it's the distro's job to configure KDE and install stable applications. Without going back in time to examine your only systems, there's no way to know whose fault it was that KDE didn't work for you, but there have been excellent KDE-based distros for at least five years -- I switched to SUSE from Red Hat in 2002 or 2003 and found it to be much more professional and trouble-free. Based on that, all I can say is that your distro(s) failed where others succeeded.

I'm keen to give KDE another try, because it looks amazing but I'm worried it will be bad again.

The latest stable Kubuntu based on KDE3 is quite good. Kubuntu replaces the KDE Control Center with their own slightly less functional control panel, so some configuration options are impossible to find -- but as a GNOME fan I'm sure you won't mind ;-) On the other hand, you might as well wait until Kubuntu decides that KDE4 is stable and stops using KDE3 for its stable releases.

Re:Because KDE crashes more

[oldbamboo]

Interesting discussion, thanks for all the comments. I'd like to give Kubuntu a whirl soon enough. I still think there is room for one major Linux distro to take chunks from MS's desktop monopoly, and based on what I've seen it would be Debian based, and have Gnome as the front end. I'm basing that on there being more software native to Gnome than KDE, and all the other stuff I've mentioned above. I've googled (not very hard) but I haven't found any useful info out there about running Gnome apps on KDE and vice versa, I'm guessing it's not advisable, if not impossible? Freedom for the MASSES.

Why is there a trash can on the desk top?

[Shivetya]

I hate THAT!

Sorry, just had to vent. In my office the trash can is out of site but easily accessible. So should it be on my computer desktop.

On XP I just removed it totally from the desktop and get at it through explorer. I saw a mod that allowed it to live in the system tray which I think is a better solution. I understand that on my Mac that its a native part of how the UI operates but at least I can keep the whole bar down there off my screen or scale it so its not annoying.

Still... in real life we don't sit them on our desks.... maybe they should use the ashtray instead - because thats the only "trash" thing ever to sit on a desk

LiteStep

[v(*_*)vvvv]

I share your dislike for the Fisher-Price trend, but I am sure you can *fix* it in any Linux distro by tweaking the setup. But I am guessing it isn't as easy on Windows for most people, especially Vista. Unfortunately I am stuck with Vista, and have had to find a way, and I found a solution with LiteStep and Windowblinds (shareware, but there are alternatives). I kill DWM so it never runs, and use WindowBlinds to replace the oversized window borders with something tolerable.

LiteStep replaces the Windows shell, and I have 4 virtual desktops that I can switch using ALT+1/2/3/4. I have Win+Tab switch to the last desktop, and only applications on each desktop appear in the taskbar and ALT+Tab. Clutter is gone, apps are placed nicely in their designated area, and switching to and fro has never been faster or easier. The WIN key calls the minimalist LiteStep menu, as does clicking the desktop.

Unfortunately it took me a lot of work to get all this in place (this setup is not out-of-the-box), and LiteStep is hard to grasp if you are not used to text files (ala dot files). But the fact that I was able to turn Vista into something I feel is both "cool" and "utilitarian" is quite amazing. The best thing about LiteStep is that it is highly customizable.

If you are stuck using Windows but want to get as far away from it as possible, LiteStep is definitely worth a look :)

Re:LiteStep

[MrNemesis]

KDE 4 currently contains so few tweaking options (as in the features are missing from the code, not that you have to edit some obscure XML file or what have you) that it isn't an option at the moment. Since I know exactly what I want to do, I can go from a vanilla KDE install to a desktop that's almost fully tweaked to my needs in about half an hour, after 90 minutes of fiddling with KDE 4 I gave up.

Progress on adding features in preparation for the "real" KDE4 has been glacial enough that I can say it won't have the functionality I desire. But it'll look Shiny, so that's an adequate subtitute.

Re:LiteStep

[Wheely]

Believe me, you are not alone. I have been a KDE user on many machines since the pre-kde 1.0. I started with KDE Beta 2 or Beta 3, cant remember.

KDE 4 is, as you say, a real step backwards for people that do things their own way. I really, really dislike the new philosophy and bizarre design decisions. I really wanted to like it but find I can now go back to fvwm2 or even TkDesk which is what I once ran or, if I have to have my way of working decided for me, use OSX (this post on a macbook). I really disike OSX but it has all the nastiness of modern GUI trends tempered by supporting all sorts of hardware without thinking about it. Plus I can run Photoshop and the tomTom to go software.

Ok, I still have Slackware/KDE 3.5 running in vmware on this box but how long can I keep doing that?

Re:LiteStep

[MrNemesis]

As metamatic linked to in his excellent post;

http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/kde-4-some-reasons-for-design-decisions/

So, why the change at all? Again, one part of the answer is the code base of the old solution: it was, according to the developers, ugly. Additionally, Novell spent quite some money and time on the question how a menu actually should look like usability wise. They checked back with users (like, real people, not computer people ) and tried to figure out what actually is usable. Most people like the classical menu because they are used to - that has nothing to do how well this type of menu is actually suitable to the task. And usability wise it is totally nuts to navigate such menus with a mouse! (Do I have to add that I dont use menus at all as long as I can avoid it? Long live Alt+F2!) So they started developing Kickoff - with average or new users in their mind.

In the end the situation was that usability wise Kickoff was a strong improvement to the old menu. It doesnt matter if you disagree with that personally, because that has nothing to do with the figures gathered in a scientific test. Also, there was developer power there to port Kickoff. And they did. Originally, there was even another menu planed, but that was delayed.

Re:LiteStep

[Wheely]

This just drives me nuts.

I really find it hard to believe the stuff that is supposed to come out of usability studies. I have seen some usability stuff at the sharp end and it looks sensible but what actually ends being released is beyond logic to me. I dont believe many of these people are capable of understanding the effect their goal is on the subjects reactions.

I fail to believe that "search" is better for newbies who dont know what they are searching for. Its almost as dumb as thinking context sensitive menus are a good idea. The most important learning tool in any system, even a text book is the chance of accidently seeing things you werent looking for. Be it, the man page for "grep" you first found while you were flicking through looking for the man page for "ls" or the option on a menu for "Save profile web browsing" while looking for the option to "exit", this is useful stuff to become aware of. People dont look for things they dont know about for christ sake!

Dont get me started on who thought it was a good idea to move the "clear the url line" button from the left the right in konqueror. I dont know about most people but I start writing in that box on the left and not only that, thats where the cursor ends up after youve pressed it.

Oh and big grey boxes with tools on when you hover over a plasmoid. Pretty but dumb. I see that now, at least, the little tool icons dont swap sides depending on which part of the screen your on. Thank god for one small mercy from the "how people work gurus". I had to laugh when my excitement at getting rid of the things (by "locking" the desktop) made it impossible to change your background image. Logical to some extent until you realise that, given the "set image as background image" disappears from the desktop menu, there are no clues whatsoever to tell you in six months time that the steps to change your background are 1) unlock desktop, 2) Go to menu that two seconds ago didnt mention anything about this task and 3) select the option to change the background.

It is utter, utter nonsense and we are being taken in by the human interface sales pitch.

I really, realy get some of the technology improvements in KDE4. I think they are a marvel and have the potential to be world beating. It is streets ahead of anything else. Sadly, it will become just a demo application for technology if this philosophy continues.

My 65 year old mother hates it and she is one of the target users.

God it makes me baity!

Re:LiteStep

[MrNemesis]

I've been struggling to remain sufficiently Zen amongst all this as well. I don't recommend you read some of the comments on that page if you value your blood pressure, there seems to be a colossal mentality of "Novell spent loads of money on it, and it's scientific, therefore is MUST be true!".

The search function seems retarded to me as well, for the precisely the reasons you state - we already have a method for launching applications where you're able to type in the start of the name of a program, press a button to initiate a search and then press return to launch the application, it's called a bash shell with tab complete in my book. Woo fucking hoo for your innovative search function. As you say, pretty much the whole point of a GUI, and the reason they're easier to pick up by n00bs, is that they expose you to more than you're currently using. Kickoff is the complete antihesis of this, yet it still manages to be complex enough to be confusing.

The most disturbing thing is the attitudes of some of the key developers who seem to think that a) the current users (especially the power users) don't have valid opinions and b) that it's better to cater to the lowest common denominator. Sorry, that's why I dumped GNOME. I don't want to dump KDE, but if you make everything as ball-gratingly annoying to use as kickoff and amarok I'm not going to have a choice.

Here's to hoping that the "It's finished, honest!" 4.1 will either a) put off a load of users and spur the devs into using some common sense instead of putting faith in design by committee or b) actually be halfway usable. Until then, I'm going to continue hugging my beloved KDE 3.5 - hands down the best UI I have ever used, imagined, experienced, witnessed, praised or wiggled.

Re:ok...

[nw15062]

They love having a choice, so long as it is theirs...

Re:ok...

[cbart387]

I can't speak for him, but I can speak for me on this. All things being equal, having more choices is better than having no (or few) choices. The problem is, things aren't equal. I happen to like all (or most) the options that are given by default in GNOME. KDE, not so much. So, if both KDE and GNOME were somewhat close to my preference with defaults, I would go with KDE in the unlikely event I want to tinker.

Now the GP I think is saying something similar. That he likes GNOME (and its preferences) so why should he switch to KDE just because it has more choices if those more choices don't buy him anything?

Re:ok...

[growse]

Completely off-topic I know...

What panel are you using? When I play with non-Gnome/KDE wms, I always struggle to find a panel I like that works and is reasonably stable. The themes and stuff in that screenshot look pretty good as well :)

Re:ok...

[xSauronx]

I agree about E17. IIRC, they announced that they got accepted into the Summer of Code, and hope to have more interested coders stick around to help. It'd be interesting. I tried it last year when Debian Etch was made stable, I liked it, but not enough to use it regularly, especially if it isnt well supported. Even the forums are almost dead.

I use Gnome/Ubuntu now. I prefer it over KDE as something about KDE never sat right with me. I think when Ubuntu 8.04 comes out Ill try that and Kubuntu, and Xubuntu and see which I want to stick with on my laptop. Its aging (a T40) and Im afraid too much more in the way of progress will significantly hamper its capability. If KDE 4.x is noticeable faster than Gnome, I may get over it and use it or XFCE anyway.

Re:ok...

[the_womble]

Many people say exactly the same thing about Windows vs Linux....

In fact you could say it about any piece of software: many KDE users would say the same about Gnome.

I find Gnome does not work well for me (I try it every year of so), so the choice is good for me, though it may not be good for you.

Re:ok...

[cp.tar]

I agree about E17. IIRC, they announced that they got accepted into the Summer of Code, and hope to have more interested coders stick around to help. It'd be interesting. I tried it last year when Debian Etch was made stable, I liked it, but not enough to use it regularly, especially if it isnt well supported. Even the forums are almost dead.

Well, we'll see what comes from it after SoC is over. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

I use Gnome/Ubuntu now. I prefer it over KDE as something about KDE never sat right with me. I think when Ubuntu 8.04 comes out Ill try that and Kubuntu, and Xubuntu and see which I want to stick with on my laptop. Its aging (a T40) and Im afraid too much more in the way of progress will significantly hamper its capability. If KDE 4.x is noticeable faster than Gnome, I may get over it and use it or XFCE anyway.

As I said, KDE never used to sit with me either, but ever since 3.5 it's been rather more pleasant and polished than Gnome. KDE 4 shows lots of promise, so I think I'll give it a serious try as soon as I get a spot of time to play with it.

Re:ok...

[karbonKid]

I use E17 CVS as my sole WM, and I have to say, it's amazingly stable, fast and potentially good-looking. The core WM, panels, modules etc. are easily good-looking, funtional and stable enough for day-to-day use.

Maybe the developers should release a Beta 'core' snapshot, that doesn't include buggy/incomplete things such as the file manager or the Bling module, etc. but just a few panels, themes and useful modules (wlan, volume, Tclock, taskbar etc. etc.) - It would work wonders for Enlightenment's popularity.

By the way, you can see a screenshot of my E17 desktop here: http://karbonkid.deviantart.com/art/My-new-e17-desktop-76627256

Re:ok...

[Enderandrew]

MSDOS 6.1 also uses far less memory than XFCE!

There is this big minimalist fight over what uses the least amount of resources, or hard-core you are by using the most minimalist of software. If you have an older computer, and you can't get modern software to run, then by all means, use older software. But having system resources sit around unused isn't helping you either.

In discussing how "slow" or "fast" something is, two things come to mind. The first and foremost is sitting around and waiting for slow software while your computer sits frozen and unusable. The second thing, less commonly thought of, is a lack of modern features, or a poorly designed UI that forces you to jump through hoops to perform basic tasks.

In that regard, some people will swear by XFCE, or OpenBox, or twm, or whatever because it uses so few resources. For my use personally, they don't provide me the features I need to get my work done quickly. Honestly, the best part about Linux is having the choice to get the features I want or don't want. Picking between XFCE and KDE is picking between a scale of features vs. performance. Picking between Gnome and KDE isn't really about which one uses less memory (KDE with benchmarks to prove it, though people often assume Gnome most because it has fewer features) but rather about design philosophy.

Gnome removes choice and option from the user, along the notion that the user is an idiot and doesn't know how to configure their box. KDE can look like OS X, Windows, even Gnome (now that QT 4 has a native Clearlooks engine) if you like. KDE can look totally original as well. You configure it to operate and look however you want, because you are given so many choices. I'm confused by the mindset of users who don't like choice, and prefer others to dictate to them how their desktop will operate.

http://xkcd.com/378/

Re:ok...

[domatic]

E's problem is that the devs are never happy with it so it never seems to enter a "last 10%" stage where all user visible things you can use like the file manager and Bling are made fast, stable, and good looking. This sort of polishing means putting pretty much a complete halt to adding Really Cool New Stuff for awhile. Everytime E is about to reach that stage, they announce a Total Rewrite That Will Be Better Than Ever. I lost patience with it years ago.

Dock for KDE

[Enderandrew]

There are several docks for KDE.

http://xqde.xiaprojects.com/
http://www.xiaprojects.com/index.php?section=All&project=KXDocker
http://www.kiba-dock.org/
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=12097

I don't use a dock, but I believe XQDE is written in QT 4, and from the last I read, it is supposed to be leaner and faster than its KXDocker predecessor.

That kicker replacement

[metamatic]

The new XP-style kicker replacement is an absolute abomination to use. Too many clicks, practically impossible to browse the program hierarchies quickly.

Absolutely right. I came here to see if anyone was going to mention it. I have a long description of what's wrong with the new KDE 4 application launcher on my web site. I've told the maintainers, I've tried to bring it up on the KDE 4 HCI discussion mailing list. So far, I've heard absolutely no response.

I gather that the window is now resizeable, but the other basic design defects remain.

Re:That kicker replacement

[MrNemesis]

Good blog post :)

For one thing, you describe the way you work your way around cities in the exact same way I do (I similarly have terrible linguistic memory but highly developed spatial and visual), and my experiences with the new kicker exactly mirror yours. Likewise, I rarely remember the name of an app, I either remember the shape of the letters or the shape of the icon (I generally read a word at a time, rather than letter by letter if you catch my drift). The new K menu is so visually inconsistent to me that I find myself literally having to read each and every option nearly every single time, and it also took me minutes to find applications that had taken me seconds before.

The fact that you can't just hover your mouse to see if $app is listed under "tools" or "configuration" or whatever is the biggest failing in my book, it's now click, move, click, maybe scroll up and down a bit, move back, click, maybe scroll up and down a bit. Having to literally click on every single category is so maddening I can't begin to describe it.

Net result of your rather excellent blog post? I'm now of the conclusion that HCI testing is complete bullshit, especially when the reasons SuSE give are "we didn't like it any more" (change for changes sake, anyone?). Where are the options to return some sanity to that clusterfuck of a start menu? It makes Vista's shutdown menu look like a paragon of simplicity. /disgust

Re:That kicker replacement

[bestinshow]

I am exactly the same with visual/spatial stuff and navigation. If KDE4's menu is indeed like that I am going to be seriously miffed.

I wouldn't mind if it expanded to the right when you click on something, until it hit the screen width where it could start scrolling like Mac OS X's Finder. But there is really no need for such a core desktop function to be so squeezed. I don't want the mess that is Window's start button still, but I do like being able to get to my applications quickly. Some people call the Dock in Mac OS X rubbish, but I know where the things are on it, and I have the Applications folder there as a direct link to a menu of all the applications. Perfect.

I'm sure that feedback will come back as more and more people try KDE4.

Re:That kicker replacement

[Sloppy]

[from your excellent blog post]

Finally, I spotted the secret. Have you seen it yet? In the sub-menu, the space to the left of the icons is shaded gray instead of white

Holy crap. No, I didn't see it, until I read your revelation. If I had been sitting at that computer, I would have lost some hair.

Re:That kicker replacement

[visible.frylock]

Thanks for that post and laying things out in detail. I'm probably somewhat like you in the memory department. One of the first things I do on a fresh XP install is change the start menu back to classic style.

I remember feelings that I would describe as similar to yours when I first used OSX. Here I am as a professional IT worker, and it takes me 15 minutes to find out how to poweroff a machine (I dared not use the power button, it was first time using OSX, and wasn't sure if it would be a graceful shutdown).

My point about OSX is this (although I'm fairly ignorant right now of both the state of OSX and KDE): From a casual reading of the article, the devs seem to be influenced by OSX. I really hope this isn't the case. KDE 3.x, Plastik, xmms, and especially K3B were the sweet spots for me. It doesn't really matter that xmms doesn't really flow with the others. Because it's simple and does its job.

Re:ok...

[mhall119]

It looks like the standard XFCE panel.

Re:ok...

[plague3106]

Modernize? You mean copy Vista, but do it poorly so it looks ugly?

Re:ok...

[mhall119]

I'm sorry, but I don't see your point. Are you saying that, as Gnome does what you need it to do, choice ain't better? But then you say "it comes to what you need it for"?

How is it having choice worse than no choice at all? That defies common sense, buddy. Choice is good, and Gnome has all the choices that KDE has. The difference is presentment of choices. KDE presents to you every choice you could ever want, while Gnome presents you with the choices they think you want, and hide the rest in gconf. It's really a matter of opinion which you like better, some people want to tell the waiter to cook their burger medium/medium-well with ketchup but not mustard, a single leaf of lettuce, no tomato, two pickles and a sesame seed bun. Others just want a damned burger.

In the end, I want a desktop environment that I don't have to use. I have applications that I use, my desktop is just a means of accessing them. After that, I don't want to be bothered by it. That's why I use Gnome.

Re:Oh nos: Appleface!

[couchslug]

Run Debian and install a variety of window managers. Debian makes it easy enough to do.

http://penguinpetes.com/XWM_Guide/index.php?mode=Intro

Re:ok...

[jZnat]

Decent printer configuration tool? Why settle for that when you can get the best one available that supports all of CUPS' features? Just browse to http://localhost:631/ and configure all your printers from there!

Re:ok...

[bogaboga]

This is my biggest trouble with Linux. When I point my browser to http://localost:631 , a page comes up with some message telling me that Firefox cannot establish a connection to the server at 127.0.0.1:631. It goes ahead to tell me that the site could be temporarily available, I should check my network connection or I should check my firewall.

Imagine telling that to my mother. Why don't Linux folks make things just work? In this case this port should have been made available because everyone knows a printer could be added. No wonder we in the Linux world are still playing catch-up.

tricked to use substandard software

[pbhj]

>>> It was just that KDE 4.0 was somewhat rushed (it probably should have been still beta, but at least this way it got lots of development attention).

Look I use KDE, it's been the default desktop environment for me since I started with Slackware about 9 years ago, I've tried Gnome (again recently), FVWM, TWM(!) and minimalist environs you get with the likes of blackbox. That's where I'm coming from ...

If I wanted to be tricked into using sub-standard software I'll buy a new computer with windows preloaded. Releasing KDE4 as a release and not a beta (or extended alpha) just makes it look like KDE sucks-teh-big-one. And to be honest I think, compared to KDE3 it seems like it does - but I'll wait for the 4.1 (which looks like it may actually work properly) and try again.

The kicker is two steps back in usability. Dolphin lacked all the options for displaying different file listings that I use in Konq ...

Mostly agree

[thegnu]

I do recording under Linux, and I like Ardour, et al better than I like anything else I've ever used. I haven't owned a Mac, though, and I've SEEN some stuff on Mac that I'd like to use. That being said, the Linux solutions lack a great deal of polish that most people would require, such as graphical plugins (which I think are on their way with LADSPA2; LADSPA being the equivalent to VST). The only thing keeping Ardour from being as flexible as these other applications, IMO, is MIDI support, which is also on its way.

Again, I really like the feel of Ardour over Protools or Nuendo3, but asking someone to go from Reason, a virtual rack (that actually LOOKS like a rack), to Pd, a sound processing application into which you can program anything (but only has visual representation of signal flow, IIRC), is a tough argument to make.

In any case, the decision between Windows and Linux as a recording environment is a no-brainer for ME. The audio subsystem in Windows is shit, Vista is shit, and Microsoft wants me to call and ask permission to upgrade my box. So *I* agree with you. But asking someone else whose brain works differently to make the leap may not be reasonable.

As for visual apps, I think the same applies, despite the amount of applications such as the GIMP, Cinelerra, etc. I would recommend trying Linux. If you have a Mac, Ardour has a native OS X installer, so try it out. Also, to check out the rest of these apps, try Fink (no 10.5 support). And if you decide to make the leap, UbuntuStudio is a great place to start for the uninitiated. It comes with a real-time kernel and system adjustments and a billion multimedia creation apps.

Re:ok...

[nuzak]

> Gnome has all the choices that KDE has

Like being able to resize windows with alt-rightdrag instead of alt-middle? Last I looked, this was moved out of a configurable setting and hardwired into the WM. All in the name of getting rid of choice.

gconf is a cop-out, and often you're not allowed even that. Sad too, I rather prefer gnome's look, but I'm sick of being held in such contempt by its developers.

Re:ok...

[ZERO1ZERO]

So how do you 'make a port available' manually under Linux?

Re:ok...

[cp.tar]

I use E17 CVS as my sole WM, and I have to say, it's amazingly stable, fast and potentially good-looking. The core WM, panels, modules etc. are easily good-looking, funtional and stable enough for day-to-day use.

Maybe the developers should release a Beta 'core' snapshot, that doesn't include buggy/incomplete things such as the file manager or the Bling module, etc. but just a few panels, themes and useful modules (wlan, volume, Tclock, taskbar etc. etc.) - It would work wonders for Enlightenment's popularity.

By the way, you can see a screenshot of my E17 desktop here: http://karbonkid.deviantart.com/art/My-new-e17-desktop-76627256

Nice.

If nothing else, I'd like to use E17 for any and all of my old computers. Especially if the steampunk mods I'm planning to do with a few friends become something more than plans; I recall E16 being extremely themeable, and I hope I can still make weird-shaped window borders in E17. And since it's blazingly fast, those computers actually become rather usable.

As for the bling module... did I understand correctly that it adds compositing to E?

Re:ok...

[prockcore]

Like being able to resize windows with alt-rightdrag instead of alt-middle?

I'm using Compiz. It's standard with Ubunutu now. Resizing windows is totally customizable. In CompizConfig go to Resize Window -> Actions and change Initiate Window Resize to whatever you want.

Re:ok...

[nuzak]

Ah indeed, compiz was a most refreshing change from metacity. I've only recently been able to run it, since I was stuck without it for a time (old laptop), and during that time, I became completely disgusted with metacity. And metacity certainly isn't an isolated case, but merely my own pain point. The new "K" menu in KDE4 however turned out to be my pain point there, however. At any rate, I don't even use a DE 99% of my time, but just a browser, a couple emacs windows, and a couple xterms. It's just when I do want to do convenient clicky desktop things that I enjoy not just using a WM, but a real DE.

Re:Great, when is it actually going to be useable?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Kubuntu 7.10, 64-bit, pretty standard setup. Ktorrent is particularly bad, as I can almost reliably crash that by doing things like "check data integrity", then try to remove that torrent.

But Konqueror crashes too. Worse, it crashes most often when I'm editing a textarea, usually doing some editing, moving stuff around, copy/paste with the keyboard (shift+arrows to select) -- not reliably enough that I can make a decent bugreport of it, but invariably, when it does crash, it's at the end of a relatively long post that I'll have to go back and retype from scratch.

Re:ok...

[Drantin]

If it's saying that then is cups even running in the background?

Re:ok...

[Drantin]

KDE4 actually has the option to use the old style KMenu currently...

Re:ok...

[mr_shifty]

This is likely because firefox, like most browsers these days, is blocking anything on non-standard internet ports "for your own protection".