KDE 4.1 Released, Reviewed

StoneLion writes "After months of development and controversy, the KDE project announced the release of KDE 4.1 today. Linux.com (a Slashdot sister site) took a hands-on look at the new code, and reviewer Jeremy LaCroix says, 'KDE 4.1 simply rocks.'" Bruce Byfield's review is quite positive, as well.

Comments

So far, I am impressed

[bogaboga]

I must say I am impressed by KDE 4.1. The features I like most include Konsole's ability to have fonts changed by a slider, the new file manager (Dolphin) and the beauty the whole KDE 4.0 stack introduced.

What I would like to see includes better fonts and more useful and complete help files. I also miss Amarok.

I have had my disappointments too. My college website will not allow Konqueror. Plug-in installation still needs work so that it is as smooth as that on Windows XP.

I have nothing but praise for KDE developers who insisted that we needed a new way of doing things in KDE and therefore started developing KDE 4.0. At that time, I did not see any reason why we needed a new paradigm. Now I see the reason. Thank you so much.

Re:So far, I am impressed

[ForeverFaithless]

We're working very hard on getting Amarok 2 out of the door, and if you are enthusiastic please give our alphas and betas a try. Amarok 2 is quite usable at this point, We definitely will take a close look at each bug report, and we're aiming to make an awesome release really-soon-now :) --markey

Why does anyone care about the 'desktop'?

[Ed Avis]

I don't get it. Why all the fuss about the desktop background? It is just a background after all, and hidden by any windows you have open.

From observing 'ordinary users' running Windows, they use the desktop background for starting programs which have a shortcut there - because the Start menu is so congested with crap, they don't even look at it and are often incapable of running anything not on the desktop. Because of this most Windows application installers have taken to adding a desktop shortcut as well as a Start menu item. Of course in the long term this 'icon inflation' will make the background itself unusable and we'll have to think of something else. I can't help feeling that just making a usable Start menu would be a better answer.

The second use of the desktop background is because files get saved there by default from your web browser. Again, this seems to be because unsophisticated users have no idea of directories and if it doesn't go on the background, they can't find it. But on Unix everyone has a home directory and I'd expect KDE (or GNOME) to provide easy access to that directory, even for people who aren't aware that any other location exists.

The kind of technically skilled people who used to run Enlightenment probably enjoy having semitransparent widgets flip into shape in 3d on the background, but I don't see what usability advantages that brings. Would it not be simpler to make the background be a background - just blank? There is no difficulty in putting one application window _underneath_ another, so you will see it when the top window is moved or minimized out of the way.

Re:The font still sucks

[BlackCreek]

Can you provide a screenshot for comparison for what a decent default font should look like in your opinion?

(This is not a flame! I do use KDE mind you!)

I am not the OP, but if you want to see what decent fonts look like google for a Ubuntu (Gnome) screen shoot.

Here is an anecdote for you:
As a full-time KDE user, when I bought a computer for my parents (1 year ago) I installed Kubuntu on it. Since Kubuntu has been such a mess in the last year, upon my last visit, I installed Ubuntu on that computer.

My mother (~60 years old, has no clue whatsoever about what KDE or Gnome are) upon being presented to what I called a new Linux flavor, said, spontaneously, within some 5 seconds looking at the Gnome menus:

Oh, the fonts are much beter