KDE 4.6 Beta 1 – a First Look
dmbkiwi writes "The first beta release of KDE SC 4.6 was released yesterday. OpenSUSE had packages up almost immediately, so being curious as to what's new, I've downloaded and upgraded to the new release. These are my impressions thus far."
Even with each minor release of KDE, GNOME keeps falling further and further behind. Like this release proves once more, we see KDE improving and innovating, while GNOME just sits there spinning its wheels.
It's time to abandon GNOME. It was useful for a short while during the 1990s, when Qt's licensing was problematic, but that's no longer an issue. GNOME has stagnated, and is of little value these days. KDE is offers more features, better performance, greater reliability, and just an overall better experience in every way.
I've played around a bit with KDE 4.x (don't remember exact version) in Ubuntu 10.04, but I wasn't very impressed. It look very slick, gives a feeling of advanced tech under the hood, but:
After fiddling with settings for hours, I concluded it's too much work to get settings to suit my taste. Do a setting here, and something else doesn't work quite how you want it. Try a setting there, and it doesn't do what you expect, or you see no effect at all. Only to find later there was some override that caused previous setting to be ignored.
I don't have time for this crap, a desktop environment is just one of many things you have to configure when customizing an OS, it shouldn't take a day to wander through its configuration. This wouldn't be a problem if defaults are chosen well enough that you're done with changing very few things from the default, but that's not the case. From what I understand, SuSE offers one of the best out-of-the-box KDE experiences, but hey I'm not changing distro's just to have nice defaults on the desktop environment.
To me, it comes across as a typical case of too much unnecessary complexity - users don't care, they just want something that they can get familiar with in a short time. And where they can easily find the most important settings. Beyond that, additional complexity just wasts memory, CPU cycles & developer time. Which is really a shame given all the effort that goes into a project like KDE. Disclaimer: that's just my current impression, maybe these things are much improved in later releases like the one reviewed here...
I stayed away from the 4.x serious in particular. not least because of all the Akondai stuff. I think a DE should be as minimal as possible...provide a shell, file browser, and maybe some basic applications. KDE seems to want to manage everything, and there is so much stuff running in the background that I have no idea what is needed and what is not. I also think it is somewhat childish to start every application with a K...but hey.
I should note that I am arguing from ignorance here about my knowledge of the workings, just my brief experiences. But, that is the impression I got. Is there any truth to it, and if there is, why has the KDE team gone down that road?
It seems to be less about configurability and themes and more to do with how much you think your DE should be responsible for.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
The technology behind KDE4.x is certainly several steps ahead of Gnome, but in terms of stability, I've yet to use KDE4 for any period of time without dealing with multiple application crashes. Whether this is a KDE problem or the applications themselves, I'm not sure, but it keeps me tied to Gnome for the time being for my day to day needs.
And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
because KDE 4.X was _not_ designed to work over VNC: http://forum.kde.org/brainstorm.php#idea90400