Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Is KDE Dying?

A long-time loyal KDE user "always felt that it was the more complete and integrated of the many Linux desktop environments...thus having the most potential to win over new Linux converts." And while still using KDE exclusively without any major functional issues, now Slashdot reader fwells shares concerns about the future of desktop development, along with a personal opinion -- that KDE is becoming stale and stagnant: KDE-Look.org, once a fairly vibrant and active contributory site, has become a virtual ghost town... Various core KDE components and features are quite broken and have been so for some time... KDEPIM/KMail frankly seems targeted specifically at the poweruser, maintaining over many years its rather plain and arguably retro interface. The Konqueror web browser has been a virtual carcass for several years, yet it mysteriously remains an integral component...

So, back to my opening question... Is KDE Dying? Has innovation and development evaporated in a development world dominated by the mobile device? And, if so, can it be reinvigorated? Will the pendulum ever swing back? Can it? Should it?

The original submission has some additional thoughts on Windows 10 and desktop development -- but also specific complaints about KDE's Recent Items/Application Launcher History and the KDE theming engine (which "seems disjointed and rather non-intuitive".) The argument seems to be that KDE lacks curb appeal to fulfill that form-over-function preference of the larger community of users, so instead it's really retaining the practical appeal of "my 12 year old Chevy truck, feature rich for its time... Solid and reliable, but definitely starting to fade and certainly lacking some modern creature comforts."

So leave your own thoughts in the comments. Does desktop development need to be reinvigorated in a world focused on mobile devices -- and if so, what is its future? And is KDE slowly dying?

26 of 515 comments (clear)

  1. What does Netcraft say? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Perhaps the users have spoken and most prefer the Gnome2/MATE/Cinnamon style interface. The rest of us are on Awesome, Xfce or something else.

    1. Re: What does Netcraft say? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Funny

      Billions of people use processors that run only Machine Language programs that load from the reset vector. Mice, graphics card, the controller chips inside hard drives, etc. There's even a 'multiplier effect' because every Linux computer in operation has a handful of these processors inside it. So the Machine Language 'Operating System' is 20-500 times more popular than any PC operating system, and thousands to hundreds of thousands of times more popular than Linux.

      This popularity measure is based on the same notion as the one that asumes that every device out there that runs a Linux kernel is 'linux.' I.e. every Android device, every Tivo, etc.

    2. Re: What does Netcraft say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those aren't desktop users. They're not relevant to a discussion about desktop environments. You wouldn't run KDE on a switch. That would be stupid.

    3. Re: What does Netcraft say? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Given the considerable lengths to which MS has gone over the last 20 years in its attempts to strangle any other, nascent desktop OS in the crib, I think it's pretty fucking remarkable that we even have any alternatives at all.

      Fuck the numbers. What matters is this: Do we still have choices? Yes? Then I really don't give a shit about how many people make choices that I don't make. Let them. I don't follow the Kardashians, either.

      And FWIW--long-time KDE user here. The Plasma/workspaces stuff is boneheaded but can safely be ignored. Otherwise, I'm still liking it pretty well. If that ever changes? "We'll always have Window Maker."

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    4. Re:What does Netcraft say? by Daemonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The 'people' didn't choose Gnome, much in the same way the 'people' haven't chosen systemd. The distribution packagers chose to make Gnome their default and the 'people' once presented with a choice tend to stick to that choice.

      Until the last 5-10 years there were only a couple of distro's that really took the effort to showcase KDE, mostly Mandrake and SuSE.

      The sad thing was Gnome was never up to KDE's maturity and cohesion. It was launched and chosen as the default because of baseless fears over the licensing of Qt back in the 90's, not technical ability.

    5. Re:What does Netcraft say? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was launched and chosen as the default because of baseless fears over the licensing of Qt back in the 90's,

      Back in the 90s the license was an issue. It's not the same now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re: What does Netcraft say? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Who said anything about desktops?.

      The article.
      The first post.
      The reply to the first post.

      This is what is called a "conversation". A reply needs to be considered in context of what's above it. And in the context of this conversation, you're an idiot.

  2. It better not be. by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    KDE is the Gold standard in Linux Desktops. It has the most utilitarian behavior of all of the existing Linux desktops.

    1. Re:It better not be. by HiThere · · Score: 5, Interesting

      KDE3 was the gold standard for my use. KDE4 never seemed as "solid". I preferred Gnome2. When I saw KDE5 on Ubuntu I immediately reinstalled Debian.

      XFCE is pretty good, so is LXDE. The last time I tried Mate I wasn't really impressed, but that's 6 months ago. Cinnamon seemed to have caught some sort of disease from Gnome3 when dealing with panels. Trinity doesn't seems to work well with the current series of applications.

      But currently what I use is KDE4. I like it, it's just never felt as solid as KDE3 did....but I preferred Gnome2 to KDE4, so I'm not sure why Mate hasn't felt like a reasonable choice.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:It better not be. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now that's said can we please comment on how emacs is better then vi or vice versa.

      As a desktop environment? Probably Emacs.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  3. How Active Does Development Need to Be? by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not sure how active desktop development needs to be for a single *nix desktop environment. I am a big KDE user myself, and I'm happy with where it is. Sure, some of the applications from the KDE team have been neglected quite a but but they're not fully broken either. KDE runs GNOME stuff quite well when there are GNOME applications that I just can't get by without.

    That and of course I still do a huge part of my most important work from the command line. That won't change any time soon, so as far as that is concerned it matters not at all whether or not any additional new features are ever incorporated into the environment.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  4. Did KDE survive KDE3-KDE4? by Skewray · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I never got over the KDE3 to KDE4 transition, and switched to something else. I think KDE4 was too complex to survive long-term.

    1. Re:Did KDE survive KDE3-KDE4? by WheezyJoe · · Score: 4, Informative

      The KDE transition sure seemed to coincide with developers losing interest. Sure there's Krita, and Konqueror makes for a pretty good file explorer, but in the list of apps made for KDE, there's nothing that's, you know, killer. Instead, most K apps that don't look derelict look more like demos, half-baked to show off a feature of the toolkit-under-development rather than something you'd actually have confidence to rely on for the foreseeable future.

      This is disappointing. I've used it for years in the 2.0-3.0 days and always felt that KDE had the edge over GNOME. But for one reason or another, the apps aren't there, so a K desktop is basically a K window manager + file explorer, on which you run GTK apps and LibreOffice (i.e., another GTK app), even though the K team posts one announcement after another how KDE's underpinnings are cutting-edge.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    2. Re:Did KDE survive KDE3-KDE4? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've been using KDE for over a decade, and in fact am using it right now. Feel free to call me a noob if that makes you feel better, though.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  5. We're All Dying by cosm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Face it. We are dying off. The contributors. The hackers (in the 70's sense of the word). KDE is a thing of the prior decades. Sit down and ask yourself: How many people under 30 know what KDE is? Is it a higher or lower percentage than last decade? The decade prior?

    Smart phones got better. Distractions got more distracting. The canonical hacker breed is dying. You feel it. We all feel it.

    Where's that fucking apps appidy app guy when you need him. He's got it right you know. The borg-like proliferation of technology has reached the point such that there is no wonder to the up and coming generations in terms of "how can I make this better", moreover it's become "how can I get moar"

    Is this new? No. Bread and circuses have existed for decades. But the rate of new bread and new circuses is unprecedented. Enjoy tomorrowland. It will be fucking lame and owned by Pepsi and Microsoft.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:We're All Dying by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The "hacker" crowd is most definitely not dying, it's simply facing demographic changes. We used to be everything there was when it came to computers, both users and contributors. Now, there are billions of end users who don't give a toss about how it works so long as it does. We're no longer the majority, or even a dominant force.

      However, that does not mean that the crowd is shrinking. Proportionally, it might be, but in absolute terms it's far more likely to be growing and to keep growing as more and more people have access to a computer from a young age, therefore exposing them to technology and allowing them to choose this path if they feel an affinity with it. Things are definitely changing, but don't go tombstone shopping just yet.

    2. Re:We're All Dying by somenickname · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it's more that hobby contributors have been replaced by corporate paid, "my way or the highway" contributors. That has had both positive and negative effects but, to me, the most noticeable effect is that projects have formed agendas that in *no way* reflect the actual users of those projects. You see it happening in almost all the big projects now. Users hate Gnome 3? Too fucking bad. Users hate KDE4? Too fucking bad. Users hate the loss of functionality in Wayland? Too fucking bad. Systemd has consumed the userland? Tough shit.

      Maybe it's just the changing of the old guard to the new guard but, frankly, I have no desire to live in the world that the new guard is creating. They aren't improving things, they are taking a page out of the Microsoft playbook and trying to co-opt them for personal or corporate gain.

    3. Re:We're All Dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I went Windows 98->RH w/GNOME 1 (for about 3 days)->RH w/Afterstep->RH or Gentoo w/WindowMaker (for about 10 years)->Gentoo w/KDE (~6 months?)->Windows 7->OS X (ongoing).

      One day I just got annoyed with poor integration in WindowMaker and decided to try KDE, purely for decent drag & drop between apps. Found a few other apps which were better integrated, like Amarok. Strangely, it was frustration with Amarok which eventually made me try Win7.

      Over the WindowMaker period I tried many variations of GNOME, KDE, Xfce, Enlightenment and many others I've simply forgotten. Never for serious work (WindowMaker filled that niche the best), just to see how they were doing. Never been impressed with GNOME - it feels like an unrelated grab bag of apps with some common skin elements, configuration and integration is extremely inconsistent, the DE itself is the same. Xfce feels like an beta-release of a pimped TWM, featuring annoying UI/font scaling errors and occasional code bugs, with the bare features of WindowMaker but none of the polish. E was nice to look at but lacked functionality, especially during the 12-year release hole. KDE was the only contender and it was basically Windows XP with double-bevelled buttons and slightly buggy IPC.

      In the end I realised I was spending more time getting KDE to work properly than using it (Amarok at the time, but there were a collection of annoyances) that it was just easier to buy and use Windows. I still had Linux servers and Xmingw worked on Windows, so why not?

      What I'd like to know is why all those big open-source projects which everyone in the early 2000s thought would be Windows-killers "real soon now", turned out to be utter UI and usability train wrecks - GNOME, KDE and Firefox would be the best examples. In each project there seems to be a turning point where the devs went from heavily-engaged in the community to preaching their own virtues from ivory towers, releasing unusable crap or just pissing people off. Around the same time, myself and (it seems) many others decided that it was all too much pain and went elsewhere.

      What happened there? Why?

  6. Re:konqueror best filemanager by donaldm · · Score: 5, Informative

    Konqueror would seem to be the best file manager for power users and programmers. it's very configurable. I don't think I could find as good a replacement for it.

    Konqueror is a web browser and it does work very well if you wish to make it a file manager, however, it is nowhere near as good as Dolphin which is so configurable that IMHO puts all other file managers to shame. I follow the Unix paradigm. "The right tool for the right job" and using a Web Browser as a file manager is not really using the right tool.

    If you have Fedora 24, KDE spin it ships standard with QupZilla which is sort of like Chrome (pretty much all browsers are sort of like Chrome) except it gives you allot more privacy and it actually does quite well on many browser benchmarks. Yes, I know you can easily lock down Chrome although good luck with a certain operating system which I won't name.

    --
    There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
  7. A view from a user by Frank+Burly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I no longer follow Aaron Siego's blog or planetkde very closely, but KDE seems to be improving and remains the least annoying DE for me. However, the curb appeal is an issue and Konqueror does indeed seem dead and I don't think there are enough developers who want it working to revive it. I think most of the problems are from the heavy redevelopment for Plasma 5+ combined with the lack of a major distro to underwrite it. We see Gnome flailing around and paying developers to do the things users hate, and a small contingent of hobbiests and grantees keeping Mate going. KDE is trying to push things forward with a similarly small developer base. I don't think there are many users who want to return to KDE 3.5 (as good as it was). Kontact/Kmail is retro looking, but only marginally compared to the Evolution screenshots I just looked at. The problem with Kmail is the backend, Akonadi, which frequently misbehaves and offers no practical advantage (except to developers, who could access the unified backend if they were working on PIM programs, which they aren't.)

  8. How to advocate for desktop dev in a phone world? by ErichTheRed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the problems with anything desktop-related is the fact that it's all getting drowned out by people beating the phone-and-tablet drum. Developers are cargo-culting the mobile design paradigm, even on applications that are aimed at desktop users. I do systems integration work with a focus on end user computing, so I see lots of user-facing software from many vendors. I swear that the big offshore code shops have all just started using the same "touch-first" AngularJS user interface framework and swap in company logos when they build a new web front end for something.

    I'm a big desktop fan - and a big terminal/command line fan. People laugh at me for using Midnight Commander for file operations on my various computers...but it's way faster than navigating a GUI or the command line if you know what you're doing! The problem is that the desktop and even the laptop form factor isn't the default anymore for most people. They've become almost a niche now, even in businesses. Most people want the Surface-style convertible tablets now where I work, and I've still got my boring ThinkPad collection.

    I'm also a cross-platform kind of guy, but I find myself on Windows machines most of the time. Microsoft actually did the right thing with Windows 10, walking back some of the 8.x "touch-only, tablet-only" craziness. It's not Windows 7, but in my mind it's a good compromise between the two worlds. If most people are mashing the screens on their Surface, you can't get away with Windows 7-sized user interface elements. I wish they'd let people theme Windows 10, but that's a different story. On the Linux side, I do wonder if having several choices for desktop environments, all with extremely different ecosystems, is the right thing. It's nice to have a million ways to do things, but Apple was able to do a decent UI on top of UNIX that hides everything UNIXy about MacOS until the user gets down into the details. The fragmentation of the Linux desktop is one of the things slowing adoption. Some of the more modern Linux desktop environments have gotten more love recently, and are a better choice for the new user. But, just like CDE on the old UNIX platforms, I'm sure KDE will be kicking around for ages. Just like me and my Midnight Commander...

  9. umm all modern desktop environments suck by chris2net23 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The only advancement to any desktop environment which seems to really exist compared to KDE 3.x is search. I'm seriously thinking of returning to KDE 3 and putting my money into helping the developers of the Trinity Desktop Environment (KDE 3.x) resurrect it. It needs some work to bring it up to speed, and more so properly maintain it, but it seems to have the most potential of all the desktop environments. I thought it was dead, but I'm no longer convinced of that. Mainly because it's not an impossibility, but it does need a financial backer with sufficient assets to make it happen.

  10. Post Bait. by ElectricPrism · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This article is post bait. 1. Lure passionate people into highly upsetting or controversial hypothetical statement. 2. Popcorn 3. Watch the war break out between the factions 4. Profit SEO comments and data 5. Popularity++ KDE is not dying. On GamingOnLinux statistics KDE is the #1 used Desktop Environment https://www.gamingonlinux.com/... Is the author blind? Perhaps specific tools and websites that were once cutting edge have gone stale, but seriously - Konqueror? You mean that thing that was replaced by Dolphin? Someone should tell the author there's a reason why X Y and Z tools have not been renovated - usually because there are better options available.

  11. Re:How to advocate for desktop dev in a phone worl by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lot of tech people tend to forget that for most people, a computer is not an end unto itself. It's just another tool for getting their real work done. Why "advocate" a desktop if people can get their work done on a tablet or phone? A desktop system has a lot of complexity that, for most people, probably tends to get in the way of actually getting their work done as much as it helps them. I say, just use the simplest tool fit for the job, nothing more.

    People laugh at me for using Midnight Commander for file operations on my various computers...but it's way faster than navigating a GUI or the command line if you know what you're doing!

    I'd argue that very few people's productivity is measured in how efficient their file operations are. It's sort of like believing you're going to be vastly more efficient as a programmer if you memorize a bunch of keyboard shortcuts or type 60wpm instead of 30. Unlike the movies, programming isn't about how fast you type.

    If it works for you, fantastic. But don't kid yourself... you use it because it's what you know and you're comfortable with it. People hate change, because change forces cognitive dissonance, meaning you have to focus more on the task rather than the work you're trying to get done until the new system is committed to muscle memory. That means many people hate change even if it's change for the better, let alone if it's just change for change's sake.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  12. What doesn't it do ? by Archfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Despite the industries' desire to convince us that change for change sake is a good thing, if it isn't broke don't fix it, and don't screw with things just to add a new paint job. That kind of thinking gets us a 'new' version of windows that is just a Botox job and contains no real functionality. That kind of thinking gets us an all 'new' car model or a brand 'new' iPhone model every year despite the fact that there is really nothing new to add, just a newer model with a minimally incremental H/W upgrade. I think you might be confusing stale with stable and dependable. Should you really care that your desktop manager isn't exciting ?
    I could never understand the drive to upgrade to the latest and questionably greatest bleeding edge technology. Stay a year or two behind the bleeding edge and don't get cut, or pay the top dollar for something that really does very little more for you. You should only upgrade when there is a clear and definitive reason to do so, when you can't perform a task that you need to do. Does an extra second or two really justify the expenditure of so much resources ? Money, and time to learn a new interface, not to mention wasted resources and increased trash ?

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  13. Looks sooo dated by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Funny

    It has too many colors and skumorphism with 3d icons showing what the computer can do with even file menus!! eww like soo last decade.

    I want a cell phone interface. It needs to be like 1990 to be more modern with no multitasking and complete flat with low colors and blinding white in the background. Man, we just want to consume content and nothing elzse. These things like options are for old people. Why can't there be decisions made for us with humburger menus like our phones to emulate 5 inch screens.

    Man unhip and these things called desktops are so old school for old people who think you need to write scripts and thing and stuff. Guess they haven't discovered the app store to solve every problem