Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the stuff-to-read dept.
dave from
Linux Today wrote in to send us a piece appearing
over there where KDE developer Kurt Granroth describes some of the major features that users can expect out of KDE 2.0. Largely about KOM (the K Object Model) and KOffice.
Re:Silent cries from distant places
by
KaLeVR1
·
· Score: 4
Hmmm extrasolar, I understand where you are coming from and can relate, but I disagree. Most of us crossing over from Windows are not on a crusade to purge ourselves of MS or entirely displeased with the Windows interface. Speaking for myself, I'm not looking for something different. I just can't stand the danged computer crashing every time you look at it, or for that matter, crashing even if you don't look at it. I agree that we don't want to create a linux Windows 98 duplicate, but anything that can be done to minimize the learning curve for newbies only strengthens linux's userbase over the long run. The appeal of Windows is learning an interface once and being able to apply it to any application. It makes it so any idiot can sit down with a keyboard and a mouse and be productive. The way to make linux soar among the masses is to offer the same ease. Make it so any idiot can use it (think AOL). The people at GNOME and KDE know that! They are not trying to clone Windows, they are trying to win over its users. If you look at if from that perspective, KDE and GNOME can't help but have similarities to Windows. As far as a standard desktop, I hope we will continue to have choices but the different desktops should adopt specifications that allow a program written for either to run on the other. That shouldn't be too difficult if developers are flexible and think of the good of the linux community instead of making their way the standard.
The most troubling thing to me with KDE and Gnome is their astonishing bloat. Neither of these environments can reasonably be described as "lightweight." On a 64MB RH6.0 machine starting Gnome up immediately sucks all my free RAM; KDE is very little better.
This is ridiculous, in my judgment. It seems more like pandering after the Microsoft model rather than sticking with the Unix way of doing things. Yes, there's a great deal of reuse possible in all this stuff, but the genius of Unix is as much in its focus upon small, highly-specialized programs that can be combined in ways never imagined by the original developers. Where is small in KDE/Gnome? Where is "lightweight"?
I can't bear it. I know this is all my personal subjective evaluation, and I might be somewhat offbase on some of my criticisms, but I just can't bear the bloat. 64MB should be plenty for just about any moderate level of work without hitting the swap. Having it all sucked up by a silly "desktop environment" is one reason (among many) why I abandoned M$ products.
No thanks, KDE/Gnome. I'll stick to Window Maker: just enough fat to give me some nice features, while leaving over 20MB of RAM free (what are KDE/Gnome doing with it????)
--
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
You've come a long way, baby
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5
I've been using KDE since the 1.0 release. It came out of the starting gate already matching the functionality of most of the popular window managers, while at the same time offering more. It wasn't terribly attractive, but it provided neutral ground where you could come from a *NIX/CDE environment and be equally as comfortable as a Win9x user.
1.1 was rather a rough release, and a little buggy IMO, but 1.1.1 solved those problems and I am very pleased to use it every day. The memory leaks I experience with 1.0 were gone, and I now have more control over my desktop than I had before.
Now I read about 2.0. Wow! The KDE guys have been very busy. While some of these features may not appeal to hardcore CLI fans, or folks who like a very lean X environment, they will definitely have appeal for corporate desktop use as well as the average Joe. The KOffice suite, when it is ready, is the one thing that will push me over the edge to stop using Windows NT altogether.
I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that KDE is going to become the "killer app" (when bundled with KOffice anyway) that pushes Linux over the edge.
Gnome won't ever get there. Gnome is an exclusive club. Don't get me wrong, Gnome is coming into technical excellence of its own. But from the very start, Gnome was a Gnu-only club and the attitudes of the "religious zealots" will chase away the folks outside the circle.
And the beauty of KDE over Gnome is that the developers have gone to great pain to ensure that KDE is happy on any platform. I can run it on my RS/6000 or my Sun UltraSPARC. No problem. We may very well see commerical *NIX vendors dumping CDE & Motif and bundling KDE with KOffice.
Think about it. A Sun box running KDE and KOffice for a lower price than a huge Intel box running NT Terminal Server. Having done a lot of network administration and support on both environments, I can tell you without a second thought how much I'd prefer the Sun solution provided we had quality desktop apps like KDE.
BTW - For the naysayers that call KDE a pig, it will run GREAT on a $350 computer. I use it at home every day on a Cyrix 233MHz machine with 64MB of RAM and it hauls. Take a $300 machine and toss in a 64MB chip for a little over $50 and you'll have anywhere from 80 to 96MB of RAM in your machine, which makes a $350 box that is capable of running KDE and KOffice with VERY pleasant results.
I still long for the days of FVWM churning along on a 386, and being soo impressed with "wow, look at all the real stuff that can be done with this hardware." Insane as it might sound. I still have a 386SX20, that I keep running Linux and quite happy with it, although, now days I just don't feel like 18 hour kernel compiles and waiting 5 minutes for X. It's reserverd for console only use.
But, at the same time, I am equally impressed with both what I can do at console on a 386, and some of the really fancy new GUI stuff comming to Linux. And, I am sorry to say, and it goes against everything I have always felt, but 64M of RAM in May of 1999 just isn't a "comfort zone."
Seriously, check out PriceWatch, because I was sort of shocked with my last memory order. $82 will get you a nice 128M SDRAM DIMM that will be happy at 100MHz bus speeds. And memory is the truely unsung hero of the computer. All these people talking about how they overclocked thier Celeron to 500MHz or more, and I just tend to sit back and go "Yea, so, you spent all that money, time, and frusturation, and you have 32M RAM??! I would be happy with half that speed and 128M to 256M RAM, because that's where I feel it most."
Yea, it's a bloat. I did a test last night on this very issue. Identical systems, one with 32M of SDRAM, the other with 128M of EDO, and ran RedHat 6.0 w/KDE and Gnome, and WHAM... Light-years of differance. Well worth the $82 I spent on the test, and you can't ever find a way to convince me to go back to less than 100M. (matter of fact, I will be shifting another 64M into that box later this week).
Swap is no match what so ever for even the cheapest slowest RAM. And that is what it basically comes down to. RAM is getting affordable, and to get all the GUI bells and whistles, you need the RAM for it. If you are offended by it, there is still fvwm or wm2, and vi to fill your needs, and I am not saying that as a put-down (because I find them very useful on my 386SX20 w/ 6M)
Silent cries from distant places
by
extrasolar
·
· Score: 4
This is very much one small step for Linux, one large leap for open source. But those who don't use KDE may have thoughts like: Ah gee they're winning, or How much longer till all new apps require KDE?
I know these thoughts are immature. But I can read between the lines of some of these posts.
I, at least, are critical of these improvements. The problem is, ironically, they are too good. A personal problem for me, is that both KDE, Gnome, and several Window managers are doing things a standard way. The way it is done everywhere else. I converted to Linux for something different and don't want to see it evolve into... Windows (Yes, I know KDE and Gnome are beyond Windows, but the same similarities are there).
Also the performance issue. To run KDE apps, you have to have the KDE libs and qt installed. But for low-end computers, can things like themeing and OpenParts be turned off and not create a performance hit?
I will look forward to these changes. They will definetly increase Linux's appeal for the desktop. But I have a few things I wish. That apps are created and ported to each desktop (Kinda strange since Linux is suppose to be one platform. That peformance can be increased by turning things off. That something new comes along in the Linux GUI. And that we will never have a standard desktop.
--
Quit complaining about KDE...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5
All of the people complaining about KDE (bloat, RAM usage, performance, Windoze similarities, etc.) really need to get a clue. Let me give you a few humble observations:
- KDE is only *one* option of many - KDE is probably not out to rule the world - KDE very possibly is not for you
The way I look at it, KDE is first and foremost an attempt to gain a cohesive and consistent look and feel across applications. It is also much more, because once you get a consistent look-n-feel, widget set, etc., other more advanced technologies follow that are simply not available from applications that are from different libraries, approaches, etc.
It sounds like Obi Wan, but let go of your hatred. If you don't like KDE..... GREAT!!! It has zero (nada, zip) to do with Linux, Unix or anything else you and I love about our wonderful kernel. Like much of what builds what we call a Linux system, KDE is just one *optional* component. Unlike Windoze, if you do not like the UI (or desktop environment) in Linux, you can change it--even without rebooting!!! For those of you drawing comparisons to Windoze--there is no comparison when you are not locked into KDE!!!!!!!
If you can not add anything of value to a discussion about something that you have no intention of using, then please think about the fact that you are cluttering up a discussion forum for people that actually want to use this thing!!!!
If KDE user (probably) = Linux user (and definitely != Windoze user) then you should be happy that there are people in your corner--they just may like to use different applications than you!
I recently installed RH6.0, and KDE 1.1.1. I am very impressed so far with the ease of use of the integrated WM, panel, taskbar, etc. I haven't even spent any time playing with any of the Kapplications yet. I would like to make a few comments on the importance of Desktop Environments:
Ease of use for newbies. Consider the file manager/web browser. How many CLI utils does it supplant? Well letsee, theres man, ls, file, pwd, cd, pushd/popd, mkdir, cp, mv, rm, chmod, tree... (BTW: some of these are implemented in the shell, but thats not relevant to my point) True, KFM doesn't have as much functionality/configurability as these tools + scripts and aliases. I bet that 99% of the time when you use the 'ls' command, you don't use any of these functions (not counting alias ls='ls -kitcnsink'). For a linux newbie, KFM is much easier than remembering/learning:
what the commands are called (btw: note cd/chdir/md/mkdir inconsistency)
how to use them
how to get help on them
how to decipher/grep through the resulting man page
how to save options (i.e. with aliases)
how to do things to groups of files (if you try to figure out mv *~ tmp from the man pages, you need to wade through the bash documentation. The KDE help docs say that I can select multiple files by right clicking on each, but it doesn't say anything about the edit>>select command (where I can type in *~))
This is all well and good for newbies, but what about the power users? well, the command line isn't going anywhere. And if you can accomplish 90% of your goals in a simple, consistent manner, more power to you. I may be a relatively sophisticated linux user, but that doesn't mean that I want to read man pages. This brings me to my second point:
Bloat is good. Lets say it costs you, a Linux user who "knows where his towel is", $100 to upgrade your computers RAM to run KDE or Gnome. Lets assume that you spend 10 minutes a day remembering the names of common commands, reading man pages, mis-spelling 'chmod', using the wrong one-letter options (let me tell you, when I first started using gcc I figured gcc -o foo.c should do what gcc -c foo.c does. oops), reading and understanding error messages, etc. Lets further assume that these mistakes are eliminated by going to KFM, so you save the 10 mins a day. If you time is worth 10 bucks an hour, you save 10/6 = $1.6 a day. You only need 100/1.6 = 60 days to recoup your investment. After that, its pure profit, baby! This doesn't take into account subjective improvements, like ease of use.
One more thing: one goal of user-interface design (especially GUI design) is to make the system "self-documenting", i.e. its pretty intuitive how to do simple things, and when the user wants to do more complex things, he is exposed to more stuff and it is pretty clear how to proceed. Its usually easier to mess around with a program than to read a manual (or man page, eek). In fact, if a user needs to read documentation, the program is a failure. This is just an elaboration of the 'subjective enjoyment' point above.
KDE vs. M$ - true, the enhancements listed here already exist in M$ winblows. however, I want to point out that
KDE doesn't have a marketing department (despite the tenor of the 2.0 annoucement). Therefore KDE developers can focus on the features users actually want, not what somebody thinks that the users think that they want.
As KDE is opensource, incremental change is "free" and continuous. This last point is actually very important, as the little bugs are really the most annoying/disruptive.
Finally, (and this point actually distinguishes between KDE and Gnome), it appears to me that KDE is more focused on actual usability. Take the whole 'themes' mess for example. Ok, so Gnome has better theme support right now. So what? Themes are counterproductive, IMHO. If every user has different keybindings and widgets that look and act differently, that is definite lossage, when it comes to usability. (note that I don't have experience with themability, I might be wrong about this). However, I think that we will all agree that Enlightenment's excesses are gratuitous, and, ultimately, useless eye-candy. (sweets are good...but my P 100/ 40MB ram laptop is on a diet) And another thing. Quoting Object-Oriented Software Construction (Bertrand Meyer): "Correctness is the prime quality. If a system does not do what it is supposed to do, everything else about it - whether it is fast, has a nice user interface... - matters little." If a program crashes, it is not correct. KDE appears to focus on this more than Gnome. (read this book. Even if you only read p.3 - p.20, on the definition of software quality.)
well, thats my 2 cents. Don't spend it all in one place!
(OT: this new version of lynx is great, I love being able to use emacs for doing form input. The old way truly was bletcherous.) -- Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play.
-- ****Gfx Scrollbar Special case hit!!*****
The real target audience for KDE
by
Aleatoric
·
· Score: 5
Personally, I like Gnome/E, but one of the things to keep in mind is that if we really want Linux to make significant inroads into the desktop arena, it really has to be easy for the newbies to use.
Since most desktop gains will probably be converts from windows, having an interface that is similar in behaviour to windows will ease the transition for those who choose to switch. Once they've switched, and start to become familiar with Linux, they will start to see not only the power of the platform, but also the far greater number of choices in the interface, etc.
I suspect that many will start to use Linux _because_ of KDE, and many of those will see the other WM's, like WindowMaker, Gnome/E, etc. and will discover that they have a choice that they didn't have under Windows.
It's simply amazing! Over sixty developers from around the world have worked their butts off trying to bring you the best desktop they can, with no prospect of monetary compensation, and all you can do is complain. Don't dump on KDE because your disagree with 1/10 of one percent of it! Linux doesn't listen to whiners. It listens to doers.
Most of these complaints are trivial. Get a life people! Learn to use your computer. So what if you don't like the "K" logo. Use another. It's just an icon. You don't have to be a programmer to make an icon. Don't like the fact that clicking on an icon opens up that icon? Don't click on the icon!
A week ago, people were compaining that KDE didn't have true themes. Now they're compaining that they're not exactly like gtk themes. They previously kvetched about lack of CORBA. Now they're concerned about embedding. Last week they ploudly proclaimed that KDE had no future. Now they're worried that it does.
And learn to think for yourselves! GNOME is not necessarily the holy grail for humanity. Not everything that isn't GNU or GNOME is evil. Freedom is about choice. This bears repeating: freedom is about choice. This means that it's okay for there to be other desktops besides GNOME. Dynamically linking to a non-GPL library does not make KDE non-GPL. Those who are complaining that KDE looks and acts just like Windows have obviously never used KDE or Windows. Those that think that GNOME is better because it doesn't have those things that makes KDE windows-like have obviously never used GNOME.
For those of you aren't whiners, my apologies. I just had to get my whine out about whiners.
-- A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm extrasolar, I understand where you are coming from and can relate, but I disagree. Most of us crossing over from Windows are not on a crusade to purge ourselves of MS or entirely displeased with the Windows interface. Speaking for myself, I'm not looking for something different. I just can't stand the danged computer crashing every time you look at it, or for that matter, crashing even if you don't look at it. I agree that we don't want to create a linux Windows 98 duplicate, but anything that can be done to minimize the learning curve for newbies only strengthens linux's userbase over the long run. The appeal of Windows is learning an interface once and being able to apply it to any application. It makes it so any idiot can sit down with a keyboard and a mouse and be productive. The way to make linux soar among the masses is to offer the same ease. Make it so any idiot can use it (think AOL). The people at GNOME and KDE know that! They are not trying to clone Windows, they are trying to win over its users. If you look at if from that perspective, KDE and GNOME can't help but have similarities to Windows. As far as a standard desktop, I hope we will continue to have choices but the different desktops should adopt specifications that allow a program written for either to run on the other. That shouldn't be too difficult if developers are flexible and think of the good of the linux community instead of making their way the standard.
Peace, K1
This is ridiculous, in my judgment. It seems more like pandering after the Microsoft model rather than sticking with the Unix way of doing things. Yes, there's a great deal of reuse possible in all this stuff, but the genius of Unix is as much in its focus upon small, highly-specialized programs that can be combined in ways never imagined by the original developers. Where is small in KDE/Gnome? Where is "lightweight"?
I can't bear it. I know this is all my personal subjective evaluation, and I might be somewhat offbase on some of my criticisms, but I just can't bear the bloat. 64MB should be plenty for just about any moderate level of work without hitting the swap. Having it all sucked up by a silly "desktop environment" is one reason (among many) why I abandoned M$ products.
No thanks, KDE/Gnome. I'll stick to Window Maker: just enough fat to give me some nice features, while leaving over 20MB of RAM free (what are KDE/Gnome doing with it????)
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
I've been using KDE since the 1.0 release. It came out of the starting gate already matching the functionality of most of the popular window managers, while at the same time offering more. It wasn't terribly attractive, but it provided neutral ground where you could come from a *NIX/CDE environment and be equally as comfortable as a Win9x user.
1.1 was rather a rough release, and a little buggy IMO, but 1.1.1 solved those problems and I am very pleased to use it every day. The memory leaks I experience with 1.0 were gone, and I now have more control over my desktop than I had before.
Now I read about 2.0. Wow! The KDE guys have been very busy. While some of these features may not appeal to hardcore CLI fans, or folks who like a very lean X environment, they will definitely have appeal for corporate desktop use as well as the average Joe. The KOffice suite, when it is ready, is the one thing that will push me over the edge to stop using Windows NT altogether.
I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that KDE is going to become the "killer app" (when bundled with KOffice anyway) that pushes Linux over the edge.
Gnome won't ever get there. Gnome is an exclusive club. Don't get me wrong, Gnome is coming into technical excellence of its own. But from the very start, Gnome was a Gnu-only club and the attitudes of the "religious zealots" will chase away the folks outside the circle.
And the beauty of KDE over Gnome is that the developers have gone to great pain to ensure that KDE is happy on any platform. I can run it on my RS/6000 or my Sun UltraSPARC. No problem. We may very well see commerical *NIX vendors dumping CDE & Motif and bundling KDE with KOffice.
Think about it. A Sun box running KDE and KOffice for a lower price than a huge Intel box running NT Terminal Server. Having done a lot of network administration and support on both environments, I can tell you without a second thought how much I'd prefer the Sun solution provided we had quality desktop apps like KDE.
BTW - For the naysayers that call KDE a pig, it will run GREAT on a $350 computer. I use it at home every day on a Cyrix 233MHz machine with 64MB of RAM and it hauls. Take a $300 machine and toss in a 64MB chip for a little over $50 and you'll have anywhere from 80 to 96MB of RAM in your machine, which makes a $350 box that is capable of running KDE and KOffice with VERY pleasant results.
Kudos, guys, and keep up the great work!
But, at the same time, I am equally impressed with both what I can do at console on a 386, and some of the really fancy new GUI stuff comming to Linux. And, I am sorry to say, and it goes against everything I have always felt, but 64M of RAM in May of 1999 just isn't a "comfort zone."
Seriously, check out PriceWatch, because I was sort of shocked with my last memory order. $82 will get you a nice 128M SDRAM DIMM that will be happy at 100MHz bus speeds. And memory is the truely unsung hero of the computer. All these people talking about how they overclocked thier Celeron to 500MHz or more, and I just tend to sit back and go "Yea, so, you spent all that money, time, and frusturation, and you have 32M RAM??! I would be happy with half that speed and 128M to 256M RAM, because that's where I feel it most."
Yea, it's a bloat. I did a test last night on this very issue. Identical systems, one with 32M of SDRAM, the other with 128M of EDO, and ran RedHat 6.0 w/KDE and Gnome, and WHAM... Light-years of differance. Well worth the $82 I spent on the test, and you can't ever find a way to convince me to go back to less than 100M. (matter of fact, I will be shifting another 64M into that box later this week).
Swap is no match what so ever for even the cheapest slowest RAM. And that is what it basically comes down to. RAM is getting affordable, and to get all the GUI bells and whistles, you need the RAM for it. If you are offended by it, there is still fvwm or wm2, and vi to fill your needs, and I am not saying that as a put-down (because I find them very useful on my 386SX20 w/ 6M)
I know these thoughts are immature. But I can read between the lines of some of these posts.
I, at least, are critical of these improvements. The problem is, ironically, they are too good. A personal problem for me, is that both KDE, Gnome, and several Window managers are doing things a standard way. The way it is done everywhere else. I converted to Linux for something different and don't want to see it evolve into... Windows (Yes, I know KDE and Gnome are beyond Windows, but the same similarities are there).
Also the performance issue. To run KDE apps, you have to have the KDE libs and qt installed. But for low-end computers, can things like themeing and OpenParts be turned off and not create a performance hit?
I will look forward to these changes. They will definetly increase Linux's appeal for the desktop. But I have a few things I wish. That apps are created and ported to each desktop (Kinda strange since Linux is suppose to be one platform. That peformance can be increased by turning things off. That something new comes along in the Linux GUI. And that we will never have a standard desktop.
--
All of the people complaining about KDE (bloat, RAM usage, performance, Windoze similarities, etc.) really need to get a clue. Let me give you a few humble observations:
- KDE is only *one* option of many
- KDE is probably not out to rule the world
- KDE very possibly is not for you
The way I look at it, KDE is first and foremost an attempt to gain a cohesive and consistent look and feel across applications. It is also much more, because once you get a consistent look-n-feel, widget set, etc., other more advanced technologies follow that are simply not available from applications that are from different libraries, approaches, etc.
It sounds like Obi Wan, but let go of your hatred. If you don't like KDE..... GREAT!!! It has zero (nada, zip) to do with Linux, Unix or anything else you and I love about our wonderful kernel. Like much of what builds what we call a Linux system, KDE is just one *optional* component. Unlike Windoze, if you do not like the UI (or desktop environment) in Linux, you can change it--even without rebooting!!! For those of you drawing comparisons to Windoze--there is no comparison when you are not locked into KDE!!!!!!!
If you can not add anything of value to a discussion about something that you have no intention of using, then please think about the fact that you are cluttering up a discussion forum for people that actually want to use this thing!!!!
If KDE user (probably) = Linux user (and definitely != Windoze user) then you should be happy that there are people in your corner--they just may like to use different applications than you!
- Ease of use for newbies. Consider the file manager/web browser. How many CLI utils does it supplant? Well letsee, theres man, ls, file, pwd, cd, pushd/popd, mkdir, cp, mv, rm, chmod, tree... (BTW: some of these are implemented in the shell, but thats not relevant to my point) True, KFM doesn't have as much functionality/configurability as these tools + scripts and aliases. I bet that 99% of the time when you use the 'ls' command, you don't use any of these functions (not counting alias ls='ls -kitcnsink'). For a linux newbie, KFM is much easier than remembering/learning:
- Bloat is good. Lets say it costs you, a Linux user who "knows where his towel is", $100 to upgrade your computers RAM to run KDE or Gnome. Lets assume that you spend 10 minutes a day remembering the names of common commands, reading man pages, mis-spelling 'chmod', using the wrong one-letter options (let me tell you, when I first started using gcc I figured gcc -o foo.c should do what gcc -c foo.c does. oops), reading and understanding error messages, etc. Lets further assume that these mistakes are eliminated by going to KFM, so you save the 10 mins a day. If you time is worth 10 bucks an hour, you save 10/6 = $1.6 a day. You only need 100/1.6 = 60 days to recoup your investment. After that, its pure profit, baby! This doesn't take into account subjective improvements, like ease of use.
- KDE vs. M$ - true, the enhancements listed here already exist in M$ winblows. however, I want to point out that
- KDE doesn't have a marketing department (despite the tenor of the 2.0 annoucement). Therefore KDE developers can focus on the features users actually want, not what somebody thinks that the users think that they want.
- As KDE is opensource, incremental change is "free" and continuous. This last point is actually very important, as the little bugs are really the most annoying/disruptive.
- Finally, (and this point actually distinguishes between KDE and Gnome), it appears to me that KDE is more focused on actual usability. Take the whole 'themes' mess for example. Ok, so Gnome has better theme support right now. So what? Themes are counterproductive, IMHO. If every user has different keybindings and widgets that look and act differently, that is definite lossage, when it comes to usability. (note that I don't have experience with themability, I might be wrong about this). However, I think that we will all agree that Enlightenment's excesses are gratuitous, and, ultimately, useless eye-candy. (sweets are good...but my P 100/ 40MB ram laptop is on a diet) And another thing. Quoting Object-Oriented Software Construction (Bertrand Meyer): "Correctness is the prime quality. If a system does not do what it is supposed to do, everything else about it - whether it is fast, has a nice user interface... - matters little." If a program crashes, it is not correct. KDE appears to focus on this more than Gnome. (read this book. Even if you only read p.3 - p.20, on the definition of software quality.)
well, thats my 2 cents. Don't spend it all in one place!- what the commands are called (btw: note cd/chdir/md/mkdir inconsistency)
- how to use them
- how to get help on them
- how to decipher/grep through the resulting man page
- how to save options (i.e. with aliases)
- how to do things to groups of files (if you try to figure out mv *~ tmp from the man pages, you need to wade through the bash documentation. The KDE help docs say that I can select multiple files by right clicking on each, but it doesn't say anything about the edit>>select command (where I can type in *~))
This is all well and good for newbies, but what about the power users? well, the command line isn't going anywhere. And if you can accomplish 90% of your goals in a simple, consistent manner, more power to you. I may be a relatively sophisticated linux user, but that doesn't mean that I want to read man pages. This brings me to my second point:One more thing: one goal of user-interface design (especially GUI design) is to make the system "self-documenting", i.e. its pretty intuitive how to do simple things, and when the user wants to do more complex things, he is exposed to more stuff and it is pretty clear how to proceed. Its usually easier to mess around with a program than to read a manual (or man page, eek). In fact, if a user needs to read documentation, the program is a failure. This is just an elaboration of the 'subjective enjoyment' point above.
(OT: this new version of lynx is great, I love being able to use emacs for doing form input. The old way truly was bletcherous.)
--
Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play.
****Gfx Scrollbar Special case hit!!*****
Personally, I like Gnome/E, but one of the things to keep in mind is that if we really want Linux to make significant inroads into the desktop arena, it really has to be easy for the newbies to use.
Since most desktop gains will probably be converts from windows, having an interface that is similar in behaviour to windows will ease the transition for those who choose to switch. Once they've switched, and start to become familiar with Linux, they will start to see not only the power of the platform, but also the far greater number of choices in the interface, etc.
I suspect that many will start to use Linux _because_ of KDE, and many of those will see the other WM's, like WindowMaker, Gnome/E, etc. and will discover that they have a choice that they didn't have under Windows.
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
It's simply amazing! Over sixty developers from around the world have worked their butts off trying to bring you the best desktop they can, with no prospect of monetary compensation, and all you can do is complain. Don't dump on KDE because your disagree with 1/10 of one percent of it! Linux doesn't listen to whiners. It listens to doers.
Most of these complaints are trivial. Get a life people! Learn to use your computer. So what if you don't like the "K" logo. Use another. It's just an icon. You don't have to be a programmer to make an icon. Don't like the fact that clicking on an icon opens up that icon? Don't click on the icon!
A week ago, people were compaining that KDE didn't have true themes. Now they're compaining that they're not exactly like gtk themes. They previously kvetched about lack of CORBA. Now they're concerned about embedding. Last week they ploudly proclaimed that KDE had no future. Now they're worried that it does.
And learn to think for yourselves! GNOME is not necessarily the holy grail for humanity. Not everything that isn't GNU or GNOME is evil. Freedom is about choice. This bears repeating: freedom is about choice. This means that it's okay for there to be other desktops besides GNOME. Dynamically linking to a non-GPL library does not make KDE non-GPL. Those who are complaining that KDE looks and acts just like Windows have obviously never used KDE or Windows. Those that think that GNOME is better because it doesn't have those things that makes KDE windows-like have obviously never used GNOME.
For those of you aren't whiners, my apologies. I just had to get my whine out about whiners.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned