Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

KDE 4.1 Beta 2 – Two Steps Forward, One Step Back?

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the everyone's-a-critic dept.

KDE 431

jammag writes "Linux pundit Bruce Byfield takes a look at the latest KDE beta and finds it wanting: 'Very likely, KDE users will have to wait for another release or two beyond 4.1 before the new version of KDE matches the features of earlier ones, especially in customization.' He notes that the second beta is still prone to unexplained crashes, and goes so far as to say, 'Everyone agrees now that KDE 4.0 was a mistake.' I'm not too sure about that — really, 'everyone?'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Everyone? Why not? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24070979)

"Everyone" agrees that Vista is "a failure", even though it's really not. So why can't dumb generalizations be applied to software that's supposed to be perfect in every way?

That's the stupidest comment I've ever seen (-1, Flamebait)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071045)

"Everyone" agrees that Vista is "a failure", even though it's really not.

If Vista wasn't a failure, then everyone wouldn't agree that it is a failure, and as your own post points out, everyone agrees that it is.

Do you think about this crap before you post?

OMG (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071117)


the point --> .
.
.
.
. (this is the whoosh area)
.
.
.
you --> x

Re:OMG (5, Funny)

willyhill (965620) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071391)

It's possible he suffers from Acute Quote Blindness, or AQB. AQB is a terrible, debilitating disease that wreaks havoc on the cred levels of online pundits.

AQB has also been linked to Broken Sarcasm Gland Syndrome (BSGS), but the research in that area is still ongoing.

Re:That's the stupidest comment I've ever seen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071119)

Whoosh. Next time follow your own advice.

(not the original AC)

Re:That's the stupidest comment I've ever seen (1)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071225)

ha ha

I "agree". If only the GP would "pay attention" to their own "words" and the way they is "using" them.

Re:That's the stupidest comment I've ever seen (1)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071431)

Hey, thanks for getting it.

Re:That's the stupidest comment I've ever seen (1)

shellbeach (610559) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071601)

Um ... I don't think he "got" it quite the way you thought ... :)

(hint: try looking at the quotation marks!)

Not that it would matter even if the quote marks weren't there, since language doesn't have to parse logically to make sense. This is why we easily understand the meaning of double-negatives, for example. And also why everyone else on this site instantly understood the GP's point ...

Re:Everyone? Why not? (5, Insightful)

emeade (123253) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071083)

Good thing KDE 3.5.9 is still available so users have a choice to avoid "failure", unlike XP which will only be available to System Builder Licensees.

Re:Everyone? Why not? (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071123)

"Everyone" agrees that Vista is "a failure", even though it's really not. So why can't dumb generalizations be applied to software that's supposed to be perfect in every way?

The thing though is, I can take KDE 3 and use it till the year 5436656563577 or beyond if I feel like and still patch it. With XP I can't really even get it anymore and I can't patch it and modify it. With KDE 4 I can customize it by customizing the source, with Vista I can't.

Re:Everyone? Why not? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071523)

Nice. Too bad OP's comment has nothing to do with the Linux v. Windows debate, but rather the hypocrisy of Slashdotters.

KDE 3 and XP had nothing to do with his comment (really, neither did KDE 4 or Windows Vista), but thanks for bringing it in anyway.

In fact, how can you compare a desktop environment to an entire operating system, anyway?

Re:Everyone? Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071289)

everyone except balmer. The exception proves the rule.

Re:Everyone? Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071755)

Yes. It proves the rule false.

Re:Everyone? Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071585)

My only problem with KDE 4 is the incredibly slow-ass file previews. What happened? I can now open up a folder of digital camera images and have Dolphin or Konqueror preview them, and 45 minutes later it will still be working to get all the thumbnails done.

Compare to the current version of Nautilus (or the KDE 3.x version of Konqueror) that previewed more or less instantly... What gives?

Other than that, I've not had any major stability issues or gripes with KDE 4.x (I'm using Fedora 9 and have switched from the new menu to the old "accordion-style" menu.)

Re:Everyone? Why not? (1)

arotenbe (1203922) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071615)

"Everyone" agrees that Vista is "a failure", even though it's really not.

I think most people agree that Vista is more of a failure than XP was. Why? Because Microsoft is losing market share with Windows now and they weren't then. If Microsoft had released Vista two or three years earlier, it wouldn't have been so much of a "failure". But people got tired of waiting, and starting moving to OS X and Linux.

Perfect? (5, Insightful)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071697)

KDE 4.0 and 4.1 are not meant to be perfect in every way. They are meant to establish a new scheme of APIs and a new design dynamic. It is a big overhaul that is in its beginnings. Nobody is claiming KDE 4.x is feature comparable to 3.x right now. This is just one person's view, and this [arstechnica.com] is another view with excellent counterpoints. It is a failure where people are expecting too much of it in its current state.

Vista is supposed to be a workstation solution ready for every day production use right now. People are considering that to be a failure in its current state as well, and you are right, these two alleged failures are similar. But one product that is at an early start (4.0 & 4.1 beta, the more mature 3.5+ still seeing a lot of active development and use due to its maturity) and the other has the promise to be mature enough to use right now. You are not forced to upgrade to KDE 4.x, but Vista is required for some of today's games and applications because they don't run in earlier versions. This is the difference.

Unexplained Crashes (5, Insightful)

armanox (826486) | more than 6 years ago | (#24070991)

You know, I thought that the idea of Beta software was so that people could report unexplained crashes back to the developers....

Re:Unexplained Crashes (3, Informative)

A little Frenchie (715758) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071065)

yup! your right! [wikipedia.org]

Re:Unexplained Crashes (5, Funny)

Nibbler999 (1101055) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071139)

What about his right?

Re:Unexplained Crashes (4, Informative)

Pulzar (81031) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071161)

The article hardy complains about the crashes, it just says that you probably don't want to install it on your desktop, but try it with a live CD instead (and never mentions the crashes again). The summary, as usual, is a little misleading.

Re:Unexplained Crashes (5, Insightful)

mpyne (1222984) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071373)

You know, I thought that the idea of Beta software was so that people could report unexplained crashes back to the developers...

And it certainly works for that. A released version always gets more widespread testing though, and KDE is not the only project that experiences this effect. After all, how often do you see the advice to not use a .0 release because it's buggy? That's because people don't test alpha, beta, or RC releases.

We delayed the release of KDE 4.0 for two months because it wasn't ready for release, and then debated internally (you can check our public mailing lists) before the release as to whether it should be called 4.0 or another release candidate. In the end it was judged that the known bugs were not serious enough to block release. Keep in mind that there were (and are) a lot of feature regressions which get fixed up over time. But they were not due to us designing them out, it was due to the fact that they did not get ported over in time.

KDE .. vs ... anything else? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071003)

Well, I'm sure I'll have the unpopular opinion, but KDE is a mistake. Period.
 
stick with ... I dunno ... gnome... xfce ... or emacs ;)

Shouldn't that be.. (3, Interesting)

superphreak (785821) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071037)

KDE 4.1 Beta 2 â" Two Steps Forward, One Step Back?

One step forward, two steps back? If the "old version" is better than the "new version" ???

Re:Shouldn't that be.. (5, Informative)

nanday (935437) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071149)

Contrary to the contributor's comment, I'm saying that 4.1 *is* better than 4.0, but not as much as better as people hoped, and that, in Folder View, it introduces a new source of controversy.

I twisted the original saying to reflect my opinion.

-Bruce Byfield ("nanday")

Re:Shouldn't that be.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071203)

Settle in for a fun Saturday night of Slashdolts flaming you over things you never said.

Too bad. (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071051)

Damn. I've got 2 users on xubuntu because ubuntu with gnome is too "bloaty and funky" for them, and kubuntu is too squirrelly. Neither is all that happy, both have been looking forward to a fully usable kubuntu with the 4.1 (because it "seems more like windows"), but maybe I should begin looking into E17 for them? I just hate this kind of crap, wish we could all just use ion3 or wmaker. But these are people who'll willingly click through a half dozen GUI menus no prob, but as soon as I say "It's easy -- just open a terminal and type" I've lost them... I never have understood why they have that mental block, it's so limiting.

Re:Too bad. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071095)

what aspect of KDE 4.1 seems more like Windows?

It's the Unix GUI LEAST like Windows. Unless "Most like Windows" really means "Has a task bar and launch menu at the bottom of the screen".

Re:Too bad. (4, Insightful)

trooper9 (1205868) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071171)

It probably means just that. Familiar paradigms are important to a lot of people.

Re:Too bad. (2, Insightful)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071549)

It's the Unix GUI LEAST like Windows.

That's not true. Something like ion3 or wmii is far more different than Windows. Also, what about KDE 4 is so radically different about Windows? Plasma is sort of similar (but a lot more elaborate) to Vista's Gadgets in that they can dock on the panel or be dragged out and float around on the desktop. Some of the compositing effects are similar to what Aero do. The new launcher menu has moved away from the start menu replacement from Windows, but it still feels natural to someone familiar with Windows.

Face it, KDE 4 does have a lot of similarities to Windows (and that isn't necessarily a bad thing).

Re:Too bad. (4, Insightful)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071689)

And so does any GUI.. they all have icons, some sort of "OK" buttons, a close button, etc.

KDE 4 is probably more different then Windows then Gnome. Just because Gnome's main "bar" is on the top, doesn't make it somehow completely different than Windows. Move the bar to the bottom, and BAM, you have a Windows-looking UI.

Re:Too bad. (4, Insightful)

AndyCR (1091663) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071155)

Neither is all that happy, both have been looking forward to a fully usable kubuntu with the 4.1 (because it "seems more like windows"), but maybe I should begin looking into E17 for them?

Or perhaps they can stop expecting it to be something it isn't and get used to Linux as a real operating system, not "that shoddy free Windows clone" they expect it to be.

Re:Too bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071249)

I hope you're not already giving them KDE 4.0 because KDE 3.5 is definitely more polished, useable, and customizeable.

Re:Too bad. (4, Insightful)

Miseph (979059) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071253)

Short answer? Mnemonics.

Long version: it's easier for most people to fudge through something they vaguely remember doing by pictures than it is for them to memorize a set of arcane terminal they vaguely remember. People who do things other than program and learn Linux inside and out have all sorts of other random esoteric knowledge buried away, and there's only so much that a single person can keep in their head. These people are called end users, and frankly, if you don't understand why politely asking them to "simply" learn the terminal commands is a mind-numbingly stupid proposition, I seriously recommend staying the hell away from UI design.

Re:Too bad. (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071537)

it's easier for most people to fudge through something they vaguely remember doing by pictures than it is for them to memorize a set of arcane terminal they vaguely remember.

I've found that the documentation is such that I only need a vague memory of the terminal, just as I only need a vague memory of the GUI. Obviously, YMMV.

That said, while I find the terminal is more productive, I also find that many GUIs are much more discoverable than their CLI counterparts, and that the learning curve is far less.

Re:Too bad. (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071435)

"'It's easy -- just open a terminal and type' I've lost them..."

I find that all depends on the age of the user. If the user is old enough to have been familiar with DOS at the command line, it's really no problem.

--
BMO

Terminal Vs. GUI (3, Insightful)

name*censored* (884880) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071637)

I never have understood why they have that mental block, it's so limiting.

The thing about CLIs is that they do anything you want them to instantly, if you know what you're doing. The disadvantage to CLIs is that, unlike GUIs, they offer absolutely no prompts - in a GUI there's always words or pictures at least labelling the buttons, even if it's just "load". Another "advantage" to GUIs is that they're "safe" - anything you want to do in a GUI requires at least 2 steps, so it's nearly impossible to do something dangerous accidentally (I'm counting loading the application as a step - in a CLI you can almost always open-and-execute-command in one step). This idea has become so deeply ingrained in people regarding computers (see: Any "hacker" in a movie, general societal impressions of 1980s supergeeks, etc). Most people are actually terrified of command prompts for this very reason - although they might describe it more as "it's confusing"/"I don't know what I'm doing here"/"What if I get it wrong and break something?". Hell, I remember being terrified of "breaking windows" the first time I opened command prompt to do something innocuous (maybe it was proper DOS back in those days though..).

This is basically why most geeks use CLIs when they can - because it's much faster and more efficient to do something you know how to do, while most newbs prefer GUIs - it's safe, easy, faster for doing multiple unrelated things at once, and they're used to it. Personally, I'm glad that there is this mindset - I'm getting a little tired of having to fix my friends' and parents' computers, I hate to think what damage they could accidentally do if they managed to get a dangerous command out in a command line (I can't imagine them accidentally deleting everything with a GUI - there's no one-step rm -rf or del /y C:\* for a GUI).

Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071053)

How is it possible that open source developers have been working on KDE for a decade now and they still can't come up with something remotely polished as Win2k was years ago?

And something that just isn't in the same universe as OS X?

Why do the UI elements and widgets look like they are straight out of the damn stone age? Putting Aqua side by side with KDE makes it look like KDE is some sort of college computer graphics programmer art.

Why the hell can't the most basic UI and font spacing be handled. Isn't there anything like the automated snap to grid UI layout tools like Interface Builder?

You could sit down with a Mac or Windows machine and a Linux box running KDE and come up with thousands of stupid little,a nd boring to fix, problems in KDE that could be addressed and fixed TODAY?

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071105)

> How is it possible that open source developer

There is a fundemental and fatal flaw with the entire Linux/open source development model where there is no single controlling authority. KDE is built of a million little projects and packages that all are their own boss and answer to no one but themselves. So if there is some poor design decision that is causing stupid and annoying problems in KDE(or other projects) there is no one that can force the project to fix or change their stuff. Sure you can fork and fix the stuff on your own, but you quickly end up taking over the work of all the sub projects you were trying to leverage.

So what happens is things just never get fixed. Instead new shinny things keep getting added and the year of the Desktop Linux gets incremented once again.

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (1)

AceofSpades19 (1107875) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071181)

Honestly, if enough users complain about something then the project will most likely fix it, if one person out of their whole userbase complains, they won't just fix it just for that one person and get everyone else pissed off.

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071131)

One of reasons may be that they are doing it for free, in their spare time. Not eight hours a day, with their paycheck dependent on the quality of the result and with best professional artists, designers, usability specialists etc hired for big $$$ to decide what is best.

As much as we want to think otherwise, most of open source software is amateur production. Some of it is professional in means of program, but great most is amateur when it comes to UI design, art, and such.

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (1)

jvillain (546827) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071485)

I didn't understand 4.0 at all. It just seemed completely broken to me compared to 4.0. But now that I am onto 4.1 and have done some more learning I have to say that I now have a desktop that works better than Vista does and looks just as slick as aero. The move to the 4 series of releases of KDE gave us a huge jump in potential but it was also very ambitious. For KDE to focus on 4 makes a lot of sense but I don't think it should have been the KDE desktop in Fedora 9. Whether the distro guys got to ambitious or the KDE developers over sold what 4.0 would be I don't know. But every one should know that if you are running the latest and greatest Fedora you are going to be out on the bleeding edge. If you don't want that just run one version back. The bigger problem than the including KDE 4 is the way Fedora is always trying to kill off your KDE install and replace it with the steaming pile Gnome. If all you were to take was Grub and the kernel as your install Fedora and the rest of RedHat would make sure that you also got GDM, Evolution and a boat load of other i386 Gnome crap with it. I mean really why is GDM the default desk top manager for KDE on Fedora? rpm -e gdm should be the first step after installing Fedora with the KDE desktop.

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (1)

Helix666 (1148203) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071645)

AFAIK, KDE4 isn't the default KDE for Fedora 9, but I could be wrong. But if so, you can probably change it in the install.

Also, the reason that the gnome stuff is installed is because there are so many apps that rely on it, Evolution, Firefox, etc. (As far as I can see, anyway.)

Then again, I run openSUSE with KDE4.0 as my default DE, and I quite like it. (There are a few bits that need a bit of a polish, but I don't know enough to change them), but there are always Gnome apps I'm relying on and I don't mind this so much. (However, I can't stand using gnome as my default desktop... but, to each their own.)

(Hmm... was there a point to this post? note to self: don't internet while tired.)

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (1)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071745)

Yea, I think KDE 4 is good and shows a lot of promise. They're attempting to do something different - a better UI with guidelines, a new API, plus a lot of new code.

I've always liked KDE and I have every confidence that they will do right by it. Sure, I'm a little disappointed that I can't use a perfect KDE 4 right now, but I'd rather it take another year and get done right without shortcuts or too many concessions.

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (0, Troll)

agrippa_cash (590103) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071185)

You sound a lot like the guy complaining about how long it tool Macs to copy a 17 Mb file. What made you change your mind?

People Call It The +5 Insightful Effect (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071229)

Most open source developers have been hanging out and posting here on Slashdot for a very long time and you start to believe your and everyone else's bullshit.

"Did you submit a bug report?"

"All hail choice!"

"You obviously haven't read teh Cathedral and teh Bazaar"

"Well, I LIKE it that way"

and all the rest of the garbage that gets posted and modded up here means nothing ever get fixed. Nothing ever changes. No grown up hard questions or criticisms get asked or considered. Just endless BSOD jokes and self congratulatory mutual masturbation of the glories of open source.

That crap keeps getting modded up and shit never gets fixed. And Microsoft continues to rake in tens of billions and retains their lock on the desktop OS world.

The world is waiting for open source developers to grow the fuck up and start acting like adults. People WANT to use open source software, and yet the juvenile open source developers continue to putz around with spinning 3D accelerated cubes proclaiming how they are 'ahead' of Windows and OS X.

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (4, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071233)

and they still can't come up with something remotely polished as Win2k was years ago?

What is your idea of "remotely polished"? If you mean any modern Linux distro I would say that it is better than W2K. Lets start from the top...

1. Solid kernel.
2. Solid GUI base (X)
3. Solid GUI (take your pick, XFCE, GNOME, KDE, etc)
4. Lots of programs (just take a look at the Ubuntu repos)

Now look at all the things that Windows 2000 doesn't have that Linux has

1. Out-of-the-box driver support for just about everything (only exceptions are ATI/nVidia graphics cards, but some distros now include them)
2. Central package management system
3. 3-D effects
4. Support for all major filesystems out-of-the-box
5. Support for all major filetypes out-of-the-box

Your comments are nothing but trolling. Show me how Windows 2000 or any Windows is better than Linux and stop making up your "facts"

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071303)

You sound like some guy trying to prove that his blow up doll 'girlfriend' is just as good as a real woman...

What is your idea of a 'real woman'? My (blow up)girlfriend has:

1. Two arms
2. Two legs
3. A hole for a mouth
4. A hole...

Just like a real woman does...

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071357)

Good analogy, but you stopped too soon. A Linux/Windows comparison is like a comparison between a blow-up doll and a badly groomed transvestite.

You need to go elsewhere to find anything comparable to the sexiness of an actual woman.

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071415)

I don't think you really understood the parent. He's talking about the look and feel of the User Interface of Windows 2000 and OSX, and how they are far beyond the mediocre offerings of open source design.

Rather than defend it, you sidestep the argument and mention things not even related to the parent post. Kernels, Drivers, and File Systems? What do those have to do with what the issue is here? Nothing. You are doing your own brand of trolling by beating your chest over the wrong issues.

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (5, Insightful)

menace3society (768451) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071243)

Here's why:
1) NIMBY - If Z is a feature or program I don't use, not only do I not care about it, I don't care about whether or not it can interact properly with programs I do care about.

2) Windows-ism - Many projects now try to replicate the functions of Windows apps. But the clones and work-alikes they produce are not only imperfect, programmers also can't take the same shortcuts that the Windows developers do.

3) Real Programmers - If a program isn't hard to write, it isn't worth writing, and if you make it easy for programmers to write for a platform, especially new ones, they will only produce crap that you somehow have to deal with. Compare this with MS's "Developers developer developers" motto, or Apple's excellent dev tools.

4) Esoterism - The command line is better than graphics. Graphics, and especially graphic quality is unimportant, and studies with evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, whether an interface is cleaner or more obvious or better-looking is irrelevant. It's okay for GUI tools and programs to just be front-ends for their command-line equivalents, even if it puts unnecessary limits on the graphical version.

5) Arrogance - (related to 1) There is only one right way to do things, one language, one library, one kernel, one package, one work-flow set-up. If you do it any other way, you're wrong; if you suggest that another way is good, I must shoot you down and insult you because you implicitly threaten the validity of my worldview; if you say that there can be more than one solution to a problem, you are really saying that your solution is right and mine is wrong.

I once listened in on a conversation by some digital typographers about their work set-ups, and unlike linux-heads they were genuinely interested in the advantages and disadvantages of different ways of solving the same problem, instead of arguing over whether which was best.

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071429)

1) NIMBY - If Z is a feature or program I don't use, not only do I not care about it, I don't care about whether or not it can interact properly with programs I do care about.

And... So would you rather have someone who doesn't care about how something works/knows what works write something or would you rather have someone who uses it all the time write something? It is like saying, would you rather a graphics program be written by an artist or a songwriter? The songwriter may make a graphics program that is nice for him, but doesn't satisfy the needs of an artist.

4) Esoterism - The command line is better than graphics. Graphics, and especially graphic quality is unimportant, and studies with evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, whether an interface is cleaner or more obvious or better-looking is irrelevant. It's okay for GUI tools and programs to just be front-ends for their command-line equivalents, even if it puts unnecessary limits on the graphical version.

Again, most people using Linux are not artists nor do they use GUIs much, so their needs are different then the ones of other people. So they write programs to fit the needs they have.

3) Real Programmers - If a program isn't hard to write, it isn't worth writing, and if you make it easy for programmers to write for a platform, especially new ones, they will only produce crap that you somehow have to deal with. Compare this with MS's "Developers developer developers" motto, or Apple's excellent dev tools.

Yep, and as you have seen with all the Visual Basic crap that floats around for Windows.

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (1)

cybereal (621599) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071543)

You might find that last bit of anecdotal offering out of place in this discussion since most of the participants don't actually have any work to produce. ;)

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071589)

1) Greater freedom demands greater responsibility. Open source developers love the freedom part but complete failures when it comes to the responsibility half. The sorry state of the Linux desktop is what happens when people are left to work on whatever they want, when they want, and how they want. Freedom without responsibility leads to endless new features and bugs that never get fixed

2) No chain of command. Every project is an island unto themselves. You're using my code and it doesn't do what YOU want. Tough. I'll either ignore you or stick your request at the bottom of my list. Why should I work my ass off for your project where you get all the credit

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (1)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071599)

You're right. I've managed to get an Ubuntu GNOME desktop running like a Mac one, though, so it can be done.

4) Esoterism (4, Insightful)

HobophobE (101209) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071613)

It's okay for GUI tools and programs to just be front-ends for their command-line equivalents, even if it puts unnecessary limits on the graphical version.

On the other hand, there's a pretty strong argument this should always be the case EXCEPT for the tools that build the GUIs themselves.

Consider the standard menu of a program[1] where you'll find the same options from the File menu almost always as buttons in the application right under the file menu and you'll find the edit menu items in the context menu.

Point is, there are plenty of ways to display these UI options to the user. They can and should be separated from their actual implementations. This would ultimately mean that the UI can be generated according to a user's personal preferences and needs (including assistive technologies or device limitations) while the actual guts of the application stays the same.

At least, I believe this is the way forward for GUIs.

[1]

  • File
    • New
    • Open
    • Save
    • Save as...
    • Print
    • Quit

  • Edit
    • Undo
    • Redo
    • Cut
    • Copy
    • Paste
    • Delete
    • Select All

[...]

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (3, Insightful)

EdelFactor19 (732765) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071679)

"If a program isn't hard to write, it isn't worth writing"

thats probably the most stupid phrase I have heard all year. A program is worth writing if it gets a job done that you have to do more than once; and whose total time of use and time saved is less than spent writing it. Just because an action might only take a minute doesn't mean I shouldn't have a program that could do it for me in an instant. Further; easy to write for who? the person writing the app or the person using the APP?

2. what the hell is a windows app? (as applied in your usage) I'd like to laugh at an example of a clone and work-alike. If you mention a file system explorer prepare to be slapped over the head.

Along with your whole crud on great developers make great developers. blah blah... have you heard of man pages? make? automake? tools that Visual Studio have been emulating for years; heck mac development relies on unix linux tools.. what compiler do they use? oh gcc right...

The reason windows is polished is because there is a SINGLE standard for the gui's they all have to be the same they all play with the same tool kit; same with mac. Linux gui apps often have to be written to be compatible with one of several.

Furthermore linux gui's can be user customized in a variety of ways which a BASIC user will never do on mac or windows. But more importantly windows and mac both spend a large amount of time and money (more so for mac) on their uniform gui design paradigms. They have a single ethos of how each app is expected to work; linux does not. You are free to do whatever you want. And frankly I think that on a gui side kde and gnome have been on par with linux for awhile; at least since 2005. I'm not going to get into kde4.1 because i havent used it or kde4.0; but as poorly as others have retorted you haven't expressed what about the gui was lacking. what is this mythical 'polish' you speak of?

its as vague as saying "it's not good"; well what is good?

Arrogance? ironically that describes everything that makes windows and osX themselves. there is only one real api set available, and in then end one way to do things. Arrogant people are present everywhere; the OS however is not Arrogant about it which is why you are free to choose whichever gui or lack of one that you want.

which only makes your esoterism line even more pathetic.
"Graphics, and especially graphic quality is unimportant, and studies with evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, whether an interface is cleaner or more obvious or better-looking is irrelevant." so basically lets throw out all knowledge and study of human computer interaction, human factors in design and principles of user interfaces.? You just made your whole post meaningless because it contradicts everything that you say.

Interface does matter. And if you don't think so and love command line so much, then uninstall X from your linux machine and go knock yourself out. Too bad you can't do that on a windows machine or a mac. Me I'm going to enjoy the combination of command line and GUI.

There are plenty of nonlinux heads who are arrogant too; lots of OS/2 nuts, windows junkies, etc floating around. They also exist in politics, you have conservatives, christian conservatives, etc. The one thing they tend to have in common is those people all seem to be members of the baby boomer generation.

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (1)

asylumx (881307) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071719)

4) Esoterism - The command line is better than graphics.

A picture is worth a thousand words...

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071323)

You could sit down with a Mac or Windows machine and a Linux box running KDE and come up with thousands of stupid little,a nd boring to fix, problems in KDE that could be addressed and fixed TODAY?

A few things, KDE/Gnome/Xfce isn't supposed to be a remake of Windows or Mac. It is KDE/Gnome/Xfce. It is different. Get used to it. I bet that I could sit down at a Mac or Windows machine and come up with thousands of stupid little and boring to fix problems in the Mac/Windows GUI that could be adressed and fixed TODAY. For one thing, in Windows I can't rearrange my open windows on the bottom bar like I can in some Linux DEs.

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (1)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071327)

How come this stupid lamer got +2 insightful? Really I think sometimes the system decides to give mod power to the worst retards in the site.

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (1)

hxnwix (652290) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071447)

Isn't there anything like the automated snap to grid UI layout tools like Interface Builder

KDE makes heavy use of QT which does have an interface builder [trolltech.com] . It's quite advanced compared to VC2005's MFC dialog editor, supporting niceties such as defining dynamic resizing behavior.

Why do the UI elements and widgets look like they are straight out of the damn stone age

QT renders controls itself. On windows and on OS X, QT apps blend in seamlessly unless you manually change QT's current theme. This is means that QT and KDE are capable of mimicking these standard widgets exactly. So, I have to wonder whether you have any idea what you're talking about. It sounds like you're just saying shit, kid.

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071507)

People can write their own widget theme engines; there are actually some pretty nice ones if you go to kde-look [kde-look.org] . You could argue there should be a better default, but there's actually a lot of people who like the default theme. Similarly, there's enough people who dislike the Mac and Windows guis that they theme it with third-party apps.

Comparing with the Mac is not really fair though. Apple spends a lot of money on UI design and not too many UI designers do open source work.

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (1)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071723)

Users expect more than Windows 2000 in the year 2008. I'd say the KDE 2 UI is more like Windows 2000 than anything else.

I think KDE 3 is pretty polished. It works, and apps written in QT all have a very similar look and feel. And with the theme add-on to make your GTK apps look like your QT apps, it even makes GTK stuff fit in to a good degree.

I think KDE 4 shows a lot of promise. I like the basic idea, and it looks nice. I expect that in a few releases of KDE 4, we'll be looking at a much more stable desktop system that I'll be happy to use. For now, I am using Gnome because it's more stable than KDE 4 but I get annoying with Gnome, so I look forward to perhaps KDE 4.5.

Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071747)

How is it possible that open source developers have been working on KDE for a decade now and they still can't come up with something remotely polished as Win2k was years ago?

I could be wrong, but I do believe that most (if not all) of the people working on KDE/qt itself are working for Trolltech, and do get paid for it. Also, I don't think I'd agree with the rest of your conclusions. You're comparing DEs which are integrated into their corresponding OSs with a DE designed to be a modular add-on for several OSs. That makes it a lot more challenging in a number of ways. Also, you are probably grouping a lot of independently built qt apps together with KDE. It just isn't that simple. KDE has to work with all the *nix distros. I expect that building a single interface to work with a single OS is perhaps 5% of the job the KDE devs have to do. So I'd say you've got it backwards -- a better question might be, "with only one little OS to focus upon, why on earth can't Vista's be the most perfect windows UI yet?", or even "why can't Aqua be the last word in flexibility and customizability?".

only mistake. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071069)

I certainly don't think KDE 4.0 was a mistake beyond calling it "4.0" which led a bunch of idiots to expect something "finished", and that despite the up-front warnings that it wasn't finished.

It's a clear design improvement on 3.x in every way (though I don't particularly like or use the new desktop with its "plasmoids", I didn't like the 3.x desktop either, and the 4.x desktop can emulate it trivially - desktops widgets are just pointless, you just don't see them or the desktop for 99.9% of the time you're using the computer), it's just not stable yet.

Re:only mistake. (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071397)

I certainly don't think KDE 4.0 was a mistake beyond calling it "4.0" which led a bunch of idiots to expect something "finished", and that despite the up-front warnings that it wasn't finished.

Spot on! I'm not an idiot, but I wasn't really paying attention to KDE development in the last 6 months. I installed Ubuntu on a new PC yesterday, and noticed the "KDE 4" option, so I chose it. I didn't like it, KDE 3 was installed instead this morning. 4 had lots of minor bugs and a few bigger ones, things that just weren't finished, or were in KDE 3 but aren't in 4 (particularly customisation dialogues). It felt like actual beta software (before that word was 'cool'), it mostly worked, but there were things you could see needed fixing, and some gaps.

I don't know why they released before (IMO) they were ready. Where's the pressure coming from?

Re:only mistake. (1)

penix1 (722987) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071653)

That was addressed in TFA as not being the problem of the KDE team but the problem with the Debian based distributors rush in releasing it. That being said, I too tried KDE4 and disliked the interruption to workflow it presents. Change for changes sake isn't a good idea especially on the scale we are talking about here. It isn't the really new users, those who never tried Linux before, who are complaining so much as those who are familiar with the old KDE like myself. I can get far more done in far less time in KDE 3.5.* than I can in 4. That is why you are seeing poor reviews like in TFA.

I think if they would have phased in the changes over a longer time period we all could have gotten to like it. To spring the amount of changes they did all at once and expect no negative feedback is a bit silly to me. Worse, every complaint I read had some KDE developer answering with the old standby, "it is slated for 4.1". Well, 4.1 is here and they still have many of the same issues unaddressed.

So what it boils down to is for the sake of my workflow, I'll probably wait for the 4.7 release which should be stable and somewhat useful by then.

Still using KDE 3.x.x (0)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071097)

I use Kubuntu and right now I have 8.04 Hardy with KDE 3.5.9. I tried Hardy with KDE 4.0 and felt like it was still in Beta. My main reason for switching back to KDE 3 was Amarok, which is my favorite media player / itunes substitute and it isn't working in KDE 4, yet.

well duh (2, Interesting)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071103)

Gee, complaining about glitches in a beta. That's brilliant. Hmmm the beta has some glitches! It must suck! Let's write it off permanently as crap! Ugh, as long as they don't pull a Vista or Leopard and release it with tons of unresolved problems and actually call it done, you won't hear me complaining. But if the entire basic design of it sucks, that's another story. I personally haven't seen it.

Re:well duh (1)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071423)

"Gee, complaining about glitches in a beta. That's brilliant. Hmmm the beta has some glitches!"

To be fair, I finally got beta2 to compile yesterday, and for me the panel was unusably crashy (the panel was crashing KDE to death literally - after about the third time the panel crashed and restarted itself, it would crash and take all the rest of KDE with it, leaving me with a blank black screen. Every other click or mouseover type event seemed to precipitate a crash, so this was a matter of 3-5 minutes of use...) - far less stable than I'm used to seeing with a "beta" (especially a "beta 2") on a Linux-based system...

Working on getting the up-to-the-moment source from subversion to build. Between crashes, I could see that at least SOME of the major irritants that I had with 4.0 seemed to have been dealt with. Once 4.1 is stabilized I think it'll be quite usable.

Re:well duh (1)

asylumx (881307) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071733)

Lots of folks are complaining about IE8 and it's only beta too. Also, have you ever played a beta for an MMO game? The quality of the Beta can make or break the game well before its release date -- just have a look at Vanguard: Saga of Heroes.

Also, if you don't complain about glitches in beta (which is intended for bug reporting & tweaking) then they will almost certainly make it through to production, because the devs didn't necessarily know the bugs existed.

Includ me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071129)

I hate it. I run in along side 3 just to keep an eye on the progress. Often, I'll see a batch of changes come down and I'll boot into 4 to see the progress. I agree with with emeade, I'm very happy I have a choice. It's one thing to not like it because of the problems (it is beta), but I just don't like the direction it's going.

Well if he disagrees (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071137)

"I'm not too sure about that â" really, 'everyone'?"

Well, if the writer of the article already disagrees, this is clearly wrong. Easy question to answer really.

They missed the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071187)

The point of a beta is not meant to be a stable release, its meant for users to report bugs! I do find it kind of annoying that they are removing a lot of functionality though. Most of the changes are purely aesthetic. Either way, I'm sticking to stumpwm.

What ars said... (4, Interesting)

Hoplite3 (671379) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071199)

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080702-the-critics-are-wrong-kde-4-doesnt-need-a-fork.html [arstechnica.com]

KDE4 will get better. There's a lot of promise in plasma. Until then, 3.5 is totally usable (I'm using it now). KDE has often put forward a lot of wacky ideas just to see what sticks to the wall. Good on 'em, I say.

Look about the full KDE3 installation, you can find all sorts of ideas that never really made it. Drag and drop stuff, little file servers, and so on. Some of these things are probably in use by someone now. It's all part of KDE's great flexibility.

Re:What ars said... (4, Interesting)

niiler (716140) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071417)

Exactly. There's a new paradigm in desktop coming and IMHO, it is worth waiting for. I, too, use KDE 3.5.8. However, I have compiled KDE 4.0.4 so that I could preview and screencast some of the programs (such as the physics simulator, Step). It's not terribly stable [but it's beta, so I don't expect it to be], but I love it.

I suspect that the rants against KDE 4 are from people who are either impatient (think of the world we live in), are complaining because they are happy with KDE 3.5 and are concerned that they will lose productivity in moving to 4.x, or simply didn't read the fine print that it's in beta at the moment.

I am also unhappy with people who have not acknowledged that the the goal posts are moving. It seems that they are not hearing the complaints against the KDE marketing machine. But the bottom line for me is that I have a usable platform until the release is stable, and I'm perfectly happy to wait until it is. Hey, I'm getting it for free.

Futurama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071201)

An upgrade? I thought we all agreed that I was perfect!

Still very disappointed with KDE 4 (0, Flamebait)

leamanc (961376) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071251)

I've ranted about KDE 4 before, and unfortunately must continue. I've always been a big KDE advocate, but they took damn near everything that made KDE great out of the 4.0 release. I was disappointed, but willing to give them a break and get to 4.1 (and restore some features from the 3.x series). Now we hear that 4.1 is worse than 4.0. I don't want to switch to Gnome or xfce or anything like that...but how long will I have to continue running 3.5.x?

Re:Still very disappointed with KDE 4 (1)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071501)

"Now we hear that 4.1 is worse than 4.0."

That's not really true (plus, the article's title is suggesting that 4.1 IS gaining more improvements than detriments at the moment). What little I've been able to see of 4.1 so far suggests that they ARE addressing a lot of the shortcomings that were in 4.0. If I can keep the dang thing from crashing for more than 3-5 minutes it looks like I'll be pretty pleased with it, personally.

Re:Still very disappointed with KDE 4 (4, Insightful)

Jerry (6400) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071545)

Why?

Aren't you aware of the Linux development paradigm that has been the rule since Linus released Linux? ... "Release Early, release often!" FOSS depends upon the users helping in the development of software, not whining about perceived or real problems.

Bruce Byfield summarized his findings with the following statement:
How stable KDE 4.1 will be when released at the end of this month is anybody's guess. But, judging from its features, the release will be a major milestone in the 4.x series. Unfortunately, it will almost certainly not be the complete answer to user discontent that has been promised. It might even drive large number of users away from KDE altogether.

Such a reaction would be misguided. KDE 4.x has many features, including the use of scalable vector graphics and natural language searches that make it the most innovative free desktop currently in development. Moreover, if you dislike some of its experiments, you can work around them with no more trouble than it takes to change your desktop wallpaper -- for instance, one of the widgets you can add to the desktop is a KDE 3.5.x menu.

That is wise advice.

Troy Unrau introduced KDE4, before the first beta was released, on Jan 1, 2007 with the "Road to KDE4" series at http://dot.kde.org/1167723426 [kde.org]

Before he resigned KDE4 to focus on his Masters in Geology degree, Troy posted the following comments:

We knew there would be some pushback to the major changes in KDE 4.0, because, believe it or not, history is simply repeating itself. KDE 2.0 was met almost exactly the same way, although open source was flying a lot lower under the public radar in those days. It took until KDE 2.2 before distros mostly stopped shipping KDE 1.1.2 and were happy with 2.x.ferent standard. Somehow though, there's still a lot of positive press about KDE out there, which means that the developers have done something right (or us Marketing guys are worth our weight in Rhodium...) and the naysayers have not killed a project they confess to love.

So my message to all the disgruntled users out there are: use KDE 3.5.x, and wait until 4.x makes you happy, or better yet, help. That's what the Mac OS users did. That's what the Apache users did. That's what our KDE 2.x users did. The software you are getting from the KDE project is free, worked on by a team of developers that actually like to use their own software. Improvements are coming fast, and KDE 4.1.0 is scheduled for July. 4.2.0 for January, etc. If you use 4.0.x, have found issues, and would like to help improve 4.1 before the release, grab the SVN version, using KDE4Daily (virtual machine image), the automated kdesvn-build script, anonsvn, and file bugs. Join the bug squashing days that are announced via planetkde or the dot. And bring a positive attitude because KDE is yours, just as much as any coder!

The hysteria in some complaints (and deliberate FUDing and astroturfing in others) is misplaced. FOSS software is not static, especially when there is a vibrant body of users CONTRIBUTING to its development (coding, testing, documenting or donations). Users who do not contribute but only complain are "poisonous users". A project grows when it has an amply supply of contributing users. Any project dies when its users are poisonous.

It is also obvious that some "complainers" are not KDE users at all. Their motives are obvious. A lot of this brouhaha has been exploited by a few bloggers trying to increase their page hits by inflammatory comments with little basis in fact.

Re:Still very disappointed with KDE 4 (2, Interesting)

jvillain (546827) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071561)

4.1 is not worse than 4.0. There was a boat load of functionality put back in for 4.1, I find the biggest problem with the 4 series of KDE is that there just hasn't been enough communication of why the changes were done and how the new desktop is supposed to work. I know every one involved with KDE is busy but communicating how the fuctionality of the new desk top is supposed to work would go a long way to cooling off the critisism.

Re:Still very disappointed with KDE 4 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071691)

quit being such a whiny fuckn douche, you douchebag.

they didn't take anything out you fuckn retard.

they just haven't had time to port everything over.

get over your self.

idiot.

Not a mistake, but not for end users (1)

Dani Filth (677047) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071283)

Long time KDE fan and Kubuntu user, tried KDE 4.0 in Hardy, expecting that a lot more apps would have been ported over. Didn't like the frame around Konsole and the Panel is so locked down it's not nice to use. After a hard drive in my LVM died I reinstalled Hardy with KDE 3.5.9 and it was really nice to be back there. I'll wait for 4.2 at least... What's the difference between Kontact and KContacts (he mentioned that in the article)?

Not quite what I said (5, Informative)

nanday (935437) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071287)

While having a story linked to on Slashdot always makes my day, the summary given with the link doesn't accurately report what I said:

-- To say that I found 4.1 "wanting" is incomplete. I say that it is a major improvement over 4.0.x, but, based on the beta, isn't likely to deliver everything people want. I suggest that, while it has faults, it may be the most innovative free desktop currently.

- I say that it crashes, not as criticism (it is a beta, after all), but to suggest that casual users might not want to spend the time compiling it, and should use a Live CD to explore it instead.

- The full context in which I call KDE 4 a mistake is: "Everyone agrees now that KDE 4.0 was a mistake. However, what the mistake was -- and whose -- is a matter of opinion. KDE developers blame distributions for rushing to include a release that was never intended for everyday use, while users blame developers for changing everything." In other words, all I'm saying is that it's causing a lot of controversy -- a fact that anyone who knows how to open a search engine can easily verify.

Trying to correct an impression that gets started in comments is difficult, but I thought I'd try anyway. So, let me spell out my opinion as clearly as possibly: I'm fascinated by the KDE 4.0 series with all its innovations (in fact, I'm using it on my laptop), but I think the KDE developers seriously misjudged user reaction, and that the software itself has a ways to go.

I don't mind in the least if people disagree with me, or even condemn me; you get used to it, after a while. However, I would prefer if they disagreed with or condemned what I actually said.

Re:Not quite what I said (1)

zaivala (887815) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071477)

I tried using KDE 4.0 on Kubuntu. I found it so slow that it wasn't worth it (not to mention having to find out where everything was, and wasn't) -- I was afraid this applied to all versions of Ubuntu, but happily found that Ubuntu (Gnome) was lightning fast and gave me all the flexibility I was hoping for. I hope 4.1 is better.

Re:Not quite what I said (0, Flamebait)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071643)

- As I said in the article KDE 4 is the Microsoft Bob of Linux. FOSS may never recover

Look, we get it; you hate KDE 4 and the direction in which it's headed.. There was enough flamebait in your article without you trolling here too.

Re:Not quite what I said (4, Insightful)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071655)

The full context in which I call KDE 4 a mistake is: "Everyone agrees now that KDE 4.0 was a mistake. However, what the mistake was -- and whose -- is a matter of opinion. KDE developers blame distributions for rushing to include a release that was never intended for everyday use, while users blame developers for changing everything." In other words, all I'm saying is that it's causing a lot of controversy

Err.. no. That is not at all what you are saying. If everyone is in agreement on a point, there can be no controversy on that point. Anyway, the "everyone agrees ... " statement was the most interesting part of your article and I was displeased to see that it was just grabbed out of the blue. If the KDE core devs feel that 4.0 was a mistake, getting to know why, what they think they should have done different and what they have learned would have been very valuable to know for other developers. If distributors feel that distributing 4.0 was a mistake, then I would like to know what they will do about it? Will they be more strict about upgrading to flaky libraries?

But it is extremely uncommon for developers to admit that they have made a mistake. And I very much doubt that the KDE 4.0 guys think it was a mistake. You definitely made a mistake if you thought that an "everyone agrees" statement would slip. :)

Is it necessary? (1)

douglaid (897645) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071291)

If you don't need Vista, if you don't need KDE4, don't let it worry you. KDE3 suits my need perfectly.

My only problem with KDE 4.x (3, Interesting)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071301)

is the incredibly slow-ass file previews. What happened? I can now open up a folder of digital camera images and have Dolphin or Konqueror preview them, and 45 minutes later it will still be working to get all the thumbnails done.

Compare to the current version of Nautilus (or the KDE 3.x version of Konqueror) that previewed more or less instantly... What gives?

Other than that, I've not had any major stability issues or gripes with KDE 4.x (I'm using Fedora 9 and have switched from the new menu to the old "accordion-style" menu.)

Re:My only problem with KDE 4.x (2, Informative)

mpyne (1222984) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071625)

is the incredibly slow-ass file previews. What happened? I can now open up a folder of digital camera images and have Dolphin or Konqueror preview them, and 45 minutes later it will still be working to get all the thumbnails done.

The code itself is actually much unchanged (at least insofar as it still uses KIO). Perhaps the problem is related to Strigi slowdowns for Dolphin in KDE 4.0? In addition Dolphin in KDE 4.0 would try to show previews for all items in a directory. IN KDE 4.1 many optimizations were done such that thumbnails are only generated for visible items. Hopefully this should help.

Re:My only problem with KDE 4.x (1)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071741)

No idea, but Konqueror in 4 also shows the same problem for me. I admit, I haven't tried anything beyond Fedora's most up-to-date packages (still 4.0) but for the moment I am using Nautilus as my primary file manager, which pains me, because I am a longtime Konqueror user and like Dolphin a lot.

Note that the previews for tiny images aren't too bad, but for large files, e.g. 10mb digicam images, they take ages (4-5 seconds each or more) whereas in 3.x and in Nautilus they don't.

But otherwise, I like KDE 4 a lot and can't wait until it's more fully realized.

Not enough magic ponys yet? (5, Insightful)

zahl2 (821572) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071307)

4 is almost a complete rewrite. It seems people have the impression that the reason all of the 3.5 desktop features weren't completed in 4.1 is because of a conscious choice. When actually, it is was just limited time. Feature freeze tends to stop the adding of magic ponys.

Re:Not enough magic ponys yet? (1)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071579)

Excellent use of magic ponies, and a point that a lot of people seem to be missing here.

Re:Not enough magic ponys yet? (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071587)

Feature freeze tends to stop the adding of magic ponys.

OMG! Ponies!

Re:Not enough magic ponys yet? (3, Funny)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071651)

Someone familiar with the latest tech buzzwords is going to have to translate "Magic ponys" for me. (Especially if I'm going to impress my boss)

4.1 does have some stability problems (1)

Joe Tie. (567096) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071331)

But I still find it more stable than 4.0 of about two months ago. That was the time I decided to just run off 4.1 checkouts, and I haven't had anything close enough to being a showstopper to switch back.

Short Term and Long Term (5, Insightful)

dlevitan (132062) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071427)

KDE shot itself in the foot by making the KDE 3.x so polished. KDE 3.5 is essentially 9 years of evolutionary development from KDE 1.0. Unfortunately, its impossible to recreate 9 years of development and polish in only 3. I think that the long term prospects for KDE 4.x are great, but short term I'll continue to use 3.5.
I've tried the first beta of 4.1 and while its much more functional than 4.0, its still not there and probably won't be for a few more releases. On the other hand, I remember that KDE 3.0 was, while more functional than 4.0, also much rougher than 3.5, so I can't complain too much.

Re:Short Term and Long Term (1)

mpyne (1222984) | more than 6 years ago | (#24071703)

I've tried the first beta of 4.1 and while its much more functional than 4.0, its still not there and probably won't be for a few more releases. On the other hand, I remember that KDE 3.0 was, while more functional than 4.0, also much rougher than 3.5, so I can't complain too much.

Also the initial KDE 2.0 release met with much the same reaction back in the day as a lot of KDE 1.x features were changed, Qt changed a lot to modernize and adapt Unicode, etc. However the metaphors at least were the same, not to mention the open source press wasn't nearly as large back then.

Puhleeeze, People ... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071441)

Come on folks. This is a Linux desktop. You have a choice. If you like KDE and want stability, stick with KDE 3.x. Want "cutting edge" or want to assist with development? Go with KDE 4.

I suspect that KDE 4 was too ambitious and the developers tried to do too much. Perhaps just moving KDE 3 over to QT4 and _then_ doing a complete redesign of the inner workings. That at least would have had all the developers familiar with QT4 and allowed for an easier migration to the new whiz-bang version of KDE.

I started using KDE in the pre-1.0 days and have participated in some development and documentation and sat some out; you just go with the flow.

TFA seems to misunderstand the Linux culture in general.

KDE "User Interface" group is Supremely Arrogant (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071571)

KDE's UI group is made of user interface designer experts, people who studied years in their respective colleges to learn how people should do computing. They dismiss user feedback. If you raise any questions, they ask you if you have a PhD like them.

GNOMERS and Windows fanbois..... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24071669)

Now is the time to pile on more complaints, FUD and disinformation against KDE4, and personal attacks against its developers!

Oh, never mind. You already are.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?