Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Announcements GUI KDE Software News

KDE 3.4 RC1 Released 310

Posted by Hemos from the looking-pretty dept.
twener writes "The KDE project has announced the first release candidate of KDE 3.4 which brings many new features targeted for release at 16th March. Sources (requirements list, build script), an i486 GNU/Linux Live-CD (375MB) and SUSE 9.2 binary packages are available currently. OSdir.com and tuxmachines.org have screenshots of this release. Source Code and a Live CD are available."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

KDE 3.4 RC1 Released More

KDE 3.4 RC1 Released

Comments Filter:

  • Kongratilations! (Score:5, Funny)

    by DrunkenTerror ( 561616 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:42AM (#11802178) Homepage Journal
    Ceep up the good worc.

  • i486? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by idiot900 ( 166952 ) * on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:48AM (#11802221)
    Is anyone trying to run KDE on an x86 processor that doesn't support at least the i586 instruction set? Anyone at all?

    • Re:i486? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Erik Hensema ( 12898 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:49AM (#11802234) Homepage

      Besides that, the i486 is a very weird architecture. i386 optimized binaries run faster on a i586+ than i486 optimized binaries.

      Never, ever optimize for i486, unless you own one. But then don't run KDE on it. You won't be happy.

      • 486 introduced many new useful/fast instructions (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:00AM (#11802896)
        For example, this 486+ instruction speeds up TCP communication:

        Byte Swap (bswap) [486]

        bswapreg[16|32]
        Example

        Convert little/big endian to big/little endian by swapping bytes.

        bswap %ebx

        The equivalent 386 code would take 3 times as many cycles even on modern hardware:

        simplified excerpt from a GNU C library header file:

        /* To swap the bytes in a word the i486 processors and up provide the
        `bswap' opcode. On i386 we have to use three instructions. */
        # if !defined __i486__ && !defined __pentium__ && !defined __pentiumpro__
        ... use rorw $8, %w0; "rorl $16, %0; rorw $8, %w0 ...
        #else
        ... bswap %0 ...
        #endif
      • I seriously doubt that, why would slackware optimise for 486 if 386 ran better on modern machines?

  • Constant Change (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HeelToe ( 615905 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:49AM (#11802232) Homepage
    I'll probably get modded down for this, but my forays into KDE use have been separated by 6 months at a time. It seems the KDE team is emulating Microsoft's penchant for changing how major features of the interface work at frequent intervals.

    I see lots of people complaining that each time Windows is updated they have to relearn the GUI, but honestly the same is true with KDE.

    I'm not primarily a Windows user - I mostly use Mac OS X these days, but because of the amount of change that happens in KDE, I find it more trouble than it's worth and have begun to just stick with XFCE when I'm working on my Linux boxes.

    It would be nice to see some consistency between major releases of KDE so that configurable items are still found in the same place when you upgrade, etc.

    • Re:Constant Change (Score:5, Insightful)

      by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:56AM (#11802296) Homepage
      The difference being, of course, you don't have to work with kde to do administration.

      That said, I completely agree. I'll take it a step further and say they should snag the UI requirements that apple has available for software developers to ensure consistent look and feel on their OS ( I believe those are freely available ) and use that to redesign KDE once and for all. Or come up with their own list, but *stick* to it, and further, don't approve software apps for kde unless they follow the list as well ( note: not saying people can't develop for KDE without these requirements, just saying they won't be "officially approved" ).

      The important thing is to make the entire thing feel consistent. If I right click in one window, I expect the same behavoir there as I do in any other window. That kind of thing.

      • Re:Constant Change (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:41AM (#11802700) Homepage Journal
        That said, I completely agree. I'll take it a step further and say they should snag the UI requirements that apple has available for software developers to ensure consistent look and feel on their OS ( I believe those are freely available ) and use that to redesign KDE once and for all. Or come up with their own list, but *stick* to it, and further, don't approve software apps for kde unless they follow the list as well

        I'm beginning to come around to the point of view that perhaps Human Interfeace Guidelines ought to be enforced programmatically rather than as a document of requests of things you would like a developer to do. What do I mean? I mean, try and create a new layer of abstraction for programming so that GUI construction and layout becomes the responsibility of desktop environment rather than the responsibility of the programmer. The application developer has the responsibility for coding the various components of the application, exposing their functions in a particular way, and the relationships between components; then the HIG (a DE library, or formal code spec, whatever) takes the components, features, and relationships and constructs a GUI to make those components and features accessible to the user (via menus, buttons, list selectors, dialogs, etc.) structuring them, according to the given relationships, into a completely HIG consistent GUI app.

        Okay, that is a very non-trivial exercise, and exactly how much work you can get the HIG to do instead of the programmer is not an easy question, however, thee are some real gains if you can actually do (at least some level of) this right:

        (1) All applications coded with this will automatically be very consistent with all others, and complete HIG compliant - the developer doesn't have to worry so much about UI design (that work is pushed off more toward the people writing the HIG engine).

        (2) Each DE can have their own programmed HIG, so an application coded with this system can be compiled against each DE and be fully HIG compliant for each different DE.

        (3) It completely formalises the HIG - it isn't a document of reccomendations, but is required to be an actual formal layout engine.

        (4) For the really "do it yourself" people you can code your own HIG engine and have your own completely unique look and feel that will be consistent across all the application coded with this system.

        So perhaps widgets are too low level for application programming these days. It is my understanding that AWT worked something along these lines at least for layout of widgets), and well, obviously AWT isn't very popular. Then again, AWT was a little slow, and didn't provide the flexibility I'm talking about (it had, presumaly, its own hard coded HIG engine). As I said, this sort of thing would be very difficult, but perhaps it is worth considering.

        Jedidiah.
        • > Human Interfeace Guidelines ought to be
          > enforced programmatically rather than as a

          this is how many such things are already done in KDE. margin hints, spacing hints, menu layouts... there are some things that just don't translate to being put in the libraries, however. but yes, defining as much as you can in the infrastructure that applications are built on top of is a good idea.

          • Re:Constant Change (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:46AM (#11803419) Homepage Journal
            this is how many such things are already done in KDE. margin hints, spacing hints, menu layouts... there are some things that just don't translate to being put in the libraries, however.

            I think that's great, but in the end that is just hinting toward looks, not actually doing the job of laying out the GUI (which is possible). The really extreme approach is to actually decide how to represent things in the GUI - a component just says "I have feature X which has use priority Y and ..." and the HIG engine decides whether that features needs its own dialog, or a button on the toolbar, or ... and where (based on relationships to other functions and components) to place the function as a menu item in the main menu. Does the function show up in a context menu? Potentially you can define all of those things too.

            Jedidiah.

            • Re:Constant Change (Score:3, Insightful)

              by TuringTest ( 533084 )
              What you describe is a whole field of academic research, running at least since the early 90s. They're called User Interface Manager Sytems and yes, it's difficult; that's why you haven't seen it in any new commercial interface.

              The closer you can get in non-academic world are the XUL and XAML architectures, which could be a basis for this kind of system to be built on top of them.

              • Re:Constant Change (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Coryoth ( 254751 )
                You mean like this [acm.org] from 1985 which had (they claim) a working User Interface Management System? Yes, I agree, it is hard, and is an active field of academic research. There is a lot of research though, that we really ought to be looking at instead of just letting it remain research. I think this starts to fall into that category.

                I don't see why you need XUL or XAML either - it would seem to me that, for instance, libglade is something you could build such a system on top of as well. This is something G

            • Re:Constant Change (Score:3, Insightful)

              by stilborne ( 85590 )
              > not actually doing the job of laying out the GUI

              yes, this is exactly what XMLGUI does for menus, toolbars and even context menus (though not enough apps use it for context menus still). there are people playing around with it right now to extend it to simple dialog layouts as well.

              additionally, there are APIs that apps use which allow them to say "configure the keyboard shortcuts" and the actual libraries handle all the details of that. it's exactly one line of code in a KDE app to configure shortcut

      • My opinion on KDE's interface (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bonch ( 38532 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:58AM (#11803521)
        Personally, I think KDE's interface hasn't really changed all that much. Every year I try it out, it feels the same.

        For instance, look at this screenshot from 3.4 RC1:

        http://www.tuxmachines.org/gallery/view_photo.php? set_albumName=KDE_rc1&id=default3 [tuxmachines.org]

        That is one MASSIVE menu. The same redundancy I've been complaining about for years--"System," "Utilities," and "Settings"--is still there. Why are they even seperate menus? Why not remove all three menus and just have a link to the system configuration dialog? Oh, that's right, they have that too! That's four redundancies.

        Why is there an "Edutainment" menu? Why is there an "Editors" menu? There should just be an "Applications" menu, and they let the user categorize their apps the way they want to. That menu is suffering from huge clutter overload!

        And look at the apps. Basically, they have two names each. Instead of "AppName," you have "AppName (WhatItReallyIs)." Silly and redundant. If the original name isn't working well enough, rename it. Essentially, you're having to maintain two app names now instead of just one. When a name isn't descriptive enough, its icon should be--that's why Apple insists that OS X icons show the document type and some sort of action happening to that document or related tool, like the text editor showing a page with a pencil overlaid on it. Not all icons follow these guidelines, but they should, and the ones that do fit visually in the interface. Fishing through appnames with parenthetical descriptions is ugly and time-consuming.

        Those are just a few examples. KDE is overloaded with buttons, tabs, sidebars, and input fields. A lot of that stuff is simply not needed but is only there because it seems like someone got happy with the form designer and stuck a bunch of stuff on all the forms to have multiple ways of doing things. You should have two or three really good ways of doing things, not seven ways that clutter up the really good ways.
        • Why is there an "Edutainment" menu? Why is there an "Editors" menu? There should just be an "Applications" menu, and they let the user categorize their apps the way they want to.

          I have to disagree there. If there is one thing Windows does really BADLY it's the start menu. Instead of having Games, Office, etc you just have one huge disorganized clusterfuck. If people want to categorize their apps, they are already free to do so. I certainly agree that the "system/utilities/settings" stuff is really mess

    • Re:Constant Change (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Psiren ( 6145 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:14AM (#11802439)
      It seems the KDE team is emulating Microsoft's penchant for changing how major features of the interface work at frequent intervals.

      I'm not a heavy KDE user, although I do develop programs under it. I can't say I've noticed anything that's changed much between releases, and certainly not "major features of the interface". Could you give an example?

    • Re:Constant Change (Score:5, Insightful)

      by flithm ( 756019 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:16AM (#11802464) Homepage
      Consistency is definitely good, but it's one of those short term benefits. If you want to keep on top of things you've got to be able to progress and evolve.

      Take Windows for example... people certainly complain that the interface changes, but think about it. Does it really? It hasn't changed much since 3.1. If you used 3.1, you can use XP. You might be dazzled by the blue window colors, but basically everything is still the same.

      Fact is, people don't like change, and people complain. What the KDE people are trying to do, are create a really awesome system. They're experimenting and trying things out. Let them! It's not like they're making any wild changes that totally blow your mind. After 10 or 15 minutes of using a new release you should be fine.

      Come on, you can set aside 15 minutes to have fun and play around with a new system. Exploring rules!

      Something tells me you might be the kind of person that would complain regardless: "Hey this is exactly the same as the last version, there's nothing new to explore here, this is stupid I'm not using it anymore!"

      • Re:Constant Change (Score:5, Insightful)

        by HeelToe ( 615905 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:31AM (#11802617) Homepage
        I can definitely see your point of view. Progress does need to be made.

        I think we're all inclined to complain about things we don't necessarily want, but I don't think I'm any more so inclined than anyone else.

        With respect to Windows 3.1 -> XP. As another poster mentioned, you're not using KDE to admin the machine, whereas that's where I personally see a lot of change in Windows - the interface with regards to administration of the machine.

        Where I (and some of my users - not nearly as technical as me) see change is partly in how everything looks. The widgets have changed a lot over the last two years. To less technical users that is a barrier - you and I might blow it off, but it can be an issue. Once you spend some more time, there are more things that have changed for what I can see as little reason - maybe someone's idea of organization changed over the years and so all of a sudden, things move around on control center.

        As I've upgraded from KDE 3 -> 3.1 -> 3.2 -> 3.3, I've noticed that many times my settings get lost and it's not so easy to go re-establish them. Things like keyboard shortcuts, mouse onClick behaviors for the various buttons have moved around. Heck, at one release the Control Center started taking on different forms depending on whether I selected it from the menu or selected it off the "dock" (can't remember KDE terminology).

        Am I opposed to exploring for 15 minutes to use it? No, certainly not - but when I use it so little, I am more accustomed to metaphors of other desktop environments, and using KDE 6-8 times per month becomes a chore - again - it's been easier to just use XFCE.
        • Your post is a new proof to me that the KDE people are doing the right thing.

          The widgets have changed a lot over two years ? That is not true, perhaps you meant the *default* widgets. The old ones are still there.

          But more importantly, you say that you, who uses KDE 6-8 times per month, are lost in KDE. My wife, who is computer illiterate, uses KDE *every day*, and she NEVER saw ANY changes in the interface between release upgrades, she just went along. She never told me anything about changes, except when
        • Are you sure that's not your distro moving your config files? Many will use a different config for each new version, because sometimes KDE gets confused when upgrading and they reckon it's better to just start afresh. The control centre still has those two different forms (module at a time or whole thing, I presume you mean), and having it load the "whole thing" off the panel to be consistent with the menu was a change - would you have preferred that to stay the same?

    • Re:Constant Change (Score:3, Informative)

      by tommyth ( 848039 )
      Consistency is good, but I think the KDE team is looking more at trying to make the 'perfect package'. In other words, their desktop system basically tries to include everything, from mp3s to cdburning to smb managing to instant messaging, all things that could be done with third party software as well. But KDE's programs are often the most newbie-friendly, and for people new to linux, KDE makes a nice manager because it includes all those things. But I guess the KDE team doesn't think they've really got
      • I wouldn't care to call most KDE apps 'newbie friendly'; in fact they tend to be just the opposite. Many KDE apps when open the first time consist of a single, empty square with just one button in the toolbar and no text labels. These apps MUST be 'konfigured' in order to access the most common functionality, with buttons that are hidden in the 'configure toolbar' dialog.

        Ditched as it is by KDE users, the Gnome approach is really much better for newbie users. It has simple applications that do only one thi

    • Re:Constant Change (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SQLz ( 564901 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:28AM (#11802591) Homepage Journal
      I see lots of people complaining that each time Windows is updated they have to relearn the GUI..

      Those people are baffoons. How do you relearn: read screen , point at something with mouse, click on it?

      Don't be surprised about open source programs rapidly changing. To a lot of people, their project is an educational tool. Interfaces and APIs are constantly being honed and retooled. Even the Linux kernel will trash APIs used for years and release totally new ones maintaing no backward compatability in the middle of a stable kernel release.(SATA,USB for example) KDE is going to use the latest techniques and abilities provided by Qt and KDE libs. Thats how those libs get tested and improved and ALL programs using those libs benefit from this.

      In open source land, we don't have to hang on to old broken APIs and libraries. The best code *almost* always gets put into use and every project utilizing that code benefits, even if they have to make some changes to use it.

      As a user, do you have to upgrade to this new whiz bang version? No. Is this policy the best for all projects, No. But,the end result in most cases is that developers of open source code are able to use the majority of their time creating (which is what we like doing) and less time 'maitaining' old stuff they might not find as interesting and hardly anyone uses anyway.

      If the two methods of development, open source and closed source, were equal in all ways except for the fact open source developers had the freedom to trash old interfaces and closed source had to keep them around, who would end up with faster,tigher code?

    • Re:Constant Change (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jayloden ( 806185 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:42AM (#11802710)
      It seems the KDE team is emulating Microsoft's penchant for changing how major features of the interface work at frequent intervals.

      I think in software we call that "active development".

      While I'll be the first to agree that consistency is key to a stable system, Linux is an environment that, in my experience, is continuously shifting and improving. Yes, things move in KDE, but they also are moving most things in a generally consistent configuration - i.e. most configuration is now available in the Kcontrol panel. They're actively developing the software and with each release, KDE gets more and more complete as a desktop environment, but you have the hiccups that are inevitable when something is changing that much (overall for the better, in my opinion). The interface changes because they add features. I'd say it's a case of taking the good with the bad for the best end result.

      -Jay

    • Re:Constant Change (Score:3, Informative)

      by m50d ( 797211 )
      I haven't noticed such changes. 3.1 and 3.3 seem to behave pretty much the same way, and where it's changed, it's usually the case that the new behaviour is what I thought it "should" be. KDE has certainly never done anything like forcing the file browser into "spatial" mode or reversing the order of buttons in the confirmation dialog, and every kde change has been reversable by hand with ordinary configuration changes.
    • Hah! If you think the change from Windows 95 to Windows XP has been bad, you should have been in Mac-land and experienced the change from System 7 to OS X 10.3. In comparison to MacOS, Windows has been rock solid stable, interface-wise.

      Of course the problem as I see it is that Windows' interface is getting better, or at least Microsoft is innovating more, and MacOS' interface is just getting more annoying. Apple seems to be throwing all their interface research they did for the original MacOS out the wi

  • Live CD's (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IceFox ( 18179 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:52AM (#11802258) Homepage
    This is one area where Live cd's really shine. As a user I am able to download, burn and try out new major pieces of software and help out by reporting bugs v.s. before where most people would just wait for the 1.0 release and then report problems they spotted. Spend ten minute checking out the cool stuff in KDE 3.4 and make sure to report any bugs you find (In the help menu of every kde app there is a report bug action).

    Along the lines of bugs, KDE's bug tracking system just reached it 100000 *reported* bug (not open) On the kde news site ther is a story about it [kde.org] include tips on how you can help report bugs/problems that you find in KDE to help make it better.

    -Benjamin Meyer

    • Burning karma here, but ffs why are you putting an apostrophe on cds?
      • Burning karma here, but ffs why are you putting an apostrophe on cds?

        He's talking about the Live CDs' ownership of "really shine," whatever that is. It sounds like some kind of Japanese product.

        "Buy our CDs! They have Really Shine (TM)!"

        Of course, "This is one area where Live CD's really shine" is now a sentence fragment, and the apostrophe should have gone after the s. I guess some people just can't win...
      • Burning karma here, but ffs why are you putting an apostrophe on cds?

        Burning my own karma, but he's probably doing it because it is an acceptable and in some cases encouraged use of an apostrophe in English.

        It's a myth that apostrophes always denote possession or contraction. They don't. (In fact, there is no apostrophe in the possessive "its", which should tell you something.) Their purpose is to add visual information so you know what it is you're reading (i.e. "wont" vs. "won't"). To that end, pu

  • Obligitory KDE joke (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:52AM (#11802267)
    Q: How do you identify a KDE programmer?
    A: He's swapped the functionality of the 'k' and space bar keys :-)

    BTW, Are there any screen shots out there?

  • 3.4 changes (Score:4, Informative)

    by sewagemaster ( 466124 ) <sewagemaster@NOSpAm.gmail.com> on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:55AM (#11802284) Homepage
    been running kde 3.4 beta1 for a few weeks now. my personal favorites are the improvements to kdvi and kpdf. things are rendered a lot better in each, and the sidebar page previews really help navigating for us needing to edit long latex documents... too bad the bug that doesnt show >1 images in kdvi on the same page when it's supposed to is still there.

    the best thing now is that they're no longer using that hideous keramick theme as the default...

    unfortunately, everything in kde is a little too self contained. as in it doesn't launch the 'default' browser (sensible-browser) that you set. there's not even a simple config/dialog where you can choose to run firefox/mozilla instead of konqueror whenever you click on links on other "K" apps.

    • Re:3.4 changes (Score:5, Informative)

      by stilborne ( 85590 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:01AM (#11802337)
      > there's not even a simple config/dialog where
      > you can choose to run firefox/mozilla instead
      > of konqueror whenever you click on links on
      > other "K" apps.

      in the Control Center, under KDE Components, there's a "Component Chooser" panel that's been there since 3.3 that allows you to set your default browser, email, text editor, IM client and terminal app.

      • Re:3.4 changes (Score:4, Funny)

        by dracvl ( 541254 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:51AM (#11802797) Homepage
        in the Control Center, under KDE Components, there's a "Component Chooser" panel that's been there since 3.3 that allows you to set your default browser, email, text editor, IM client and terminal app.

        Ah, that explains it - I was looking for the Komponent Khooser. Thanks!

    • > unfortunately, everything in kde is a little too self contained. as in it doesn't launch the 'default' browser (sensible-browser) that you set. there's not even a simple config/dialog where you can choose to run firefox/mozilla instead of konqueror whenever you click on links on other "K" apps.

      It does launch the default sensible browser for me. And in case such browser is not Konqueror in your case, that non-existent config dialog is in KControl - KDE Components - Component chooser - Web browser.

  • Live CD (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Deaper ( 659229 ) <deaper@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:58AM (#11802313)

    I find it interesting that they released this as a live cd. As far as I can remember this is the first time a desktop environment released a live cd with their new releases.

    This is certainly a trend I'd like to see more of. There have been times where updating to the latest version of kde or gnome could cause a headache that lasts several hours (yes even in debian where there are occaisional dependency problems especially in unstable). And there are of course some distros that take several weeks before packages are available. Of course compiling from source is an option, but remember if linux is ever going to be ready for the desktop, compiling from source has got to be just that, an option.

    But with a live cd release you can check out the new features and decide whether it's worth the risk of a headache.

    I'm still downloading the iso but I give KDE major props for releasing a live cd in addition to the source.

  • a torrent, a torrent, my coffee for a torrent!!!
    fancy posting a link to an iso and there not being a torrent available...

  • Typo in the title (Score:5, Funny)

    by cerberusss ( 660701 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:06AM (#11802374) Journal
    Shouldn't it be "KDE 3.4 RK1 Released" ?? :)

  • Ironic (Score:2, Troll)

    by Quattro Vezina ( 714892 )
    Heh...a new KDE release candidate comes out less than two days after I stop using KDE after spending the last two years as a die-hard KDE user.

    It's not that I have anything against KDE, but I just discovered Ion and how completely wonderful it is. KDE's the best traditional DE, but why should I use a traditional DE or WM when I've got Ion?

    It took a little getting used to, but once I got my screen layouts and virtual desktops set up in a way that I like, I've found that Ion is far more natural and useful t

  • Funniest quote (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:26AM (#11802571)
    I lurk on the KDE optimize list and came across the funniest comment in an email there the other day that probably goes a long way to explaining the mess that is KControl. They were discussing reducing disk accesses for displaying icons (a worthwhile cause) by building a database of their location:

    "Do you think that it can make sense to add an option in KDE Performance -> System to Cache icons location?"

    It's just like they have some instinct to add options rather than taking decisions. Just profile the system with and without the cache on and if it helps, enable it. If building the database takes some time, spawn it as a low-priority background task. Don't push all that work off onto the user.

    • Re:Funniest quote (Score:4, Insightful)

      by friedmud ( 512466 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:45AM (#11802735)
      I guess it all depends on why you're using KDE in the first place... but for me one of the large reasons is all of the options...

      I like to have a perfectly configured system built from the ground up for myself. I take the time to go through each option and select the things that I like.

      This is one of the reasons I can't use Windows, Gnome or OSX.... there is just simply a lack of options.

      Now I understand that "regular" users don't like being confronted with as many options... But... "regular" users also don't go looking for them. KDE gives a good set of default options (especially if you pay attention during the Wizard that pops up the first time you start KDE)... and for "regular" users they will be happy with that and not worry about it.

      My point is that options are never bad. Give a sane set of defaults, but leave the options in there for us power users. A dumb interface is not necessarily a good one.

      Friedmud

      • Re:Funniest quote (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Knuckles ( 8964 ) <knucklesNO@SPAMdantian.org> on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:52AM (#11803468)
        My point is that options are never bad

        If you really think that, I'd encourage you to think some more. In this article [pair.com], Havoc Pennington gives several reasons why too many otpions can be bad. Whether you think Gnome 2 has given the right answers to these issues or not, all of them have merit:

        Too many preferences means you can't find any of them.

        Preferences really substantively damage QA and testing.

        Preferences make integration and good UI difficult.

        Preferences keep people from fixing real bugs.

        Preferences can confuse many users.

        • Re:Funniest quote (Score:3, Interesting)

          by stilborne ( 85590 )
          it requires striking a ballance. QA is dead simple if there are no options and few features. but then you have software almost nobody will want to, or even be able to use in the real world. so you add some features, some configuration ... at the cost of QA overhead. but you get useful software.

          ballance.

          it's similar with the other items you list (bug fixing, integration, etc), though QA is hit harder than them. the "finding the options" problem is more a limitation of how we enforce hierarchical navigation

        • Re:Funniest quote (Score:3, Interesting)

          by functor ( 31042 )
          Sorry, but Havoc Pennington's influence has castrated GNOME. The few things you can change, you need to fire up gconf-editor for (remember NT 4 and the Registry Editor?).

          I use KDE, unashamedly because it offers me options and one size most certainly does not fit all when it comes to UIs. Sane defaults, yes, but one man's sanity is another man's annoyance.

          Under Havoc Pennington's influence, perfectly sane preferences such as the ability to turn off Nautilus' desktop icons disappeared between GNOME 2.0 and
    • one of the things about an open, participatory project is that you get all sorts of ideas and opinions. sometimes the people who choose to get involved have good ideas, sometimes they don't. most people have a mix of both over time, with some having a lot of _really_ good ideas (and the converse as well, of course).

      so it's not like we can control what people suggest. in fact, when brainstorming it can be a bad thing to do so. but we don't have to, nor do we in practice, implement every single idea/concept/

      • I understand that it must be tricky with so many developers in the project to get decisions made. I find it difficult enough with my project, and I'm the only developer! I just felt the quote was indicative of the development mindset that led me to switch to GNOME.

        I'm glad that KDE is taking this kind of issue more seriously - I switched to GNOME a while back, but I still check out KDE every so often. I think I still have about 30 lines of code in KImageEffect somewhere.

        I'm not sure I'd have the time fo

        • fair enough. perhaps you'll use KDE again in the future. =) you may be interested in reading this:

          http://dot.kde.org/1107931942/

          > I just felt the quote was indicative of the
          > development mindset that led me to switch to
          > GNOME ... which led you to feel compelled to post it to this article. heh. aaaah, slashdot! no place quite like it.
          • If somebody didn't bring up old arguments every time a relevant story was posted on Slashdot, there'd be no comments ;)

            Interesting discussion on dot.kde.org, by the way.
    • I take it you'd prefer to have your file manager start spewing windows everywhere, your dialogs backwards, and NO WAY TO TURN IT OFF?

      Seriously, the "offer an option" approach is one of my favourite things about kde. There will be times when icon caching makes sense and there will be times when it doesn't, there will be users who want it and users who don't, so let the user choose!

    • Re:Funniest quote (Score:3, Insightful)

      by lakeland ( 218447 )
      If the user doesn't have much ram, then a database is a bad idea. If they have lots of ram, then a database is a good idea. Perhaps the developers should experiment with pulling DIMMs out of their system to find the turning point, but even then -- the users might have the extra ram because they've got a multi-head machine or whatever.

      There really is no way of finding out except guessing based on the user's machine's specs, or profiling it while running on the user's machine. Since both of those are subj

  • Desktop Unity? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:45AM (#11802733) Homepage Journal
    What happened to implementing the Shared MIME Info [freedesktop.org] spec from FreeDesktop.org? As recently as 1/2005, KDE was "planning to support it for their next major release". GNOME already supports this way to focus on our data, with automatic integration with our apps, without worrying that we picked the right desktop to mediate between our apps and our data. Is the next "major" KDE release "4.0", and we have to wait a few years for MIME integration to catch up with GNOME? Or is the MIME layer already in 3.4, and this is just another action-packed OSS episode airing with hidden, inscrutable features not making it to the release notes?
    • well, let's see. KDE has had a MIME system for years that works rather well. the new MIME spec, which isn't somehow obviously better, is a rather radical departure from this existing system. one might consider that writing new "cooperative" specs that ignore existing methodology is a bit brain-damaged.

      not only does it mean that everyone who has a solution now has to rework their software, it means throwing away lessons learned from the existing implementations (assuming they aren't broken and need replacin

      • Re:Desktop Unity? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
        "Fanboy"? What's your problem, with the namecalling? You agree that "it's _great_ that we have a shared mime spec". And in fact, any minimally workable MIME system that interoperates is better than sophisticated ones that don't interop. Because interop is a feature that unifies the desktop markets for app development. That's hardly "every single thing that hits the pages of FreeDesktop.org" - it's a primary strategic goal for all Linux developers, and one to which KDE has agreed. It's past time for your an
        • And in fact, any minimally workable MIME system that interoperates is better than sophisticated ones that don't interop No. I'd rather have an advanced mime system that works properly and doesn't interoperate than one thats stupid and just minimally workable but interoperable. I don't give a rat's ass about my mime system interoperating with GNOME. Its not a big deal if they are different. Its a mime system, how many times do you really have to have both DE's work with it. Chose a DE and stick with it,
          • You're missing the point. Desktop interop is important for the community so we can have a critical mass of software consumers for our community of software developers. Otherwise, the infighting and fragmentation interfere with the momentum that will make Linux desktops "mainstream", with all the growth and benefits that will bring everyone, from markets for software to software for markets to freedom from the current monopoly.

            In order to get there, we've got a desktop interop spec that both major Linux des

    • Re:Desktop Unity? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Doctor Crumb ( 737936 )
      Yes, 4.0 would be the next major release. 3.4 would be a minor release. It just happens to have a lot of cool new features.
  • It seems from the screenshots that Plastik is now the default theme.

    I think that is brilliant, as the previous default Keramic style was a bit overdone, and the buttons were slightly buggy. I think it looks much better, and will be great at not confusing new users.

Slashdot Top Deals

Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. -- Theophrastus

Close