KDE: Breaking the Network Barrier

comforteagle writes "In this month's KDE: From the Source, entitled Breaking the Network Barrier George Staikos takes us on a walk-through of KDE's desktop networking protocol handlers in the vein of sftp:// webdav:// and a few really nifty ones I wasn't aware of like info:/ perldoc:/ and tar:/. The entire KDE desktop environment is decked out like this, and as George puts it, 'Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X have a long way to go to catch up with the robust, transparent functionality that KDE has provided since version 2.0.'"

Marketspeak

[goldspider]

"...robust, transparent functionality..."

I'm sorry, but to me that bit just reduced a potentially informative article to yet another trivial Slashvertisement.

Re:Marketspeak

[PitaBred]

Says the person with the situational ethics sig.
Perhaps you should just read the article and not pay attention to the slashblurb? Whether it's Slashvertising or not, it's still interesting.

Errr.... security?

[Not_Wiggins]

Not to be a nervous-nellie, but isn't adding more networking/protocols to the desktop just asking for more hacking problems?

uh huh.

[wankledot]

For every one geeky thing that OS X can learn from KDE, there are fifty things that KDE can learn about design, usability, polish, and consistency from OS X.

kde is pretty good, but...

[deviantonline]

Ive always enjoyed kde. It has a lot of customization options and works quite well.

The one thing that I do not like about it, is how long it takes to boot. Windows (and probably mac, never really used it) have linux/kde beat for loading times. I really wish there was a distro that could integrate kde into the booting process rather then boot linux then kde - like back in the dos/win days...

User friendliness is still the issue

[FortKnox]

The entire KDE desktop environment is decked out like this, and as George puts it, 'Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X have a long way to go to catch up with the robust, transparent functionality that KDE has provided since version 2.0.'

And the entire Windows OS is decked out with enough user friendliness for most people to use, and, as I put it, 'KDE has a long way to go to catchup with the userfriendliness of Mac OSX and Windows.

Windows, as much as everyone hates it, is still more user friendly than KDE. If they'd spend more time on user friendliness and less on robust (aka confusing, complex) features, they'd find more people willing to try it out.

Wow, you're fast!

[cbreaker]

That didn't take long. I was thinking that I would have to scroll down more then one page to see that garbage.

KDE is pretty damned easy to use and consistent too, it's just that not all applications are written in QT, just as not all Gnome apps are written in GTK. So, you get some apps that don't fall in line with the look and feel of the rest of the OS.

So is the way of the Linux desktop right now, and you can't single out KDE for that.

Pretty slick

[Boarder2]

I thought this was pretty boring until I read this part:

Being able to do all of these things from a web browser is definitely a nice parlor trick, but in reality it's not a very easy way to use a computer. The real power of these protocol handlers is unleashed when they're used within various KDE applications. Any of these protocols can be used from the KDE file dialog, allowing files to be opened from or saved to any protocol!

I must say, as much as I don't really like KDE, that's really slick, and potentially very useful. Nice job guys.

(I'll even withold bashing and pro-gnome comments for the sake of sanity)

Re:Errr.... security?

[Chundra]

Maybe I don't know exactly what you mean, but all these protocols are already supported by various other clients. How is integrating it into the desktop asking for more hacking problems?

Re:Wow, you're fast!

[wankledot]

OK, you can't single out KDE, but it's still a problem.

I don't see how this commentary is "garbage" There is a real problem with consistency and polish on the linux desktop, it's ugly and clunky compared to OS X or even windows.

" it's just that not all applications are written in QT, just as not all Gnome apps are written in GTK. So, you get some apps that don't fall in line with the look and feel of the rest of the OS. "

So you're agreeing with me, but not with where I am placing the blame? Fair enough, maybe blaming KDE isn't fair, but it's still a huge problem.

Re:kde is pretty good, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

you reboot?

Re:User friendliness is still the issue

[cozziewozzie]

That's a very biased opinion from someone who obvioudly doesn't use KDE much. I find KDE miles more usable (as a desktop) than Windows. Using Windows is an exercise in frustration for me, and not being able to change it to some sane behaviour is even worse.

Microsoft Doesn't Need to Catch Up

[Dante Shamest]

...yet.

Microsoft won't see any need to add new features as long as it's users don't find out, and it's market share remains 90%-ish.

Once it DOES feel threatened though, it'll pour resources and add all the features to it's OS that it thinks will maintain it's dominance. (think Mac/Windows, Netscape/IE, Java/C#).

But it'll probably ultimately fail this time. I'm a Windows fan, but I'm realistic: Linux will win in the long run.

Re:Wow, you're fast!

[be-fan]

it's ugly and clunky compared to OS X or even windows.
Maybe compared to OS X, but certainly not in comparison to Windows. Both GNOME and KDE are more consistent than either OS X or Windows, and in terms of usability, GNOME is fairly close to OS X. There is a reason for this --- GNOME emulates the MacOS classic HIG. In terms of usability, GNOME is far superior to Windows.

Re:Errr.... security?

[gmuslera]

Think in a web page with a javascript that launch any of the "dangerous" links there (i.e. scp if takes your certificates or even audiocd:), and maybe even interact with the new opened window thru javascript too.

Ok, could be added security to avoid some of this tricks, but now you are in a position of unsafe by default unless you take every possible protection measure.

But regular people don't think this way

[Stevyn]

Us computer geeks like this because we think of things as networks and protocols. However, the rest of the computer users don't. tar:/ is no more intuitive than double clicking on the .tar file and opening it.

Saying Windows and MacOS has to catch up implies that these are feature people want, or would want if given the option. I think treating compressed files like folders like they already do is more intuitive and makes more sense. I think they got a little carried away with this.

Re:Windows has had since since at least 98SE

[be-fan]

That's not really the same thing. KIO protocol handlers allow KDE apps to understand new types of filesystems. So you can define a module that allows any KDE app to transparently have access to a "gmail drive." Can you do that in Windows, without any changes to applications?

Re:Marketspeak

[prell]

The paradigm of "browsing" the web, ftp, mail, nntp, and webdav all from one application doesn't appeal to me. That is, I doubt I would use it. I can't see myself opening up another instance of what I was just using as a web browser, and then typing out an nntp address: they're totally different streams of thought, and I think that a change of interface (and application) is actually an important step the mind likes to take, since it is, after all, focused on a new imperative. Isn't that partially how we ended up with these different widgets? I wouldn't use a pencil to sign a birthday card, and likewise I wouldn't use a pen to sketch a diagram -- there's a change of importance, understanding and expectation there. I might be proven wrong when I try these new KDE features, but in general I think that sometimes praise is given to those who created technically impressive products that were not requested by the general public and don't really get used. The OSS community often doesn't have money, deadlines or requirements; just cool ideas. If these developers and designers can do some research and user testing, and identify focus in their products, then what they produce will be undeniably important, and will say even more about the discipline and the power of people than it gives to the desktop.

Re:Robust?

[be-fan]

I've been through some KDE code myself (not Konqueror, though, but the code in question is in KIO, not konqueror), and the code quality is very good. It's not as good as Qt, which is pristine as the virgin snow, but pretty good nonetheless.

Re:User friendliness is still the issue

[Tim C]

And that's a very biased opinion from someone who obviously doesn't use Windows very much.

(See how easy that is? How is this "Insightful"?)

Re:Wow, you're fast!

[be-fan]

I'm not talking about the OS itself. I'm talking about the desktop environments. GNOME applications are very internally consistent, as are KDE applications. GNOME apps may not be consistent with KDE apps, but people don't usually use an eclectic mix of the two. Instead, they use mostly apps from one desktop, with maybe one or two apps from the other DE. This is really no different than dealing with the occasional "unusual" app in Windows, like Winzip, Media Player, RealPlayer, EphPod, iTunes, etc.

Re:User friendliness is still the issue

[cozziewozzie]

I've used every version of Windows since 3.0. Actually, I've used Win far longer than KDE, including developing for it in a large company. It doesn't let me the use virtual desktops with magic borders. It doesn't let me do focus follows mouse. It doesn't let me split the panel into several parts so I can separate the taskbar from the application launch buttons. It doesn't have focus stealing prevention so some stupid dialog always interrupts my typing. It doesn't (to my knowledge) let me push current window to the background so I can type in it while it's covered by something else. I could go on. KDE lets me do all these things, making me much more productive. And it's not some hardcore TWM-like setup, it's full of pretty icons still, and features such as kioslaves which make my life much more easy.

Let's not even get into the illogical nonsense which Windows fans still defend as user-friendly. For example, if I minimise a program, there are THREE different places it can go. It can go to the taskbar (the only LOGICAL place), it can go to the system tray, or it can be minimised to one of the application launch buttons on the panels. Now how the hell is this friendly and useful, when I have to thing three times before finding my minimised program? Windows usability is SERIOUSLY overrated, get over it. Use KDE for a while and when you get used to it, you will see that it's a much more usable environment.

In a word, NO.

[WindBourne]

these are clients. This is like adding an ftp client, or a normal e-mail client, or a straight browser, or.... Basically, the only security risk is that more code was added. But that is common with adding an new functionality. The nice advantage of this is that a new app can get well tested code, and of course a common app can gain a new protocol.

I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just flip the two statements around here:

... and as George puts it, 'Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X have a long way to go to catch up with the robust, transparent functionality that KDE has provided since version 2.0.'

... followed by ...

George Staikos takes us on a walk-through of KDE's desktop networking protocol handlers in the vein of sftp:// webdav:// and a few really nifty ones I wasn't aware of like info:/ perldoc:/ and tar:/.

Now, you can call me paranoid, if you want, but just look at the number of errors that are related to this kind of hadling prtocols. While it is really nice to have all these protocols accessible in one common and uniform manner, this also looks like a road to Microsoft-like hell. It only takes one bug in one of the protocol handlers and one "link" embedded in HTML document to wreak havoc over application, desktop or even worse complete user profile.

While I do like the KDE environment, I just can't use it. I don't think that kind of close integration between desktop and network can be a good thing. Not yet. Having a desktop like this means that I have to avoid using any native KDE (KHTML) functionality including HTML document thumbnails in Konqueror as file manager, and Konqueror as a web browser. This suddenly lands me in a situation where I HAVE to use alternative (most likely Gecko based) browser that is not integrated with KDE in any way.

It is nice to go in the direction of component integration, but in this "protocol" case, I simply don't belive in integration safety. It is a step forward not to have complete computer hosed because of one bug in web browser, but I don't think I would like to see my desktop and/or profile hosed because of it either. Too much integration leads to too much danger for my data. All backups aside, I simply don't like doing restores. They take ages, and prevent me from browsing Slashdot. I just think KDE team managed to find another excuse for me to stay in AfterStep environment. It doesn't have many bells or whistles, but it is truly rock solid.

Anonymous Cowards Unite

Re:What's the difference?

[Guy Harris]

This is *not* about file extensions or otherwise

Correct, although...

(Unix has done this right since day one, which is why you don't need to put .bat on the end of your shell scripts)

...that doesn't mean that suffixes aren't needed at all on UN*X - try calling a C source file "foo.f" and see how eager GCC, for example, is to compile it:

% cat foo.f
int
main()
{
printf("Hello, world!\n");
}
% gcc foo.f
gcc: foo.f: Fortran compiler not installed on this system

At the desktop GUI level, some UN*X desktops, such as KDE and, I think, Gnome (and possibly CDE and others) don't require suffixes in many cases, as they do file-style file type determination by looking at the file's contents, and give the file the right icon, launch the right application when you click the file, etc., but whether that behavior can be attributed to "Unix" is another matter. At least one UN*X desktop [apple.com] is mainly suffix-based and doesn't do that sort of "look at the file contents" file type determination, although I guess if the file's on a file system that supports resource forks and the resource fork has the right type and/or creator code it might work.

Windows and OSX are a long way from this. They just about understand http

Umm, no, OS X definitely lets you add handlers for arbitrary URL schemes, and I infer from what others have said in replies to the original article that Windows does so as well. They don't have an IOSlave equivalent, but, at least in OS X, I'd be inclined to implement that as a user-mode NFS server, which means it'd be more general than an IOSlave, because it'd be usable by all applications, not just KDE applications (see, for example, OS X's mount_ftp, which I think might work through a user-mode FTP server with an FTP client as a back end). If possible, I'd be inclined to do it with a user-mode SMB server in Windows, although that might be less likely to work on port other than 139 or 445 (and thus less likely to run without interfering with any standard SMB server running on the machine).

Re:Errr.... security?

[Technonotice_Dom]

I think the parent means just that - say a web page redirected you to, for the sake of argument, the audiocd: handler - by passing data to this handler, could there be a security problem? Either accessing data or controlling parts of the system?

Yep, it's the same as typing it in, but some users will click on anything, and I know that when I'm browsing the net, I don't double check every link begins with http://....

Even though I use KDE every day on my machines, I don't use Konqueror for anything other than file browsing, so I've no idea on this...?

Re:Bloat Critics

[Anonymous Coward]

The only downfall, is that I need to force it to go to the next track after it gets to the end of a track, instead of automatically doing so, but it's a minor compared to the above ease-of-use.

So, you're saying that the lack of basic mp3-player functionality is a minor issue? You really are a Linux nerd, aren't you?

There he goes agian.

[twitter]

And the entire Windows OS is decked out with enough user friendliness for most people to use, and, as I put it, 'KDE has a long way to go to catchup with the userfriendliness of Mac OSX and Windows.

That's so insulting.

Want to get specific, you old troll [slashdot.org]? Studies [relevantive.de] have shown that there's no significant difference in "usability" when measured in terms of getting things done or user perceptions. When you consider how much more you can get done with KDE out of the box, I'm not sure how anyone could say that Windoze was more usable.

Some obvious improvements to usability from KDE include:

1. A rational program menu, organized by what the program does rather than company name or other obtuse reasoning.
2. A configuration tool that really has everything rationally organized. Windoze places it's configuration tools in a bewildering number of locations that vary unpredictably by version.
3. Really integrated web and file management. KDE's file browser still remembers the split window trick and has tabs. When you combine those two things with sftp, ftp, fish, even crummy windoze networking, you can see how easy it is to move files around. When you combine that with KDE's built in ability to manipulate those files without moving them, you realize you don't even have to move them.
4. KDE's briefcase works. I'm sure, though I don't use it, that it too can use sftp, etc to make sure all is well synced.
5. Kmail and Kontact. Kmail's excellent spam wizard automatically detects installed anti-spam and sets up filtering for you. It also has easy to configure multiple identities, LDAP and all that jazz. KDE's contact database is awesome and comes with excellent Palm/other sync, including many cellphones. OE does not even come with a spell checker.

So there you have it. What exactly does Winblows have to offer the "average" user again? The same user can do all of that and much more with KDE's excellent programs without any additional trouble or cost. Complex != difficult or expensive. The proof is there for anyone who would check out Knoppix, Mepis, etc.

You missed the point.

[cbreaker]

It's garbage because it's off topic and very typical of a Mac zealot to say something like that.

I admit, you don't sound quite as unresonable as some Zealots, but you did post that just the same. The article nor slashdot post wasn't about usability, it was about resource transparency.

And to proclaim that KDE is "ugly and clunky compared to OS X or even windows" - such an objective thing say that you can't just preach it like it's fact. Personally, I feel too confined in OS X. It's okay I guess, and I like the shadows under the windows, but I find the interface to be unyeilding and stubborn. KDE is prettier then Windows I think, and it functions very similar to Windows. And I think the Windows UI is very usable, it works for me.

Just because your preference is MacOS doesn't mean that KDE or Gnome are worse.

My KDE desktop is clean, it's fast, and very accessable. I really don't see how I can ask for much more than that at this point? The rest is on the horizon, and with the rate that OSS progresses it won't be long before there's no more arguement against it.

Re:MacOS _should_ have these things.

[geg81]

but Apple is doing it right by integrating network resources into the real VFS layer so that all applications can access them.

If you mean the kernel VFS layer, then Apple is not doing it right: this sort of functionality does not belong in the kernel. And Apple has not even managed to make the Carbon and Cocoa views of the world entirely consistent.

KDE's I/O slaves are not real filesystems and are not accessible by all applications.

True, and that is bad. But there is a middle ground between KDE's piecemeal approach and Apple's kernel bloat.

Re:uh huh.

[justsomebody]

Wow I like this one.

Here they are

most of "Connect to server" server connections don't work, example ftp:// one version asks for password, but latest OSX patch does not. Copying files doesn't work as it should.

Network interface was simple. Chooser and that was it. Now there is trashed all over the place. Network in finder supporting SMB only???

Start menu has gone bad since OSX.

Mail has fatal flaws. (Besides its fatal unusability)

You can't control with keys on dialogs or popdowns. (Buttons I mean)

Themes aren't consistant. And please don't say BrMetal is multimedia, standard is other software. Even Apple wasn't consistant with this feature

Window Titlebar. Was clear, now you get ughly and bad positioning.

Mouse (ok, that one was bad and still is)

OS9 detected new monitor. OSX doesn't. I wouldn't even notice that if I wouldn't disconnect 22" monitor and connect 17". Guess what (blank screen)

File layout was perfect, now it isn't.

System files were perfect. Throw preferences to trash and it works. Now it doesn't, Everything is displaced on various locations. (even Windows don't have such bad file layout)

You could reinstall system, copy (not install) software and preferences. You could work. Now it is not even a bit better than Windows.

Response was fast, now eye candy is slowing down everything.

Harddrives often get locked in OSX.

Printers don't support CMYK ICC profiles (OS9 was supporting them). Sory, buddy. cups is not CMYK proof concept. You can install rip though, but that is something you can install anywhere

Really bad system menu layout. It was almost perfect

No more delete and it is uninstalled. It was trashing all over the place

Everything is too big without system scaling option. (There wasn't scaling in OS9 but at least it was usable on smaller resolutions)

Should I continue????

Re:Konqueror vs Mozilla

[eugene ts wong]

As a web designer, I feel that Konqueror 3.3.1 is miles ahead of 3.2.* and Mozilla. I'm constantly surprised at how well it renders CSS.