KDE 3.5 Released 385
WhiteFoxBR writes ""The KDE Project is happy to announce a new major release of the award-winning K Desktop Environment. Many features have been added or refined, making KDE the most complete, stable and integrated free desktop environment available." Here a Visual Guide to new features, including build-in ad-block for Konqueror and support for MSN and Yahoo! webcams in Kopete. "
Let's just have one Linux desktop (Score:1, Insightful)
All the whining about how choice is good and it makes better products distracts from a more important factor. All the competing options make incompatability and confusion unavoidable.
It's About Frickin Time!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let's just have one Linux desktop (Score:5, Insightful)
What I didn't see (Score:4, Insightful)
What I didn't see was much change in KDE's horrible default settings. The desktop is very configurable. Why does it have to look like some terrible pudgy windows clone? And what's with two toolbars on every app? Why not save some screen real estate for the body of the application? That toolbar for konqueror could easily be paired down to one row of icons with the location bar along side. I'm sick of a print icon on every application. I print things rarely enough off the web. That should be left to a menu, or just alt-p.
Still, if you're willing to configure KDE a little bit, it's awesome. The good news is that much of the configuration is easy, right-click kind of stuff.
Re:Let's just have one Linux desktop (Score:2, Insightful)
So basically, one has to decide: Is it better with several parallel applications, that allow for a lot of people to test many different implementations of features, to find those that work best, or is it better to put one, standardized desktop-application on top of the X-standard?
Sure, it could allow for lesser confusion due to incompatibility, but this isn't a competition. This is about exploring different paths to satisfy the most users. I enjoy having the power of choice in regard to which window-manager I want to use, and I intend to keep this power, more than allowing some sort of monopoly on such an important part of the Linux system.
Re:Let's just have one Linux desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, that's a lot of FUD in one post. I'm impressed.
Not true; there are several alternatives.
Not true: QT3-X11 is available under the GNU GPL; QT4 is available under the GNU GPL even for windows. In addition to that, QT is available under proprietary licenses; this has no effect on the GPL release whatsoever.
QT already is open source.You should really do some research before you start spreading FUD. People like you give people like us a bad name.
You don't like it. DON'T INSTALL IT. Simple, non ? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Call me a troll"
Consider it done...
only one widgetset? why? (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need a "single widgetset/toolkit" to make a great "user experience".
Windows actually has several widget implementations. Access has its own widget set (don't remember the link, sorry), IE has its own widget set [msdn.com], office has its own widget set (noticed how the scrolling bar in office is like windows 98 instead of looking like in the XP theme? The same happens for messenger BTW)
They don't have a "single" widget implementation - they just have several widget implementations which LOOK THE SAME. In the same way, you don't need gtk OR qt - you want a way to make them look the same (the usability guidelines like menus etc are another matter). Implement the same theme for both desktops and make kde swwitch to a different look when you change the gnome theme and viceversa and you're done.
"Stable?" "Stable" is for Isotopes (Score:5, Insightful)
It also deserves better than having its major graphics package called "The Gimp," but that's a discussion for a different day...
Re:Let's just have one Linux desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it is.
Are we creating Free Software for the users? or the developers of commercial software? Personally, I'd rather have freedom, and a wide array of options than a wide array of commercial (and most probably non-free) software. I don't care if commercial software developers have a hard time fitting in. Some will make the effort, and some won't. Either way, I won't use their products if they restrict my freedom to do as I like with it.
All software doesn't need to be free. But conversely, all software shouldn't be non-free either. Each user should be able to choose from a wide variety of options to best suit their own needs. And in my opinion, Free Software cares more about the user than non-free software. What good would wide "linux" adoption be if all the "linux" users were saddled by hundreds of non-free software package licenses? I care about the adoption of software freedom, not your interpretation of "linux".
It sounds as though you're a software developer who hasn't got a real handle on the Free Software/Open-source development model, and therefore you're finding it hard to become rich and famous... Or perhaps you submitted a patch and have had it rejected, or something. Anyway, your OP seems like ax grinding.
Join in the fun, or use a commercial (non-free) OS. But don't try to reduce the choice that other's enjoy.
Re:You will comply... (Score:2, Insightful)
Typical misunderstanding (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is that some desktops or window managers will be annoying to some people because of the way they choose to work (e.g. some prefer to have lots of desktops with lots of overlapping windows, next door some guy prefers not having any overlapping windows at all, these people will typically want totally different focus/click/to-front/to-back behaviour) and often this is best achieved by choosing another desktop type. But any application will work fine all the same!
This is one of the greatest strengths of X11. Forcing everyone to use the same desktop is like forcing everybody to use the same length skis: It works somehow, but don't tell me it's good for everyone.
Re:Let's just have one Linux desktop (Score:3, Insightful)
A single DE would kill off all sorts of innovation from the Linux platform as well as be a complete bummer for a lot of folks. I make extensive use of Xfce, for example, because it runs fast on an old machine I have and strikes me as all-round darn good anyway.
Perhaps you were making this distinction between a de facto default DE emerging and there being only one DE availabe at all. And maybe the thundering herd has missed it. At any rate, I think you've been modded rather harshly.
Re:Now we just need... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know what it is, but KDE just feels "wrong" at this point. When rendering text under in icon, it often cuts it off in an odd place. Toolbars look cluttered. The default icon and widget themes (and even most of the others available) are so busy and flashy that it's often hard to discern from the picture what the function is (and in essence totally nullifying the usefullness of an icon). Things seem to lag behind the inteface when you press a button.
Don't get me wrong, KDE is a wonderful acheivement, and over time it's implemented a lot of good features, but it just feels a bit "gimmicky" to me these days. Something thats nice to look at and say "Wow. These guys do this and give it away for free.". With Gnome things look more refined. Things are less flashy, but work better for the most part (there are still some problems like the file selection dialog). I remember back in the Gnome 1.x days some group (can't remember which one) announced that they'd be supporting Gnome as the "official" Linux desktop and I thought that it was a terrible decision (Gnome 1.x was an ugly mess), but now I think it truly is the better desktop.
In the end though, both projects benefit each other.
Re:Good point! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Webcam - yes! (Score:3, Insightful)
Too often, Linux suffers from great applications and features being available to those willing to spend 5 hours trawling every project hosting website then spend several hours getting the 101 dependancy issues sorted out and then go make dinner while the whole thing compiles.
The bueaty of the KDE enviroment (and gnome for that matter) is the way so much stuff just works as expected without requiring the user to learn a range of commands & techniques which should have been left back in the 1970's. Sure, Webcam support on Linux may not be a totally new thing to us "nerds" that frequent Slashdot, but as someone who has spent days getting a Webcam to partly work (within Kopete and elsewhere), I would have to agree that with the new Kopete in KDE 3.5 it will be the first time Linux is able to realisticly claim to support Webcams.
Re:Kool! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Windows lookalike? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cool! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:If KDE is so advanced, why gnome? (Score:4, Insightful)
Projects like KDE and Gnome have different communities, and different developers and sponsors with different goals and ideas. You can't just "pick one". That doesn't make any sense.
Keep thinking it ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If KDE is so advanced, why gnome? (Score:3, Insightful)
All you people desiring authoritarian conformity should stick with Windows. You'll be happier.