A Sneak Preview of KDE 4 350
An anonymous reader writes "In recent times, a lot of discussion has been generated about the state of KDE version 4.0 and as Linux users we are ever inquisitive about what the final user experience is going to be. This article throws light on some of the features that we can look forward to when KDE 4.0 is finally released some time this year. The article indicates that the most exciting fact about KDE 4.0 is going to be that it is developed using the Qt 4.0 library. This is significant because Qt 4.0 is released under a GPL license even for non-Unix platforms. So this clears the ideological path for KDE 4.0 to be ported to Windows and other non-Unix/X11 platforms."
Performance (Score:5, Interesting)
When was the last time a new version of Microsoft Windows came out with a faster user interface?
Re:Still not there yet.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a new convert to KDE, after years of predominantly fluxbox usage, with the odd dabble into Gnome. This is mainly because I principally used Linux over VNC or ssh, so KDE was out of the question, too slow over the network.
Now I have the novelty of a fast local Linux box, and decided to try out these fancy Graphical Desktops a bit more. The new Gnome is good, but I must say I am becoming more and more impressed with KDE as the days go on. I still like my fluxbox though, simplicity does have it's appeal sometimes. Can KDE ever be that fast though, I doubt it. Not that I care much about load times on KDE, 99% of my computer usage is text editors and the console. Those are two things that run fast on any system.
KDE on windows? Sounds interesting. Windows is just a games environment or dumb terminal into my linux cluster for me normally, I'd love to have KDE on XP. A fast KDE frontend for Vista might actually make me consider buying that heap.
Re:Less of the kitchen sink would make KDE better (Score:5, Interesting)
But that's OK because Gnome isn't for me.
Please, Gnome is a slim pick up and go desktop for new users, KDE is a customisable and flexible desktop for power, business or techie users. I like it this way, it gives everyone a desktop that they are comfortable with. As a techie, I want KDE to stay the way it is, please don't try to change it to something it is not.
KDE on MacOSX (Score:3, Interesting)
NOOOOOO....... (Score:5, Interesting)
I like things as they are with separate applications. If Kicker hiccups and falls over I can relaunch Kicker, if Super Karamba falls over, then I can simply restart Super Karamba, if the desktop falls over then I can restart the desktop... if the "all in one app" Plasma falls over, than what??? do I have to restart KDE? I don't want flaky Super Karamba widgets threatening the entire desktop... and I only want to run Super Karamba if I want to, not by default...
Re:Hmm , let me guess... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually its a CDE [wikipedia.org] ripoff.
CDE predates win95, and was based on the many desktop WIMP environments around in the late 1980s, such as HPs VUE.
A lot of the things you imagine are Windows interface paradigms are actually basic HCI stuff (Fitts law, Roman language left-right convention, and whatnot) that pretty much dictate colour schemes, icon size, icon behaviour, left to right conventions, etc.
The only thing I can think of that is a Windows thing is the position of a main menu button in the bottom left, its easier to mouse to the top of the screen than to the bottom because of the way the muscles in the hand/arm work. In truth the KDE button can be located anywhere, its just the default themes that just happen to position it there, cos that's where most computer users look to find a central control.
Re:Performance (Score:5, Interesting)
"When Qt designer was ported to Qt 4.0 - only the neccesary changes to make it compile - the libqt size decreased by 5%, Designer num relocs went down by 30%, mallocs use by 51%, and memory use by 15%. The measured Designer startup time went down by 18%"
Now try to imagine the savings for the whole KDE desktop
Re:great (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:KDE vs. Gnome (Score:2, Interesting)
- the system collects a stacktrace of the process and the libraries (including version numbers) it was using
- compiles this with extra possible relevant info about your state at time of crash
- (after asking your permission) connects to an online database of crashes and compares your
stacktrace to the database, looking up the debug symbols automatically
- if your stacktrace matches a previously known crash it shows you the bug entry for that crash
- if your crash is unique, it allows you to file a new bug for the developers to look at
That would really be a step forward in improving the stability of free desktop environments.
Maybe someday someone will do this [gnome.org]
It's rather lonely in here! (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, the main reason I avoid KDE and GNOME is performance - most of the stuff it does is just overhead I don't need (and why does KDE -not- use the xscreensaver interface instead of their rather....useless wrapper?!!), but if they were able to improve the reliability of KDE, and make it possible to lower it's footprint to something that is, say, just -slightly- more than your average WMW I might consider it.
Re:Memory (Score:5, Interesting)
What you will see is KDE4 by default using a huge glob less of memory, but if you run an old KDE3 or Qt3 app, suddenly memory usage will kind of go up when the compatibility libraries load.. disk usage will go up too because of them. But in most systems, 90% of the time the CPU is fairly idle and memory usage is the most important performance factor; not just memory-limited systems, on huge multi-GB desktops too.
What I really want to see is KDE4 running on Qt4 directly on the Linux framebuffer; get rid of X. Then something like MythTV running on top of it; bringing requirements down by removing some of the extraneous cruft (X no longer has magic mouse and keyboard drivers since the USB HID system does most of the work, would be one example) is a good goal too and KDE4 is also doing some of that.
I'm not sure what direction GNOME is taking, but at least there is a lot less ability to do so with GTK; they pride compatibility without compatibility libraries, and new functionality comes with new applications and rewrites of applications which never made the grade (Ubuntu Edgy had a bunch of them) - it seems to be a more pronounced, feature-rich development cycle with less chances to sit down and optimize something old. Both environments seem to be focussing on simply PROVIDING user experience than optimizing it. However KDE has a lot more baggage; components like the browser, office suite are all part of the KDE offering, which GNOME doesn't have an encumberance on. Optimizing KDE gives more results for less work. Optimizing GNOME seems harder to justify considering very few things will benefit but the toolkit and desktop itself. Maybe I'm wrong though...
Re:Performance (Score:3, Interesting)
Software that takes advantage of it is fine. Software that wastes it to no advantage is not.
Re:Hmm , let me guess... (Score:3, Interesting)
It is true there is nothing with "start" acutally written on it even if the menu comes up from the bottom from each panel button - but many of the things you are talking about here were even on the first mac with a few small differences.
Remember - KDE gets criticism for looking different enough from MS Windows to confuse people, and a lot of this behaviour comes from CDE.