KDE Responds To Misconceptions About KDE 4 279
Jiilik Oiolosse writes "PJ at Groklaw speaks with a member of the KDE team about some of the common myths circulating about KDE 4. 'There has been a bit of a dustup about KDE 4.0. A lot of opinions have been expressed, but I thought you might like to hear from KDE. So I wrote to them and asked if they'd be willing to explain their choices and answer the main complaints. They graciously agreed.' Among the topics discussed are: 'Releasing KDE 4.0 was a mistake,' 'I cannot put files on my desktop,' and 'KDE should just have ported KDE 3.5 to Qt 4 and not add all that other experimental stuff right away.'"
OS X vs. KDE and others (Score:4, Interesting)
The OSS community have managed to build a better browser than IE, but how come they haven't been able to duplicate the Apple GUI experience? Is it just a case of OSS lagging behind commercial companies etc., and soon Linux will be on par with OS X. Or is there more to it than that, such as difference philosophies or lack of people with good a understanding of user psychology and graphic design principles?
Re:OS X vs. KDE and others (Score:5, Interesting)
I have both mac os/x and linux here and I *far* prefer KDE (3) over os/x, I just can't seem to get used to the main menu switching all the time depending on what has focus. I prefer 'stateless' designs over state any time.
Re:OS X vs. KDE and others (Score:3, Interesting)
Graphic design principle are important (as are typographic principles, and so on), but...
Apple has kept the same keyboard shortcuts for EVER. Apple-C defined the 'copy' operation with the Lisa, in the early 80s. Apple-X is cut, Apple-P is paste. The symbols on the keyboard aren't the same anymore, but the keys are.
Don't think I'm accusing MS (or anyone else) of anything -- they have been consistent too. But KDE broke their consistent streak with KDE 4. That can be a good thing, when a project has a user interface that truly is better for a certain purpose. I don't have a strong opinion about KDE 4, specifically because I couldn't be bothered to figure it out. I tried it, and the basics are fine, but it still lacks some of the features I use in my workflow.
Instead, I'm learning Haskell so I can get xmonad to work how I want it to -- mostly I want vim/OS X-like keyboard shortcuts everywhere. (I do realize OS X uses "emacs style" shortcuts, but ultimately, as long as they don't conflict and can use WINDOWS or APPLE over CTRL, I am happy, just because of ergonomics)
On one hand, this makes me a mega-nerd. I do realize that. On the other, KDE 3 let me nerd out without having to learn much about it. KDE 4 is different enough that I would have to, and I would rather learn something simple instead. xmonad is implemented in under 1500 lines of Haskell. I can completely understand that much code, and bend it to my will without much more effort than installing and reading it.
The punch line to my post is that KDE 4 is a fine open source release, in the sense that fresh development is going on because it came out. It could have been called KDE4-DEV or something, but almost every open source release is a development version. That's kind of the point. On the other hand, it's still not ready for me, so I am actively passing on it.
This seems familiar... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:KDE4.1 great for geeks, not ready for simple us (Score:5, Interesting)
Problems with what? You're running around like a geek trying to run a piece of software that hasn't been out for even a few months and you're complaining it has shortcomings and some things missing? Stop press, news at 11.
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth people are still using KDE 3.5.x, they will probably use successive versions of it as well, and when the general consensus is that KDE 4.x looks OK then you'll start to see a natural move to it. That's what naturally tends to happen with these things. You just......................stop worrying. If you're an early adopter then that's exactly what you are. I hear that people actually pay for licenses for that privilege, and they complain less than the furore we've had with KDE 4. Go figure.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
KDE 4.0 as a beta (Score:5, Interesting)
However I firmly believe that KDE really messed up when it comes to mamaging user expectations.
Call something KDE 4.0 and people will believe it's fully functional ready to roll. And find themselves sorely disappointed. Call it "KDE 4.0 Developer Release" and people will understand what it is and is not.
One thing that irks me in KDE's reply though is that they give the impression that they clearly communicated what KDE 4.0 was and was not. I disagree. I visited kde.org a few times to find precisely that information, and it simply wasn't there.
That's why I was so happy with SuSE's honest and up-front statement about KDE 4.0 (see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=528652&cid=23135548 [slashdot.org] ) that told me everything KDE.org didn't. No amount of post-furor explanations will take that away.
Re:KDE4.1 great for geeks, not ready for simple us (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:OS X vs. KDE and others (Score:2, Interesting)
I use it quite often, but found the key combination "Ctrl + A then 0-9" a bit unergonomic. Also I kind of forget if it's screen 4 or 5, so I have to cycle through them with Ctrl + A 4, Ctrl + A 5,...". So I think it is faster to do the same thing multiple time ("Alt tab tab tab") than doing different keyboard combinations. It IMHO is just faster to repeat the same thing over and over again than thinking about the right window number for issuing the right key combination. Especially for a small number of windows I think the "brute force" way works better. Having more windows it might become a different story, but there I try to keep a virtual desktop per task.
Doing "Alt tab tab tab" KDE has some nice supporting feature I value. When cycling through the Windeos it highlighting the border of the window you would be switching to (so before releasing the Alt key). So you get a nice visual feedback; this really helps for me as I already look at the window I want to switch to. In Windows I miss that feature.
I'm unhappy... (Score:5, Interesting)
But are they on the right path? From what I have seen in KDE4.0, it seems to me that everything they have done is a step backwards.
Basically, the problem is: if it's working fine, why change? For instance, I'm still using the KDE-classic icon set because I see no reason to get glossier icons, I recognize instantly the old icons and that's what matters.
The big point about KDE has always been its capability for personal configuration. I prefer to use just one desktop, so I don't have a desktop selector applet in my taskbar. I prefer not to put icons on my desktop, since the desktop is always covered by the windows I'm using, so I have my favorite apps icons in my taskbar and use konqueror in the file management mode to open documents. That's the way I prefer, other people think differently, but KDE3.5 lets everyone be happy with their choices.
I've never adapted to Gnome, because the philosophy is different there, it seems to be about making it easier to do things, at the expense of configurability. Well, for me the easiest way to do things is to do them the way I find easier, not the way someone else prefers.
I can hear people telling me, "OK, if you don't like things as they are, just go ahead and change them, the source code is there". Well, I have neither the time nor the inclination to start developing the KDE user interface. I'm not complaining, they were under no obligation to develop KDE for me anyhow, but let's say I'm lamenting the way things are going.
Riiight... (Score:1, Interesting)
So when Vista is first released and nothing really works and a lot of programs aren't compatible - Microsoft doesn't know what they are doing and the OS is labeled a failure.
When KDE releases the same type of program - there are 'misconceptions' and you have look at it in the 'Grand Scheme of Things to Come'.
Give me a break.
(Yes, I realize the two are functionally different pieces of software, I'm not comparing that. I'm comparing the level of criticism and PR cover-up here.)
It is all about self-defined goals, is not it? (Score:4, Interesting)
This particular line is especially pathetic — even if truthful. Yes, according to others, we royally screwed up, but, fortunately, we had our own definitions of the goals.
To see this guys try to wriggle out of this shame is as unpleasant as trying to use their software. They've "redefined" an alpha pre-release as a "4.0". They've followed up with several minor post-releases (it is at 4.0.4 right now, is not it?) — which continue to be both feature-incomplete and buggy. But, I guess, if none of that was among their "clearly stated goals", things are dandy...
To call release of Plasma — the "new development from the ground up" — a "success" by any definition is a bad joke. The software screws itself up every once in a while so badly, the Internet-forums are already full of of advises, like this [fedoraforum.org] "just delete .kde/share/config/plasmarc".
KDE appears to have grown a serious marketing department some time ago — I noticed this during their pre-release "tension build-up", which was not unlike that of a new X-Box or iPhone. Heck, their "release party" was Google-sponsored [kde.org]! Except the new X-Box and iPhone work (save, maybe, for a few glitches). KDE4, on the other hand, does not — by anybody's definition, except, maybe, their own.
This most recent "gracious" response is just another marketing spin-attempt...
Re:OS X vs. KDE and others (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm unhappy... (Score:5, Interesting)
>> Basically, the problem is: if it's working fine, why change? For instance, I'm still using the KDE-classic icon set because I see no reason to get glossier icons, I recognize instantly the old icons and that's what matters.
Familiarity is nice to avoid retraining, but you won't be attracting any new users/devs with ugly interfaces. Sounds shallow but its a fact of life. Aesthetics matter.
>> The big point about KDE has always been its capability for personal configuration. I prefer to use just one desktop, so I don't have a desktop selector applet in my taskbar. I prefer not to put icons on my desktop, since the desktop is always covered by the windows I'm using, so I have my favorite apps icons in my taskbar and use konqueror in the file management mode to open documents.
All of those things are possible in KDE 4 (at least the version I'm using, perhaps even in 4.0.x).
I think the configuration culture hasn't gone, but there does have to be a better reason to add an option now. Some options are simply missing because they haven't been added back, but will be as soon as possible.
Re:OS X vs. KDE and others (Score:3, Interesting)
Winbatch? That thing was/is brilliant. It's still available for modern Windowses, and it runs quite well under wine. I stayed with Win3.11 for many many years, in part because of Winbatch, and then finally switched to linux in 2000.
It has always annoyed me that linux has nothing comparable -- an app that can identify any running gui programs, record and replay mouse clicks and kestrokes to them, and scrape text from them. KDE's DCOP is the closest I've come to being able reproduce some of the stuff I was doing 15 years ago on 3.11 and it's a pale shadow.
Re:KDE4.1 great for geeks, not ready for simple us (Score:2, Interesting)
They didn't know, but should have known.
A number of people on kde-devel@ made exactly this argument -- calling it 4.0 would mislead people into thinking it was ready for end users when it's not.
It's not enough to say "Yay, KDE 4.0!", and then follow up with "oh, by the way, this is a technology preview/developer release".
Go read the KDE 4.0 Press Release [kde.org]. There is not one mention of the fact that 4.0 is intended for anything but the general user population. Saying it's "the beginning of the KDE4 era" implies nothing about the quality of the 4.0 release; it only indicates there are more features in the pipeline.
If KDE wanted to send a clear message that 4.0 was not ready for anyone but early-adopters, the press release was the definitive place to do it. But they didn't, and all this angst is the result.
PR mistakes aside, I still think that KDE is, and has been, a great desktop. I've been using trunk as my main desktop for several weeks now, and now that 4.1 has been branched, I'm really looking forward to what 4.2 has to offer.
Re:KDE 4.0 as a beta, not KDE fault (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a developer on a major Linux distribution. I can tell that everytime more people shows up on the official IRC channels with the "Feature X is b0rken, you suck!" attitude.
That's the price one pays for taking Linux mainstream.
Mainstream users do not care about opensourseness - they just want their system work and do what they want to do it. And with KDE4 at moment nothing works as people expect - if it works at all.
In Windows land it is different: there is nobody you can complain. Normally you have to call support or local technician or friend hoping that they can fix it for you. Linux at moment lacks such "local technician or friend" option. Also, people do not want to pay for support (which comes bundled with Windows).
Add here the overall mess PC hardware market is and you have recipe for huge long-term problems.
And KDE4 shows clearly the conceptual divide between what mainstream expects and how F/LOSS function. On one side they published raw unfinished environment as they had to as open source project ("talk is cheap. show me the code." thing). On another side many distros to get on a bleeding edge rushed to include it as KDE3 replacement. This is dead-end for normal PC users - and Ubuntu already has bunch of them. It would take some serious explaining that they can go back to KDE3, because for them what is installed is what they get.
The only solution I can see (and it was suggested many times already) is for Ubuntu (and other Linux vendors) start selling PCs/laptops under their own brand. I could never understand what held Red Hat in past - nor do I understand now why Novell/Ubuntu (while keeping desktop on their roadmaps) do not want to go vertical. After all their primary focus (and Linux focus at large) remains server space where it is not critical. For desktop to know precisely whom you can report your problem is crucial: end-users do know little about IRC, forums and mail lists - nor do they want to get involved. They just want it to work.
After all, vertical integration worked (and works) for YDL (from TerraSoft [terrasoftsolutions.com]) and YDL is older than Ubuntu and has many users. And hey - it really works well.
Re:OS X vs. KDE and others (Score:2, Interesting)
Open Safari, resize the window to be pretty big, go to the Google front page, and hit the Zoom button. In Tiger, what I observe is that the zoom button reduces the size of the my window to match the content. The reason you see Zoom so often setting your window to maximum vertical size is that most pages are vertically much longer than the screen. However, for applications where open documents have more modest sizes relative to the screen, zoom is very useful, especially on very large screens.
Though I must say that I've always hated Preview's behavior when Zooming a PDF--it never resizes the window to the size that I'd pick to read it onscreen, and it often makes the PDFs way too small. (I think it's because of an attempt of showing the document at life size, but life size often is something like 4" square for some PDFs.)