OSNews

I like the ideas proposed even if the one that actually interested me most were the one about the integration or lack of it. I actually wrote something on KDE to ease of the use of portage and then after thinking about it the problem was really the one mentionned by Eugenia, why wouldn't I be able to use single app in a single way to install most kind of software.

On other OS, the native way is use as it fit the best the desktop but this is when the os comes with a desktop solution. Linux is special because the application space without UI is great and is well populated compared to the UI application space.

Therefore Linux UI need to be even better than other OS UI to properly presents all the different app available in a consistent way and all that in a fraction of time it actually took to make those non-UI app.

This is what I would call a Monk's job ;-)

Under X (X-Darwin in fact) My desktop of Choice is http://www.GnuStep.org with windowmaker.
Gnustep will get a boost in its developemnt tools. Apple is really working hard on gcc and has started not so long ago to work on GDB. Apple uses Objective which is what gnusteps need ....

Not to re-open old and unanswerable debates, but I feel that X has to die for Linux to make it to the Desktop.

Or at least we need to have some kind of optional replacement that doesn't carry all the baggage that X does.

A lot of what you point out in your article makes sense Eugenia, but even if the folks at KDE did make your suggested changes (not likely... There's a huge difference between what OSS developers want vs. what their users want), I still don't think Linux would make the inroads that it wants to, into Desktop land. KDE might be ready too, but it's underlying foundation is not.

X lacks the easy configurability and universal performance that a desktop OS needs.

Yes, you can login remotely to X. I know, I know... That's what all the die-hards chant whenever this debate comes up. But how often have any of us done this (System Admins don't count)?

Ok.. Now compare how many times you've NOT used X's remote features, as compared to how many times you've wished you could change your resolution easily without rebooting?

And this is the crux of the arguement: Yes, X has some very unique and arguably nice features. FOR SYSTEM ADMINS!

That only serves to reinforce the notion that Linux is only suitable for Server and Legacy applications.

Yes, you can setup some nice dumb terminals and log in remotely to an X-windows system remotely to do your work, but again... Is this what the average desktop user wants??

Not likely. In fact let's see who would want to configure Linux for this purpose... I know! Again, System Admins!

Yes, some use it as their sole desktop OS, but they are the exception. I want to see Linux have the universal appeal and performance that makes the a modern OS what it is. Linux is trying to move there, but until the Linuz zealots get off their soapboxes and admit that X might not be the end-all to everyone, Linux is staying right where it is. Locked into the server/hobbyist niche that it's carved out for itself.

And the funny thing is that although there's tons of people shouting for an X replacement, very little headway's being made on creating one.

So while KDE and Gnome both have grown up nicely (I agree KDE's leading the way though!), they're both also tied to this old behemoth of a display system which pales in comparison to their sleek, high performance GUI's.

While I appreciate the work going into both GUI's (BTW, XFCE's still my preference, even with KDE's recent improvements, largely due to the performance hit that X gives KDE), until X is gone, or there's a compatible alternative with better specs and performance, I don't foresee either taking over the desktops of the average PC user.

Sad too... KDE does have some nice features. Until you want to interact with something that's not a KDE app that is. Then it's a mixed blessing (again, largely due to the lack of a universal, high-performance backend, keybindings, and so on; All of which a good, well-written X replacement would bring to the table.).

Ok X Lovers: Flame away...

I Definitely appreciated this look into kde's I design. I hope they listen.

Thanks for that, Eugenia. I hope you sent a hint on that to the corresponding KDE mailing lists.

However, allow me a one remark: Why do you reduce the width of your panel? it would make much more sense to reduce the height and increase the width over the full screen width. Yes, kinda like Windows...Microsoft did that for a reason. With the screen corners and edges being the points that are the easiest to reach, take advantage of that and put important objects in the corners and at the edges. In this case, Kicker in any screen corner and the task bar (sorry, I don't know what the KDE name is) and a border, and don't stack items in it! The two-row layout takes away everything you gain from placing it at the edge.

But I do not reduce the width of my panel. In fact, I make more use of the desktop space!
Everytime a new application opens and creates a new Taskabar entry, Kicker needs to *resize automatically* to the required width (+150 pix)! But today, Kicker does not 'listen' to Taskbar's size requirements. This needs fixing. If they fix that, it is better to have a "dock" like OSX's, and then, as you add more applications, the width will expand to eventually across the screen, as it is in the default setup of Kicker!

But why do you make it use so much height? Why two rows? Why don't you keep the K menu in a fixed location?

I like it better this way. The K menu otherwise is extremely small (16pix) and everything looks too flat, uninteresting, and it gives the impression that Kicker is of no importance. Which of course is not the case.
Even the XP menu is a lot "fater" these days in terms of height than it used to be. Same goes for OSX's dock default height.

You don't need any height when your at the bottom. But you are right, the K menu neeeds some hightlighting. I think just giving it some colour would help here.

Great article, with tons of interesting points. I hope someone listens. The point about default configs is quite important.

And yes, a bit more speed will be nice as well, though I am not sure this is entirely a KDE issue.

> And the funny thing is that although there's
> tons of people shouting for an X replacement,
> very little headway's being made on creating one.

Attempts have been made, but they all remain half-baked. Wishing for a replacement is easy, but writing one, and actually getting it to the point where it is useable, (and able to support existing X apps), is an incredible amount of work. I was hoping that KDE would actually create that replacement eventually, but judging from past interviews, that possiblity would seem to be remote.

Anyways, great article, and kudos to the KDE folks for doing a great job. I hope KDE gets better from here.

Would it be too much to ask for a Linux distro made specifically for KDE so that it may be optimized for KDE and really integrate KDE into the underlying system?

Turn on autohide if KDE is capable of doing it. Then you'll be taking up NO space for the taskbar, but when you need it, it pops back up with all the room you need and then goes away.

1. People love to go on and on to say why X should die. I used to be one of those people, until I wised up. All the reasons that Mr. C gives has to do with the implementation, and are not inherent to X. People inanely chant "X11 sucks! X11 sucks!" just as much as apologists chant "Remote apps!" There is no reason that a system like Mac OS X couldn't be implemented on top of X11. You could implement Display PostScript (like with GNUstep) or Display PDD (OS X's quartz) on top of X11.

With straight up vanilla X11R6.3, no. It lacks transparency. But there are hacks that deviate that bring transparency to X. We all could be running this X server without it ruining our old apps. Organizing a big push to get all the major distrobution organizations to start using a non-standard X server would be a lot easier (and more practical for all involved parties) than would to have it Berlin (or something akin to it) replace X11.

Your gripe is with Xfree86 and the existing toolkits. The way you change resolution and bit depth is specific to the implementation, in this case XFree86. You do it different on Solaris under OpenWindows. Before you open your mouth to chant the "X11 Sucks!" mantra next time, remember this. Change it to "XFree sucks!" if it's that important. These problems could be fixed within XFree86 itself.

The culture of X11 is somewhat icky. There is no built in widget set- everyone and their grandma has written a new widget set that doesn't work with the other ones, look slightly different, but does pretty much the same damn thing. The way X is, and the fact that Xaw, Xt, and leter Motif suck hard encouraged the emergence of all the new GUI toolkits.

I'm not so much an X supporter as an enemy of ignorance. That is, I'd much rather use something like NeXTSTEP or PicoGUI (http://pgui.sf.net), that has a widget set built into the display server.

Toolkits. The source of many other problems. KDE and GNOME lack integration with themselves. The integration you find in Mac OS. From my observations, most KDE and GNOME people come from a Unix or Windows background, two platforms where there's not all that much consistency and integration. Sure, a shell brings a shred of consistency, but not as much as the shell in VMS. (no, I'm not kidding, do your research before laughing) In Windows, whatever integration and consistency that is there is easily missed, or is convulted to the point that these KDE and GNOME developers must be getting the message that any sort of attempt at integration and consistency just gets in your way- as it often does on Windows.

The Linux OS has a little bit to do with a lack of consistency and integration. However, NeXTSTEP and OpenStep has shown us that a usable *user-oriented* environment can be done on top of Unix. There has to be wrappers around the old interface and some padding, but it can be done. Doing that kind of work is not fun though, oftentimes, and frankly, I don't blame Open Source and Free Software developers for not wanting to do dirty work they see as unnecesary. I am a OSS developer myself, but I must admit sometimes I would much rather just skip to the fun stuff.

It's too bad OS News doesn't have threading, or some way to reply to a specific post. I know that this large editorial will probably go mostly just be drowned in the chorus of yelling, but if anyone wants to write a reply or rebuttal, an email would be welcome.

I totally agree with TLy. There are many strengths in having a generalized distro- but we already have 100 of those. What would be incredible are distrobutions that take a desktop, KDE, GNOME, GNUstep, XFCE, and take the desktop to the next level, basically an OS entirely around KDE. Get rid of all of the Unix cruft that you can, make administration as easy as (bleh) or easier than Winblows, and have it well integrated with the Linux or BSD install below it. Hell, it would be cool if someone created this layer- what goes between the traditional Unix/Linux side and the desktop- and had it so that pretty much any desktop or app could call into it. <sigh> I should just asking for OS X, and switch back to it.

TLy : "Would it be too much to ask for a Linux distro made specifically for KDE so that it may be optimized for KDE and really integrate KDE into the underlying system?"

i totally have to agree with that, maybe by this way we could gain some speed and stability:)

There is such a thing. It was called Corel Linux, will be Xandros Linux soon and is also providing the base for Lindows.

To the guy saying how bad X is: I agreed with you but not anymore because I learned that performance isn't the only thing that counts and X can be made quite responsive, also looking good. So what's missing is mainly configurability and I believe that it's definetly possible to add this to X (might take some time though but not as much as writing a new display manager from scratch). Of course there is nothing wrong with writing something better, but currently I believe that X will do the trick for now.

To Eugenia:
About Gtk/Qt, you are a bit wrong with stating that it would be common to run Gtk and Qt apps at the same time. I never do that. Both environments are really mature enough to offer whatever you need. If you don't want to use Gtk Evolution, use Qt KMail. Sure, you might like Evolution better but it's still your decision, you don't have to.
We have to understand that Unix isn't just _one_ desktop environment (and now please don't respond with an upset "that's why Unix will never make it to the desktop") but many. Just like we have Windows, Mac OS and Amiga OS, we have KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc. All of them can live on their own, some have more applications, some have less. What they all share though, that is X and the ability to run every application if you _need_ it. That's a great advantage that some proprietory DE's don't have. Those applications will never really integrate (this might be sad but it's true), but they will work together. Things like clipboard, etc will work (you said it doesn't work for you, is this still true with Qt3 adn Gtk? Qt2 had a buggy clipboard implementation).

BTW, most "Joe Users" I know have much less problems with the inconsistent looks of Gtk and Qt than I have. For example my father runs all kinds of different applications and he really doesn't care. For example a while ago he had a Go client on Java with this ugly old Motif toolkit and he told me it would look pretty. So it's really not always about the toolkit, especially not when it comes to "special task" applications (anyone know Blender?).

About the UI of KDE, I mostly agree with you (I especially agree that Konqueror doing everything doesn't make him an actually good browser and with the default style beeing bad. Mosfets Liquid is very good, but also very fancy...). Your suggestions are quite reasonable. Although that's really not what makes me shiver when sitting in front of a KDE desk.
My problems with KDE are those:
- Cluttered menubars. As you pointed out, they don't have much space between menu items and I think they have a reason for this. I usually don't get the menu structure of a KDE application, just like I usually don't get the menu structure of a windows application (like Office), so when I need a certain option, I'm usually searching through the menus instead of immidiatly knowing where to look. :/
- A cluttered control center. Same problem as with menubars, when I want to change a certain feature, I usually have to search a while. They just have way too much preferences and I agree with Havoc Pennington's idea that too much preferences are the root of all OSS GUI evil.
- They also copied other UI mistakes from Windows, like MDI. Granted, this is mostly optional so it's not really a problem. But I find many UI parts of KDE to be build with functionality in mind, not usability. So I can do a lot of things, but don't do them efficiently. Example for this is the Konqueror "split view" functionality. It's a great idea, but I could never figure out how to efficiently use this.
- The default kicker settings don't come even close to what I would consider to be an intuitive and efficient desktop interface.

And some other details. Even the tiny detail that "Ok" buttons are shown on the left makes no sense to me anymore. Some people bash Gnome for breaking out of the "norm", I comment them for having the courage to stand up for what they believe in. Those little details really make me enjoy computing, even when I'm used to something else (less intuitive).

I also agree that system tools should be embedded into the desktop. At least the frontends should be provided, so that the backends can be manipulated for certain systems. It should be the responsibility of the system creator (distributor) though to fit everything together so you get exactly the tools you need to manage this certain system and to make sure that they actually work. BTW, the XST Setup Tools (from Ximian) are a very interesting project that could deliver something like that. It would just need more people actually using and supporting them.

> Mosfets Liquid is very good

I truly hate Liquid. It is way "too much" at all levels.

Anyone know where I can get debs (prefebaly, just by adding something to my sources file) for KDE 3 *or* GNOME 2 for Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 (woody) PowerPC? I'm dying to try them out, but don't want to take all the time to compile and futz with them, or to break my lovely packaged system.

This was a good article, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that most of the advice will be ignored. I'm beginning to think that Linux will *never* be ready for the desktop - there's far too much historical baggage. In no particular order there's the multiplicity of desktops, the lack of standardisation, the software package management situation. Above all else, however, is the lack of design. This article makes that lack very clear.

We all know that most of the developers who write free software do it in their spare time and work only on things which please them. When you get a multiplicity of developers adding "cool" features you ultimately wind up with bloat, with many different ways of doing the same thing and with no standards. That's why Linux on the desktop is doomed.

The thing that keeps me on Windows is that windows doesn't get in my way. I find that KDE and GNOME are consistent in getting in my way when I'm trying to do my work. If I want to play, to fiddle, then I can fiddle to my hearts content - especially on KDE with the many different combinations of changing the look (but not the feel) of the user interface.

The only thing GNOME has going for it is Ximian, where people are paid to pay attention to the types of issues highighted in the article.

At the end of the day, it's a question of usability. If I can't use my computer as a tool because I'm constantly having to fight the interface, then I'll have to use something that allows me to use the computer as a tool and at the moment that something is Windows. Unfourtanately, it's the old 80/20 rule, only in this case Linux desktops are stuck on 80% and Winblows is more like 95/5. That extra 15% adds up to usability and until KDE and GNOME get there, linux won't be ready for the desktop.

IMHO of course.....

...by that I don't mean that it's not a good thing - everyone likes it when things look similar. But inconsistency in UI has not prevented some technologies from becoming dominant.

A few examples:

the WWW (few sites have the exact same navigation, even though trends can be definitely seen)

Video and PC Games (each game has its own menu structure, look, and different use of controller interfaces)

Even Microsoft isn't consistent in its interfaces: look at the difference in menus, toolbars, dialog boxes, etc. between Win95, Win98, Win2k, WinXP, Office 97, Office 2k, Office XP, etc. That's not counting other applications...

So, yeah, consistency is good, it's a plus, but it's not the holy grail that will help Linux on the desktop.

Hmm. I remember a certain review of Gnome 2... where Eugenia said that Gnome 2's defaults weren't good, and didn't even bother to take the effort to realize that the menu panel is easily removable. Then, she gives a two-page summary of how KDE should be changed to make it better. Why not give Gnome the same treatment?

Nothing personal. It was just that the Gnome article came 2 days after the release of Gnome 2. It was a review.
This KDE article was under writting for the last week. It is not a review, it is a feature article.

If I am to write a similar article for Gnome, it would take me much more time. Time that I do not have. Gnome needs even more *basic UI changes* than KDE needs, everywhere in its system. All the developers have to do, is listen to their three UI designers.
After they fix the basics, I promise to do a feature article for Gnome too, that would discuss the further polishing of the UI.

http://www.hadess.net/
should help you getting Gnome2 on Woody/PPC. I don't know where to get .debs of KDE3 though.

WWW sites and games are individual productions.
The method of accessing multiple sites is the same - ie you use one browser where the navigation buttons are in the same place etc. The navigation UI doesn't change every time you visit a new site.

IMHO of course...

"The only thing GNOME has going for it is Ximian, where people are paid to pay attention to the types of issues highighted in the article."

Yes, and people from sun and redhat and...
It really payed off IMO, so far I agree with every Gnome 2 design decision and it's just a joy to use. Just like you said, KDE and Gnome 1.x where great in getting into my way. :/ They made me fiddle around with the system all the day. That was cool and all but I have to live from something. =) So I used Win2k for several months, looking for a free desktop alternative. While Gnome 2.x is "less", I would definetly say that's it's biggest strength. It's great in not getting into my way. I'm really looking forward to the first matured versions of Gnome 2 (like Ximian Gnome 2.2 ), because many people will be surprised... I'm sure of that. And this will set the bar for usability just the tiny bit higher that is needed.


"the WWW (few sites have the exact same navigation, even though trends can be definitely seen)"

Very good point! I still remember the time when I was pissed of Windows because everything looked the same. I wanted original applications and consitency was something that rather annoyed than pleased me. I wanted my system to launch applications, I didn't want the system to be everything I use all day long. So I agree with you that consistency is really overrated. Maybe we are looking in a completely wrong direction. The important thing is, that it _works_.


"If I am to write a similar article for Gnome, it would take me much more time. Time that I do not have."

Stop the trolling.
There isn't really much GUI about Gnome, so even if all if it would suck, it couldn't take so long to write about...

stew:
Alas, no dice with that. According to the Hadess | Idoru page one must "Be running Debian UNSTABLE. Not Woody, not potato, only unstable" to use their GNOME2 debs.

Aaron

All the developers have to do, is listen to their three UI designers.

Do you mean
a)they had 3 UI designers since the beginning, but they didn't listen to them until the complains about Gnome2's UI appeared?
b)they got 3 UI designers after those same complains?

As I know you talked with some of the Gnome2 about those problems, does it mean they listened to your advice and noticed they needed to get good UI designers?

Anyway, I hope you keep making these kind of articles, it sure helps development of open source desktops aimed at users.

UI...

User Interface

Personal Preference.

again, linux isn't windows, windows isn't linux.

and one person writing 90% of the "articles" opinion, regardless of the pat's on the back by the regulars, doesn't
mean, well, anything.

linux was not, and to my knowledge right now, developed to replace windows on the desktop.

these are all very recent events. so is the concept of
"UI" design standards for a graphical interface for
a computing workstation. i mean really, think about it for more than two minutes or whatever time it takes to make yourself feel special or talented. stuck in the age of the wheel vs. stuck in the age of the taskbar.

yes, feedback is *great* and plentiful options for one's
workstation / enviroment is *great*

everone has and has the right to, an opinion.
but a little perspective, and less personal attachment.

i mean for the love of god, we've watched people prattle on why their platform of windows/macintosh were superior for how long now? shall we continue now with the stupefying
differences between linux distributions? while maintaining
the decade plus old debate as well?

i know i'm wasting text, but it's just plain

sad.

but hey. we'll all keep busy. that's the important thing.

apparetnly.

Eugenia - I read and commented on your gnome2 article and the basic gist I remember was moaning about the themes and fonts - aside from the fact that the install was obviously borked - most of the comments refered to the default layout, so the comment above about fairness in reviews stands.

Personally I think the KDE interface is horrendous.

I've always preferred KDE over GNOME but the GNOME panel is far ahead of kicker.

What I'd like to see in kicker is:
* Ability to have vertical separators between icons
* Kmenu button should automatically have this border on the right/left
* Ability to make drawers a la GNOME
* Did you ever notice that when you have kicker at less than 100% width, you can't activate the desktop menus even though the desktop wallpaper is displayed in the unused space. This is extremely unituitive.
* The ability to have a tasklist which doesn't have text in it, i.e. use the app's icon at whatever size kicker currently is at.
* We need separators in KMenus, too.

BTW Eugenia, I absolutely love having the run menu on the root Desktop menu. This is one of the reasons I choose KDE over its competitors (though WM has it, too). It is one of the most frequently used commands from the desktop menu and it makes no sense to shunt it off into a sub-menu. What would be nice is if everyone could customize the desktop menu to one's liking.

> I absolutely love having the run menu on the root Desktop menu

This wouldn't be necessary if the GUI was intuitive enough and if many system services were able to be easily carried out through the GUI. The "run command" menu under an add-ons menu makes more sense, and it would fit better there, if a whole bunch of that kind of utilities are there too.
Check BeOS's Tracker add-ons to see the kind of utils that people would be able to add on their add-ons dir!
http://www.bebits.com/browse/29

This is probably one of the best KDE reviews I have ever seen. I agree with everything in it.

kirby, there isn't much of anything that makes my blood pressure rise when it comes to talking about OS's because it is fun to talk about them. But, when someone spends quite a bit of time to write a feature article dealing with something that, I'm sure, the vast majority of us here are very interested in and then to have smug replies such as yours (with bad spelling to boot), that does get my pressure up a little bit.

To me, when it became obvious that Be was going nowhere, the idea of Linux for the desktop became the most exciting thing in computing. It is obvious that many other people feel that way - that's why we talk about it.

This situation is so different than the history of the major desktop OS's - with Apple and Microsoft, for example, they poured who knows what kind of resources into propping up OS's with weak underpinnings, until they finally had to totally move to something with a strong foundation. Here, we have a different situation - we have the underpinnings. We have the kernel, we have X. The foundation has already been laid and it is important to criticize, review, suggest and hash out how this can be made better. If you are bored by all of that, that's your right. But, if people had the attitude you do, we would, indeed, still be in the age of the wheel.

That title didn't meant for KDE. I use KDE most of the time on Linux, however I just want to mention again about EDE (Equinox Desktop Environment).

In my opinion this DE got the concept of user friendliness, responsive and fast. However the look is quite ugly. I think if KDE could address the issue of crowded menu items, slow responsiveness and long launching time (including application) it will become the best DE for Linux.

If they don't, other DE will catchup and I think EDE could do it soon. Want to know about latest EDE? Just go to http://ede.sourceforge.net

The article states that normal users should not be allowed to use the quick browser for the / directory. Why? This would be just plain annoying. If they are allowed to acces a directory, then they are allowed to access a directory. If they aren't, they still aren't. Try browsing to some directory you are locked out of, and you get Failed to read directory, which works.

I also disagree with the replacement for the menu tear-off option. The dotted option may be archaic looking, but what the article suggests as a replacement is not clear as a tear-off option. The only reason why I knew what it was is due to the direct comparison to the tear-off dots. Perhaps a jagged-edge to look like torn paper? Also, having it show up only at an OnMouseOver would mean that many people wouldn't even know it is there.

Finally, I disagree with this being posted as an actual usability assessment, as opposed to the personal opinions of someone who just happens to be a UI specialist. A proper usability assessment allows several "Joe User"s (to use the author's rather perjorative term) to attempt to perform tasks, and records reactions from them. With 50 -- 100 people attempting to perform tasks with a system, mostly (if not all) people who are unfamiliar with the product, one can make halfway-decent inferences.

Equinox Desktop Environment? I didn't know about this one. Anyway, that's not ugly, it looks similar to Windows 9x (the UI elements) and also to KDE (the icons on the desktop). I didn't know about this DE so thanks for mentioning it. I looked at the screen shots, it looks amazning! I am so excited, I want to try something new, I am gonna give this DE a try and hopefully I will keep it. Whenever I use KDE, I get sick of it, as I said, I agree with all the things pointed out in the article, and KDE always makes me go back to Windows.

http://www.equinox.szm.com/screenshots.html

Some interesting UI ideas, but I'm more interested in the OS integration issues mentioned:
Linus has *no* work to do about nVidia drivers - I have a nVidia card on one machine, and it's a PITA. Definitely not a Linus/Linux problem, though, just a p*ss-poor driver from a 3rd party. That's comparable to saying, "Windows sucks, it crashes whenever I plug in <some specific hw item>"... 3rd party driver problems are not an issue for the UI or OS teams. nVidia just need to catch up.
The other biggie mentioned is apt-get / rpm / etc... again, this is not KDE's problem to solve, for the next year or longer, this is *not* going to be solved. Sure, from the Linux<==>JoeUser point of view, it'd be nice, but getting political consensus from all the different distros (and their users - many of whom are well-paying customers, who are tied in to .deb, rpm, etc) is not something I would wish upon my worst enemy.
These "integration" issues sound more like "isn't it nice when everything's controlled from a single source (eg MS / Apple) ... the Linux desktop should be like that". Linux would not *exist* if it were like that ... as the author acknowledges, the development is mainly done by volunteers, who (like it or not) would revolt en-masse were a single entity (person/company/whatever) to start dictating how the kernel, UI, packaging, etc should function.
Linux *isn't* going to be like that.
The environment required for what the author asks, is: a single non-benevolent dictator who spends 90% of their time listening to usability experts, 9% on interaction with developers, and (let's be charitable) 1% left for actually keeping up with the technology.
The developers must then, in this environment, have some reason to reject superior technology in deference to the dictator and focus groups.
If an OS could be developed in this way (and maybe it could, who am I to say?), I would certainly not be interested in using for either desktops or servers.

> The article states that normal users should not be allowed to use the quick browser for the / directory.

Not via the desktop menu, no. Remember, this is a multiuser environment, and users should stay at Home (no matter if no one does at their home installations of Linux). The root user should be able to do user /.

> but what the article suggests as a replacement is not clear as a tear-off option

Tear off menus is not a great idea altogether for all the users (although useful at times), and therefore it should not be encouraged as much. My replacement was a 5-minute idea. Point is, it needs replacement with mine, yours, someone's elses... Thing is, it looks truly ugly as it is now.

> I disagree with this being posted as an actual usability assessment, as opposed to the personal opinions of someone who just happens to be a UI specialist.

I think you did not read the article. Please don't get me overboard, and I am in a pretty good mood today.
This IS my personal opinion! Read the first 3-4 paragraphs.

> A proper usability assessment allows several "Joe User"s

Yes, but I am only one. And if I count my husband, we are two. That's all I can offer for now. When we get children, I will make sure that I will publish a "usability assessment". Duh.

(wo)Man, It could've been me who wrote this article.. I'm feeling exactly the same way about it

I really hope the KDE developers and artists will use these comments to improve KDE!

I agree with everything you said about Kicker. To me, this is the most under-improved part of KDE 3 - it doesn't seem like anything has been improved on it recently. I also turn off the zooming.

What I would like to see most though is making editing the K menu (and the Kicker quick launch icons as you mention) a whole lot easier. Drag & drop/editing on the menu itself (like the Windows start menu) would be nice, for starters.

> Linus has *no* work to do about nVidia drivers - I have a nVidia card on one machine, and it's a PITA.

You misanderstood what I meant with the nVidia example:
1. Linux drivers are losing compatibility with each sub-version of the same version kernel, making binary/object drivers like nVidias to require either re-compilation for your kernel, or to download a version made specifically for the sub-version of your kernel. That is a big problem for the third parties and it should be solved in the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel SHOULD NOT lose binary compatibility with itself every 2 months. It is a big problem for the OEMs and the developers!
Read this Joen On Software on the topic as well:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html

Secondly, I will describe my personal problem with the issue:
I have Red Hat Linux here, and I have three kernels booting on and off. I am a developer too, so I get to test stuff and play with new stuff as well. So, we bought that nVidia GeForce2MX400 card to replace the onboard crappy SavagePRO+. Problem is:
1. I have to recompile the nvidia drivers THREE times, for my THREE kernels.
2. Problem is, I have upgraded to these kernels 1.5 months ago, and since then, surprise, I upgraded to GCC 3.1. Now, the nVidia driver REFUSES to compile itself, because it says that the kernel was compiled with a different compiler, so I will need to either downgrade my compiler to the same one I did the kernels (GCC 2.95.x), or recompile all my kernels with GCC 3.1, in order to retry compile the nvidia driver.

These my friend, are not nVidia's problems. Are Linux's, library hell, gcc etc etc etc. The whole damned system's on how it was created and maintained.

I know, I know, it's not what you asked for, but here's where you can find KDE 3 debs for debian unstable/sid:

http://calc.cx/kde.txt

I haven't tried it btw.

biggest problems in my opinion are:
1. stupid defaults
2. poor drivers
Although KDE is now very feature rich, graphics is still very flat.
OSX, Windows are IRIX could not be seriously compared to KDE or Gnome, until free alternatives will concentrate on basic graphics instead of new featues.

#kde3 beta sources
#deb http://kde3.geniussystems.net/debian ./
deb http://kde.debian.co.nz/debian ./
deb http://kde.ping.uio.no/i386 ./
#deb http://people.debian.org/~schepler kdegames/
deb http://people.debian.org/~bab/kde3 ./
#deb http://people.debian.org/~njordan kde3.0/

I definately like your suggestion for the rip off menus. It looks a lot better. I really liked the Mac's way of just holding down the mouse while mousing out of the menu to rip them off.
I also like the first screen shot where you have the big K and pencil and have the other icons small in Kicker. That should definately be the default look. Is that possible to arrange it that way in KDE2?
I like having the file type show up by right clicking on the file instead of having it under properties but I do think they should combine some things. They should combine the screensaver and configure desktop.
In talking about wording, I think the desktop menu should say "new folder" instead of "new directory".
I also wish they would have Kpm as an option when right clicking on Kicker. I use this constantly in windows and in KDE.

The two things I hate most are copy and paste and moving files!!!
If I copy something and then highlight something else, it should not have overwritten my copy. When I highlight and drag something, it should not copy it. It should move the highlighted text.
When I drag a file to another directory it should just move it, it shouldn't ask me if I want to copy it or move it. 90% of the time I just want to move it. I also wish they had spring loaded folders to make moving things even easier.
Also, find increase font and decrease font should not all have magnifying glasses for icons.
They should also redesign the control panel. They should combine the features of Mandrake's Control Center, KDE control center and linuxconf. In the KDE control center they should remove the Web Browsing portion and File browsing keeping them in Konquerer's preferences only.
Looking at new KDE 3.0 and 3.1 screenshots, KDE definately looks a lot nicer.

"These my friend, are not nVidia's problems. Are Linux's, library hell, gcc etc etc etc. The whole damned system's on how it was created and maintained."

Huh? I wanted to agree with you until I read this sentence. Now what have library hell and gcc to do with this issue? What do you expect when upgrading to a new gcc major release.
The only real problem I see here is the lack of a frozen driver API for (at least) stable Linux releases. Unfortunatly I don't think this will change anytime soon because Linus and Co constantly state that they don't plan to keep the API stable. This makes me wonder all the time because I don't get what's such a big deal in doing those API changes only for development drivers.
Almost everyone gets this right (even AtheOS), why not Linux. It would solve one major problem for Linux on the desktop. The only problem that really belongs to the kernel.

"If I copy something and then highlight something else, it should not have overwritten my copy."

This shouldn't happen anymore with Qt3 and never happened in Gtk. The way it should be is, when you copy something (with CTRL+C for example) it will be copied to one clipboard, if select something, it will copy to another clipboard. Middlemousebutton will always paste from your second clipboard and CTRL+V, menu, etc will always paste from your first clipboard. Try it.
Qt3 and Gtk both have excellent clipboard support.


"When I highlight and drag something, it should not copy it. It should move the highlighted text."

Good point, that's also how it works in Gtk2 (it will be moved). Maybe this would be a good suggestion for KDE's bug tracking system.

My favorite KDE snafu is under the "System Notifications" section of the Sound kontrol center section. If you look at the available notification settings, you will see that there are 8 different sounds that you can apply to the virtual desktops, while you can have 16 virtual desktops... someone needs to run kalc and do some math ;-)

Good article.. I agree with everything except the preview being on the left in the file open / save dialog box.

Have a great day!

To me the best solution would be for kde to have a package installer that does the ./configure; make; checkinstall; (replace checkinstall with something for your distro's package system) for the user. The user would not have to see the details. The distro's pakage manager would have to help with dependancies, but it would solve a bunch of problems. A single package could work across many distros since most of the director/library version/compiler differences problems would be avoided. Options could be easily set from the gui and passed to configure.

The problems I can see with this are: speed, and having to write plugins to make it work with all the native package systems. Speed is not a big problem in my mind, since if binary releases should work fine within this system if they are needed. For distro support I think if something the size of kde puts its weight behind something like this I believe the distros will do their part.

I could see this working well for nvidia's driver at least. One package for all ditros, download, click on it, hit next a few times and you have installed a driver that works with your kernel.

There is a project called DirectFB (www.directfb.org) that basically replaces X. If a lot more attention was placed into getting DirectFB out there faster as an X replacement, it will be one step in the right direction.

The lack of hardware support is the real hassle at the moment. If we tackle DirectFB with the hardware manufactures (ATi, nVidia, Matrox, etc) it will improve a lot faster than what it is now.

On the software side, the Gnome guys are porting the Gnome/GTK framework to DirectFB. No word on KDE though. Maybe it would be a good idea to start on a unified desktop for running under DirectFB. Are the KDE and Gnome developers reading this!!!

I hope this spurs some conversation. Because it could be Linux's saving grace.

Nonono, something like this doesn't work. The trouble of compiling something isn't typing "./configure; make; make install", it's figuring out why it doesn't work.
For example to make the NVidia example work with your kernel, you need the kernel headers installed and you need to compile the module against your installed kernel (so binary packages of kernels aren't sufficient anymore). Gentoo has this solved quite nicely, because you compile your kernel anyway, they can also compile the NVidia kernel module "on the fly", so you just have to type "emerge nvidia-kernel". But not everyone wants to (and shouldn't have to) compile his/her own kernel.
But maybe it could work if binary releases of drivers would be delivered together with those headers and what else is neccesasry to compile a compatible kernel module. Than a system like portage could compile the kernel module.
Hm. That's why I think that a portage-like system could solve a lot of Linux problems because Linux is much more friendly to source compilations than binary installations IMO.

That's one of the most annoying things I find in KDE, the abuse of icons like no other desktop UI does. So many icons get in my way, in KDE icons are like gremlins, it's an invasion.

Eugenia, I like more your Desktop Context Menu than the default KDE one, I'd like it even more if I was given the option (like in GNOME) of disabling any icons in context menus.

In sort, more or less, I'd like to have the KDE3 functionality within GNOME2 desing.

Design is the worst part of KDE, it needs a completely new, clean and polished interface, preserving all the fucntionality achieved with KDE3. I don't expect that change from the KDE team, that would be asking too much having in mind they do it just for fun, or so they say. But I sincerely hope the change is brought from companies who put their money at risk like the coming Xandros Linux. As a matter of fact, I wished KDE would stop being mainly a hobby project and companies like Xandros and United Linux take on.

Windows95 looks better than KDE3, and that sucks. It isn't about eye candy, it's about interface desing. The KDE team has made a great achievement taking the GUI to do what it does given the lack of economical resources. Now it needs a modern interface, a clean one. Themes are something else.

I think this newer version of KDE is looking better than the last 3.x version. The bottom bar seems a lot less cluttered. It looks a bit more interesting. Personally, I find KDE too slow on my computer. I much prefer a window manager only like WindowMaker or Enlightenment.

Hmmm. DirectFB looks interesting. What about Xi Graphic's accelerated X servers? Are they also a good extension to X, I've never tried it before.

As to replacing X altogether, well thats a novel idea but the purpose of X was to make and extensible GUI for all system architectures running Linux and Unix. Seeing as it was made in the 80's, I think its still doing a great job. If you scratch it entirely now, you'd either need backwords compatibility or new apps altogether which is a coding nightmae.

I love the article but it has one flaw. The suggestion to remove X because no one needs its features. To be a successful replacement any new system should have the exact same capabilities as the old one before adding new ones. Right now only administrators use X log on because only they usually have multiple machines to work with running Linux. Even when home users have several computers it's usually one Linux one windows etc. Lets say in the future Linux starts getting a 30% market share on the desktop wouldn't it be nice to use your old 800 MHz computer X logged int to a brand new 3000? MHz computer and have two amazingly fast computers. That is one of the strongest and most beautiful points of Linux, Nothing gets wasted. Don't advocate throwing away some of the features that make Linux so great just for short term gain.

Last I checked DirectFB was mainly for embedded devices. I know that Gtk2 runs on DirectFB, but Gnome? Where did you hear that? I don't believe that this is true until I have proof.
What could be interesting though is XDirectFB, that's basically X but runs on DirectFB. The advantages are that it starts up MUCH faster, doesn't have this ugly "X" background, features alpha blending (you can make inactive windows fade into transparency for example) and features hardware accelleration. It's very premature yet though and crashes for me everytime I load a Gtk2 application. :/ TWM, Mozilla, etc work fine though (didn't try KDE3). I also couldn't get my framebuffer to run at 1600x1200 yet...

> I love the article but it has one flaw. The suggestion to remove X because no one needs its features.

Ermm... the article does not say anything about removing X. What are you talking about?

> Yes, you can login remotely to X. I know, I know...
> That's what all the die-hards chant whenever this debate
> comes up. But how often have any of us done this

I use this very frequently. (To fix other peoples' computers, to test code on specialized machines, to access the computer lab from home)

However, I don't think that remote login and network transparency should be stumbling blocks for an X replacement. Looking at things like VNC (and TightVNC, an enhanced version, available at http://www.tightvnc.org), these use an RFB protocol (Remote Frame Buffer), which seems much more flexible. Clients and servers are available for a multitude of platforms.

I use it on both Linux and Windows. I can even remotely view hardware accelerated DirectX applications, because it's occurring on the frame buffer's level. (The only thing I've found to not work are overlays)

This technology eliminates the need for X's networking features. At this point, I see backwards compatibility as the primary problem facing an X replacement.

> But there are hacks that deviate that bring transparency to X.

What are the hacks and where are they available?

Now I'm getting a little bit excited over here. It seems that they are serious about it. When I understood this correctly (from a mail from their mailinglist), the plan is to provide multi application support for DirectFB and then allow one process to be the XDirectFB server to load "legacy" applications. This really sounds like a great plan and the fact that they are rarely talking about it and much more coding makes me believe that they could actually reach this goal.
Another thing I just learned was, how the framebuffer actually works. The drivers are all compiled in and at boottime, it detects your card and loads the appropriate drivers (or VESA if nothing else fits).
Woooooooooo.
http://www.directfb.org/screenshots/XDirectFB-MultiApp.png
*drool*

Also, find increase font and decrease font should not all have magnifying glasses for icons.

Goodness yes. Magnify means look at something that isn't changing sizes in the real world. Changing font size is about changing the physical size of it - zoom is a separate issue.

In some windows applications that I have seen they have a speed blur of a growing capital 'A' with an arrow pointing up and right. The shrink involves a speed blur with an arrow leading down and left.

That's the kind of thing that deserves an animated icon.

I think OSnews should use slascode (or simmilar) no for the moderation thing, but for the sake of threaded coments.
PS. I posted once but don't know what happened to my post.

I think Eugenia's article really showed how much can be pared away off of KDE to get to the most intuitive form it can be. LOL, there's a whole lot that can be pared away. For Joe User, the Lycoris Control Center is the best thing I've seen yet - and I don't mean because it looks like XP, but because it is easy to use and friendly looking. You know, I wonder if it can ever be that an OS will have a system folder UI like Mac OS 9? I'm not talking about operating systems, but strictly UI. Even mid-level users of OS 9 have no fear of going into the System Folder after learning a few tricks. They know to go into the Control Panel Folder, the Extensions Folder and look for culprits there, know that a Preference, like the Finder Preferences might be corrupted and know to trash it and re-start. Just drag fonts to the System Folder to install them and it goes on and on. People can argue operating systems, of course, but I really do wonder if we'll ever see anything that easy again.

There are few mentioning about disposing X. I totaly disagree with that since currently there are no viable alternative to it. Yeaaah, there are few project like PicoGUI, Microwindows, Berlin, OpenGUI, QtEmbedded, DirectFB etc but none of it reach a usable state for Joe user.

I've tried those and agree they are fast (especially PicoGUI and Microwindows) but lack of function except Qt Embedded give that more function but far behind compare to Xwindows. Xwindows also got other advance function that not availabe on others including Window$.

If any of you think X is the cause of the slow response, you better try EDE. No other DE in Linux world that very responsive and start faster (for me it start less that 1 second from the KDM login) whereas KDE itself spend more than 5 second. Is it really Xwindows fault or others?

I wholeheartedly agree with Eugenia - except for the "automatic disappearance" idea. IMHO there should be one basic rule of most basic rules: don't outguess the user. Transparency is needed at every level. Unauthorized changes are one of the main reason Windows and other MS stuff irk me so much.

The HELP item may be unimportant for many users, but chances are those who start using KDE don't use help for that first month you mentioned, Eugenia, and right in the second month they would like to take a peek at it - and it's gone.

To be sure - I'm not a friend of those "Are you sure ... ?" etc. requesters either that Windows bombards you with perpetually. Changes the user initiated do not need confirmation unless something vital is going to be affected. BeOS's Tracker may be a good example again for how to handle that.

Qt Embedded works on FB and some KDE applications can already run without X (like Konqueror/Embedded and Korganizer/Embedded)

I love the authors constructive crtizism of KDE and as a GNOME user I would love to see a review of GNOME2 - bearing in mind that some bugs hinder usibility.

When I highlight and drag something, it should not copy it. It should move the highlighted text.

I hate this with a passion. It it FAR too easy to bork up a document (or worse, code) with an accidental drag and not even notice it until later.


When I drag a file to another directory it should just move it, it shouldn't ask me if I want to copy it or move it. 90% of the time I just want to move it.

When I drag a file, regardless of the file manager I am using, I always right-click-drag to ensure that it asks if I want to move or copy.

I also wish they had spring loaded folders to make moving things even easier.

But I do agree with this

The reason I do not like KDE3.0 is because it is too configurable; this results in there being too many possible permutations to be tested.

I can understand why the KDE developers did this; they are UNIX users who enjoy the fact that X can be customized for every user's taste. This result in having an option like allowing applications to either have graphical or text icons. Unfrotunatly, the person who wrote the game "Konquest" failed to test their application with text icons. As a result of this, "Konquest" has some of the window hidden when run with text icons.

Another option that KDE3 has which has not been well tested is the ability to remove the desktop icons. When this is done, and one changes the desktop wallpaper, one still sees the old wallpaper until one hides and reshows the portion of the wallpaper in question, usually by opening and closing an application with a large window.

Another bug is that active desktop borders are buggy; when first turned on, it can be difficiult to use the active desktop border underneath the kicker.

I also have had issues with how Kwin allows non-KDE applications to open up windows which are partially hidden by the kicker; in fact, I wrote a patch which resolves this issue [1] with my particular setup.

KDE is a very impressive piece of work. I find it very attractive, and deeply appreciate all of the hard work the developers have done on KDE. I hope, if a KDE developer reads this, that they do not mistake my comments as personal insults.

When people make applications for end users, it is important to listen to the UI guidelines that UI experts have. Someone who knows C (like myself) is usually not a UI expert (like Eugenia).

- Sam (http://www.samiam.org)

[1] http://www.samiam.org/screenshots/kde3/kdebase-3.0-kwin.patch

Concering usability of X11 for remote use: yes, right now it's mostly for sysadmins. But even a feature only for sysadmins can be useful... beside that, all that's lacking currently is the right frontend for end-users. There will be one in KDE, but in KDE 3.2 or later.

Attempts have been made, but they all remain half-baked. Wishing for a replacement is easy, but writing one, and actually getting it to the point where it is useable, (and able to support existing X apps), is an incredible amount of work. I was hoping that KDE would actually create that replacement eventually, but judging from past interviews, that possiblity would seem to be remote.

I don't think being usable means running X applications. What is the use of bring inconsitency into the GUI again? It is not like there is such important applications Joe Users use that aren't available else where. Running X applications shouldn't at all be a goal, you would be just another extended X implementation (remember Metro? The offered some really cool stuff but nobody wrote for it).

And the only way for these "half baked" graphics servers are GNOME and KDE supporting it. By porting their desktops there, making their apps consistent and so on would do great for it.

Turn on autohide if KDE is capable of doing it. Then you'll be taking up NO space for the taskbar, but when you need it, it pops back up with all the room you need and then goes away

Defaults remember? Eugenia made a point that not much people changes the defaults.

There is no reason that a system like Mac OS X couldn't be implemented on top of X11. You could implement Display PostScript (like with GNUstep) or Display PDD (OS X's quartz) on top of X11.

Actually, no. Mac OS X's Aqua couldn't have possibly be implemented on X. Firstly, Quartz is a vector windowing system, as oppose to X's raster self (though a lot of raster-based stuff like the icons are there). Secondly, a lot of features OS X had implemented couldn't had possibly worked on X11's plain vanilla specifications, for example Unicode (X11r6 doesn't support it) or true alpha blending (X only recently got it with copying the background of the object and blending it in, quite slow).

Organizing a big push to get all the major distrobution organizations to start using a non-standard X server would be a lot easier (and more practical for all involved parties) than would to have it Berlin (or something akin to it) replace X11.

Believe it or not, Fresco/Berlin is not here to replace X11. Heck, before 1998, Berlin was written in assembler, and Fresco for a X11 toolkit. Fresco differs a lot from X11, like it is being a pure vector window system, as oppose to being a raster system. Sounds good? Not really, with current hardware technology, it is slower.

We have to understand that Unix isn't just _one_ desktop environment (and now please don't respond with an upset "that's why Unix will never make it to the desktop") but many. Just like we have Windows, Mac OS and Amiga OS, we have KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc.

Notice on Windows, you could switch the entire desktop to say, LiteStep or Object Desktop, and all applications that properly supports the Windows UI instead of cloning it in their applications can blend in. What Eugenia wants is that to happen on Linux.

Even Microsoft isn't consistent in its interfaces: look at the difference in menus, toolbars, dialog boxes, etc. between Win95, Win98, Win2k, WinXP, Office 97, Office 2k, Office XP, etc. That's not counting other applications...

That is one of the problems of Office, it doesn't use Windows' UI.

Personally I think the KDE interface is horrendous.

Counter-flame: It is, but I think GNOME's is worse.
(Haha, I just use KDE cause it is the one that suites me best. I like Window Maker's look best).

The article states that normal users should not be allowed to use the quick browser for the / directory. Why? This would be just plain annoying. If they are allowed to acces a directory, then they are allowed to access a directory. If they aren't, they still aren't. Try browsing to some directory you are locked out of, and you get Failed to read directory, which works.

For normal Joe User (why Joe? Who's Joe anyway?), i don't think / is a good thing to show. Sure, for geeks like us, it is hell if we were blocked from it, but from them, they would wonder what the heck is /usr or /dev (never go there on a Mandrake machine with nautilus 2..)

Linus has *no* work to do about nVidia drivers - I have a nVidia card on one machine, and it's a PITA. Definitely not a Linus/Linux problem, though, just a p*ss-poor driver from a 3rd party. That's comparable to saying, "Windows sucks, it crashes whenever I plug in <some specific hw item>"... 3rd party driver problems are not an issue for the UI or OS teams. nVidia just need to catch up.

No, the problem is with the Linux kernel. It breaks binary compatible so often. NVIDIA has an policy of non-open source drivers, which makes it hard for users of newer kernel to use NVIDIA cards.

On the software side, the Gnome guys are porting the Gnome/GTK framework to DirectFB. No word on KDE though. Maybe it would be a good idea to start on a unified desktop for running under DirectFB. Are the KDE and Gnome developers reading this!!!

KDE would be ported there as soon as there is a stable Qt implementation there, under a free Software license. And until now, there isn't such a thing. Or perhaps a toolkit better than Qt that does C++ the way Qt does and makes porting easier from Qt to that.

...companies like Xandros and United Linux take on.

The last I checked, UL is for the enterprise... I see no need for KDE there...

Your suggestion are quite good, but since as you say gnome2 is what you feel need more improvement, please make an suggestion article for it too ^^

Great article on the UI, but I disagree with the proposed approach to integration:

You can't and shouldn't just use DrakConf, Yast2, or apt-get, or portage. These are just tools for four distros, tools incompatible between them! There are more than 10 important distributions today! What about these rest of distros? There has to be found a unified way, a way that works universally to all these distros, a way endorsed via the desktop environment.

Reader comments:
To me the best solution would be for kde to have a package installer that does the ./configure; make; checkinstall; (replace checkinstall with something for your distro's package system) for the user. The user would not have to see the details

The trouble of compiling something isn't typing "./configure; make; make install", it's figuring out why it doesn't work.

1. Ordinary users will install and remove software as packages. What they need is a good GUI tool for managing packages. rpmdrake and kpackage are good; possibly some users would benefit from a system where they can opt not to see most of the huge number of packages on the system, unless they cause a dependency problem, for example.

2. Ordinary users should NEVER, EVER, EVER, need to build software using ./configure, make, make install: at worst, they should build from a source package, via the GUI front end to the package manager. The most common reasons why ordinary users need to build from source tarballs are:
(a) the software is only provided in that format;
(b) the software is provided as an RPM, but the dependency mechanism does not work because different distributions use different names for the same packages.

We need to tackle these two problems, not try to create a workaround so that non-technical users can attempt to build software, without even knowing whether the correct libraries are present, or what to do if there is an error.

This articles points are well taken, and many of them I agree with. As someone who has worked on KDE usability, via mailing lists, it rather frustrating to read yet another laundry list of criticisms (however well reasoned) of KDE without many answers on how to fix them and how to recruit someone to get the fixes made. KDE has a forum for this kind of work: kde-usability at kde.org. Please consider joining this list. Otherwise your points will remain academic until someone decides to do something about them.
You probably see pretty quickly on the list that a) things are kicked around for a while, as not everyone agrees, and b) it's usually up to the person with the idea to recruit a developer (or code their idea themselves).

Cheers,

Eric