OSNews

I dunno

it looks simplfied, but then does that also mean that a lot of functionality has gone ?

I use kde after switching from gnome.

gnome was too basic for me. I like checkboxes, radio buttons, menu items that I havent got a clue what they do....

a cut down kde might be what I am looking for..
I will give it a go

I wouldn't say that, having looked at the dialogs they still bear a striking resemblence to their regular KDE ones with few exceptions. They do appear simpler, some have had features taken out while others were broken up into several simpler dialogs, but by no means is that "taking ideas from Gnome".

Simplicity has existed long before Gnome, desktop environments besides Gnome have been going for simpler approaches longer than Gnome has. Frankly I'm sorry but I feel that your comment is astro-turfing. I feel that it is about as appropriate as going into a Windows thread and telling everyone there who likes windows that their OS was copied off Mac OS (everyone knows Xerox was making GUIs before Microsoft or Apple). I feel very much the same: that Gnome users take credit for KDE every time a dialog is made simpler. We all know that other desktop environments and operating systems have done this long before Gnome.

Looks like KDE trying to look like Gnome (and failing).

I still find it very much "KDEish" and almost as distracting.

I cannot really put my finger on it: KDE just looks bad to me (gnomer, if you had any doubt).

I don't know... maybe the same desktop with a less flashy and ugly theme could bear a different impression?
Could someone please make a screenshot of SimpleKDE with a clearlooks style theme and gPerfection or Tango icon theme?

I don't think the devil lies in the theme, but in the details.

Just an example: On screenshot5, there are only four checkboxes, but both a notebook _and_ a completely redundant frame around them. Add to this a row of buttons which are unevenly spaced (with the most important one being the smallest target) and it's no wonder the dialog doesn't appear particularly elegant. With better wording of the options, all the bevels could be removed. With instant apply, almost all the buttons could be removed. Compare and contrast:
http://static.flickr.com/44/107290151_36a45ea655_o.png

The other screenshots show more cases of unecessary frames and bevels, bad or technical wording and inconsistent (or nonexistant) paddings. Many of it seems to be caused by simply taking away options from KDE dialogs without actually redesigning the dialog.

It's those kind of details that make the difference between an attractive and an irritating interface to me. Much more than any kind of theme.

I don't think the devil lies in the theme, but in the details.

Just an example: On screenshot5, there are only four checkboxes, but both a notebook _and_ a completely redundant frame around them. Add to this a row of buttons which are unevenly spaced (with the most important one being the smallest target) and it's no wonder the dialog doesn't appear particularly elegant.

With better wording of the options, all the bevels could be removed. With instant apply, almost all the buttons could be removed. Compare and contrast:
http://static.flickr.com/44/107290151_36a45ea655_o.png


Hmmm...

Actually, for the puny functionality that your Gnome clock offers, even GNOME's clock dialog is too bloated.

- The Gnome clock is so simple, why whould you need the "help" button?
- That "UTC" option is also very confusing and can, also, go.
- The system's locale should dictate if the clock is "24" or "12" hour cycle.
- Besides, why does Gnome need 2 "Close" buttons on its clock settings dialog?

Demn! Compared to what it provides, Gnome's dialogs are soo bloated!

:)

You got that wrong, I was talking about the visual appearance. It was a good example because the GNOME dialog has the same number of options on it, while appearing a heck of a lot cleaner thanks to no unnecessary bevels, etc. I don't think I said anything about bloat.

Nahhh, I got your drift. You are one of those who complains about the "stock" KDE look. The fact is, there is no "stock" look when it comes to the distros. You don't see the forest behind the trees.

Complaining about KDE's look is like complaining about a 18-year-old girl's looks based on how she looked in infancy.

KDE is a platform, not a product It is designed
to be shaped.

Besides, changing the look is about 10 minutes of work. Observe:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28965182@N00/107512212/

I looked at your screenshot: it's still KDE to me. Very much kdeish

Four buttons and half of the window completely blank?

And how do you choose between 24 and 12 hour display? The Locale here is secondary: this is a control on the *presentation* of the hour on screen. People in the en_US locale could well prefere the 24h display, coudn't they?

Better, but not good. :-)

Please relax. I'm not complaining about anything really, just describing why those particular screenshots don't look clean to me and why it's not about the theme but the layout.

Yes, they have taken from GNOME that apparenly, simplicity is defined by the amount of features that your application doesn't have.
And SimpleKDE did a very bad job here too. For example, why would any newbie want to use the "New Tab" menu entry when browsing files? Exactly this is the most confusing thing about Konqueror, I think, namely that it doesn't really know the difference between viewing HTML pages and browsing directories.
For all the other things, it is just nonsense. Most users won't configure anything at all, even on Windows or OS X. Maybe they'll change the background picture, but that's about it for the more casual user.
So the only thing that is practical to do, is to clean up the default interface a bit.
For example, one could remove the pager, in the default configuration files. There really is no need to remove it entirely from the codebase!
And for the simplifications in Konqueror: I bet those are also possible with just removing some buttons from the default config and using Kiosk.

EDIT: From their FAQ: "But it seems like Appeal and SimpleKDE do not share the same vision. Appeal might be a focus on usability for KDE, but this does not mean improving usability and performance by dropping some features." Why on earth can your ultimate goal be to remove useful features from an application!?

Edited 2006-03-03 09:35

The makers of Finder and spatial Nautilus seem to think so i guess.

Unlikely. Spatial nautilus was added because the developers found it more productive and faster to use; I know I do. Obviously this all depends on opinion--you can throw as many studies you want at it, but it's not going to change people's preferences. Anyway, my point was, don't knock people who have different preferences than your own.

I guess browsing through file trees is too complex for newbies? The makers of Finder and spatial Nautilus seem to think so i guess.

Actually, the Finder List view is a combination of the traditional list view and a directory tree. You can see a list of folders and files, and you can expand the folders inline in the same window. It is like an outline view, you can have several folders expanded at the same time, showing their contents.
The is also a column view mode, inherited from NeXTStep. See examples here:

http://www.ucs.ed.ac.uk/usd/cts/ol/os/mac_osx/Panther/finder/finder...

http://msk.nestor.minsk.by/kg/2005/23/kg52301.html

"I don't care if something is easy to use, so long as I can learn how to use it quicky and it's worth the time."

Well, that's exactly what ease of use is all about. Usability is defined by five quality components, where the two most important are:

* Learnability - exactly what you were talking about

* Efficiency - after learning it, it should be efficient to use

The other three components are:

* Memorability - when you return to it after a period of not using it, how easily can you reestablish proficiency?

* Errors - How many errors do users make, how severe are these errors, and how easily can they recover from the errors...

Satisfaction - How pleasant is it to use the design? Usually, an attractive, simple user interface is more pleasant to use than a cluttered, bloated one.

I think you are missing a major component there: expressability.

* Expressability: once you learn how to use an interface how easy is it to do what you want? Can you create new bindings to wrap 5 clicks into one shortcut? Do you need to constantly between tools?

This is where KDE shines, everything is nicely integrated so that everything is at your finger tips. It's like one giant app. I hate having a million speciality apps where I do everything. Konqueror is clearly the best examples as it is a file manager, ftp client, and web browser. If anything I'd want KDE to integrate everything more.

To be honest, this looks terrible. I don't mind the simplification part, but don't call it "easier to use." Now don't get me wrong, simplification can help, but only if done carefully; if you go around ripping everything out, it's likely you'll end up with angry users rather than happy ones. Besides, simply designing the thing better in the first place almost always eliminates the need to gut everything, which is really what KDE, not some feature-less version that nobody will use.

Actualy, it looks perfect. Talking as non-KDE user.

And it was the first KDE release where I had to admit to my self I have to "put up and shut up". Can't bitch about KControl being bloathed, can't bitch about having zillion distracting toolbars and menus, can't bitch about menu.

It is a first KDE in a long time, where I WANT to test KDE for curriosity and my likings instead of just what's new in this release and go back to my preffered desktop.

And even more honest to god, if KDE would go this way trough history, I've never would've left to other DE.

In any event, I don't believe "ease of use" is really a good goal in the first place. I don't care if something is easy to use, so long as I can learn how to use it quicky and it's worth the time. Rather than concentrating on ease of use, I'd rather they concentrate on productivity such that I can get things done faster with less work (most of the time improving usability).

You might not be, agreed. But there are two kinds of people that are interested in that.
1. Users without experience and knowledge in computers (and this is the most of the new users)
2. People without time. I don't have time to feedle with my DE. /*speaking personaly*/ For me, perfect desktop has to
- just work
- present only what is needed (sometimes even that is too much), and if there is an option to turn them on even better for users like you (but it is preffereable for this option to not reside in the same software. Group_1 would be confused with too many options)
- be simple

Exactly. The problem is that people in general can't tell the difference between these 2 concepts.

Suse and Ubuntu are just too heavy for my lower end servers, but a Kubuntu with KDE-Lite would be a nice little flavor I think.

Actually not, the lite part of KDE-Lite are close to all in the GUI. The stuff removed outside the GUI does at best give minimal reduction if any in the resource usage, since KDEs modular nature already makes it a non issue. I think you are better off with a plain KDE on top of something with a lighter infrastructure, than that of Suse or Ubuntu. Something like SlackWare or a stripped down Gentoo.

Edited 2006-03-03 01:26

Suse and Ubuntu are just too heavy for my lower end servers, but a Kubuntu with KDE-Lite would be a nice little flavor I think.

May I suggest to not use a GUI at all on your lower end servers?

i think you can sort of do this on Ubuntu by just installing kde-base package and than installing the kde stuff you want afterwards. just a thought. I'm doing it right now.

This is an article about an desktop environment for linux/*nux, so how does this not really fit? I don't see a joke here, I just see an article about a KDE variant

I wouldn't mind a tiered KDE, offering beginner/intermediate/expert interface templates (all configurable, of course)

This has been discussed more than once. The problem is that those levels are hard to communicate, i.e. the user has no or very few information about what he'll loose or gain on each level, thus resulting in a bad choice.

Choosing a level too low will make it look incomplete, choosing to high has no advantage over the current situation.

Moreover support gets trickier, as changing something might involve temporarily switching complexity levels, etc.

The conclusion is more or less that since KDE is easily tailorable without changing much or any code, it can be done "closer" to the target user, e.g. at distribution or administration level.

Some distributors that target user who likely prefer less complexity do this, e.g. Kubuntu, Xandros, Linspire

is the option to spedify what parts of KDE get installed in the different modules.

That is really a packaging issue. Debian an derivatives have this fine granularity allowing you to cherry pick single applications to your liking.

However, if the ports compile using the standard KDE build system, it could be possible to deselect some packages by setting DO_NOT_COMPILE to "kate kaboodle"

This is up to your distribution how they want to distribute packages. Debian have had separate packages for KDE for years and I have heard Gentoo has them nowadays, too.

No it's not.

There's only so many things you can do with a UI.

Besides, KDE has been around longer than XP has.

KDE 1 (and 2) was a clone of Windows 95's UI.

No it wasn't. I used to use KDE 1 and it was not like Win 95 at all, if anything it was more pre-OSX Mac like (something it has in common with the current GNOME). Yes KDE 2 became more Win 95 like.

No it wasn't. I used to use KDE 1 and it was not like Win 95 at all, if anything it was more pre-OSX Mac like (something it has in common with the current GNOME). Yes KDE 2 became more Win 95 like.

Aww come on. They even had the same message boxes with the 4 different kinds of icons on the left.

Quicklaunch, Start Menu, Taskbar, etc... Only, KDE had those named differently.

"yes, i'd much rather see people work on tidying up interfaces in mainline KDE than wasting time butchering the code base in incompatible ways."

Then Aaron Siego needs to read up on SimpleKDE instead of making assumptions. The SimpleKDE website clearly states they are 100% compatible with ordinary KDE, so what's the problem?

"Then Aaron Siego needs to read up on SimpleKDE instead of making assumptions."

No, I'd say he needs to keep working on KDE 4 That's only 1/2 in jest, he's been spending a lot of time promoting KDE, and I'd rather see Trolltech chain him to chair in front of his development system. MMMM... shiny GUI goodness...

> Then Aaron Siego needs to read up on SimpleKDE
> instead of making assumptions.

the irony here is that you are making assumptions about me making assumptions .... and getting them wrong! good job Thom! =P

> The SimpleKDE website clearly states they are 100%
> compatible with ordinary KDE

and i'm the king of nepal.

just because someone makes a statement doesn't make it true. the truth here is that they are not API compatible with KDE (KDE v3.4.x to "SimpleKDE" based on 3.4.x), and that's what matters. so applications written "for KDE" v3.4 may not work with SimpleKDE.

so given the most basic meaning of the word "compatible", they are not. they are also not compatible in other (functional) ways, and that's another matter.

Ok, the've "cleaned" the Konqueror toolbar. Only they removed the most usefull buttons: zoom in and zoom out.

I sorta agree, that the project is hopeless. They seem to be trying to make KDE "more familiar" than "simpler"

Copying the XP tool bar (and to the same extent the FireFox) when it comes to "zoom" buttons is too atrocious. The "back" and "zoom in" buttons are the only two my 70-year-old in-laws use on the browser.

Plus, it's not like the Gnome/Garnome issue, when the constructive crew was driven away by the mother. We (KDE ppl) would rather prefer this to be pushed internally. Really stupid approach.

No, it is not a good idea to make a fork instead of cleaning up the original KDE. And there is plenty of stupid clean-ups like this clock thing, no pager, no ability to make and use your own color themes, no simple change-all-fonts-at-once changer, style kcms preview has been moved above the settings which is not a good idea and vertical-aligned buttons on logout screen.

I like to have KDE cleaned up too, but this is not the way it should be done. And as Aseigo pointed out forking in this case is simply stupid. Just my 0.02c.

No, it is not a good idea to make a fork instead of cleaning up the original KDE.

I never said it was a good idea to fork, I said that SimpleKDE was a good idea. Cleaning up the UI in other words.

I think its more about "Productivity" rather than who copied who. Let's face it - nobody in business was ever fired for buying Mircosoft. So until the fundamentals of "How much can I achieve in the minimum amount of time" has been addressed, then IT Purchasers and Project Managers wont be so quick to adopt Linux - regardless of which DE it is rolled out with.

We can all use the shell, we as Linux sysadmins, developpers, etc are perfectly happy with that environment and have nothing to prove. Its the other 90% we need to focus our attnetion on, and that's the Operators, Input Clerks, etc, etc who are SOLELY interested in "What do I do to make this work"

In response to your "flame:" The problem that KDE, Gnome, and almost any other DE faces is the fact that the GUI principles have been laid down for ages now. The same buttons, menu styles, layout, etc. that you referred to are what people expect.

To ask them to transition not only away from an operating system they have experience with (Windows XP, OSX, etc.) to Linux, and then throw in a DE with a completely different conceptual design (Looking glass? I dunno...what open source DE actually does try and be different? Enlightenment?) would throw a user into melt-down.

Thats mainly why you don't see the massive advancements, though I for one would love for them to happen. The interface paradigims that are currently used aren't anywhere near perfect. Time will tell I suppose.

So this isn't entirely off topic, I applaud the SimpleKDE efforts to reduce KDE's clutter however, I think they're going about it the wrong way. Forking with incompatible code is somewhat counter-productive. They'd be better off working with the devs on KDE4. That said, it is OSS, and they're allowed to do whatever they want

Kde #1 desktop manager: backup your claims with data.

And you can't, 'cause there is NO data.

Besides, all the huge installs of desktop linux in the past have been Gnome ones (extremadura, macedonian, etc).

SuSE does not have a default desktop: since ver. 8 SuSE has had kde and gnome as equals. Mandriva, yes. The others you mention are largely marginal.

Don't use windows as an example: people do not use windows because it's easy, they use windows because they have and know nothing else. And let me say: people DO NOT KNOW how to use windows, either.
(I mean common people, not geeks: I've done my share of tech support, an I know what I'm talking about. The "common user" barely know about cut and paste, let alone configuring windows)

HOW MUCH MEMORY DOES SIMPLEKDE EATS??????????

/bin/english: unable to parse