The latest beta of KDE's 3.2, beta 2, was released a few days ago. I installed the provided Fedora RPMs and had a look in this early pre-release version of the popular X11 desktop environment. Six screenshots are included. We look at both the strengths and the weaknesses of the DE.
Post a Comment
main menu itself it just has way too many options
As the old saying: Every coin has two sides
It's interesting how a few years ago KDE and Gnome were like night and day, but now they seem to be moving toward each other on a lot of issues, particularly pertaining to usability and general look & feel. I am not sure whether this is a good or bad thing, but we'll surely find out soon.
You make some good points about KDE in general. I think the points you raised about things being "cluttered" is what turned me off to KDE a long time ago. It seems the KDE philosophy is lots of icons, lots of toolbars, lots of menus, lots and lots of GUI. Gnome, on the other hand, was sort of minimalistic, especially in 1.x. I liked Gnome better for that.
Now Gnome has more menus and more icons and more toolbars, but still not quite as many as KDE. I think both DEs could take some hints from Apple's sense of usability here. Oftentimes in UI design, less is more, way more. A toolbar (like the ones in MS' Office XP and Kspread both) with hundreds of buttons loses its purpose because it is too difficult to find any one icon when you need it. A toolbar with few icons (think Apple Keynote) with the truly most-accessed features gets much more use and increases productivity. More specific features should just be within file menus as at least there categorization breaks down the search for a function.
But I do like the progress being made... that's for sure.
Konqueror always has allowed you to use tabs in file or web mode since shortly after 3.0
No. The menu is just wrong. The "Most Used Applications" should come after "Actions", and then "All Applications" (and the number of menu items under "All Applications" should not exceed seven, imho). I'm sure that this could be done by which ever distribution, but it would be so much better if KDE shipped with usable defaults.
IMHO, GUI usability is simply THE most important and most overlooked aspect in GUI software today.
--ralpht
1. Konq. has an ugly button (Return key) to the RHS of the URL bar. IMO it should't look like that. It looks out-of-place to me.
2. This is definitely the best looking KDE I have seen. Great job!
3. Menu clutter.....why not have a global option somewhere that gives the user "basic user" or "power user" settings. This could be chosen as part of the first start-up wizard. The basic version could be like Mac OS X while the detailed gives the power user all the extra options. Presently KDE looks just too messy although I like having access to all the options.
Despite the nit picking it sounds like a 9 out of 10 to me. I've always looked forward to new Linux related releases and I think the next one with KDE 3.2 on Linux 2.6 is going to open some eyes if not be a break through. I bet Qt deserves some of the credit.
Gorgeous looking, for sure. However seeing the KDE Control Center reminded me why I stoppped using KDE in the first place - having to search through too many options to find the one I was looking for.
Here's an idea. Instead of KConf (ala GConf), how about levels. Level 1 hides most options except for the absolute neccessities, and that is how KDE comes by default. Level 2 shows more and Level 3 shows them all, so tweaker aren't left out in the cold.
> Level 1 hides most options except for the absolute neccessities, and that is how KDE comes by default. Level 2 shows more and Level 3 shows them all, so tweaker aren't left out in the cold.
This has being discussed in the past on gnome I think, and they did tests and they decided against it. Read here more about something related: http://ometer.com/free-software-ui.html
For example, the "configure toolbars" should be accessible by right-clicking the toolbars themselves for example, a-la OSX or Epiphany.
Wrong. It is bad design to make only one (not obvious) way of doing something. Many users never figure out what context menus are. It's wrong to consign the toolbar options to just a small menu. No decently designed app does only that.
Also, you really ought to have mentioned Konqueror's wonderful Clear Location button which should be mimiced by default by any other X-based browsers. Not having it is an embarrassment of usability because of clipboard autocopy (a good feature).
You are also missing what the KDE project is attempting to do, Eugenia. The KDE Project seeks not to cater to the beginning user so much as provide the best fundamental technology so that those who would prefer a simplified solution can purchase wares from integrators like Lindows, Xandros, or Lycoris. When you graduate from the bottle, it makes no sense to make you have to muck around in a registry.
Your attitude of shove every power-user setting into the registry is rejected by all the millions of Windows users who have downloaded TweakUI and its clones.
Regarding your remark about Plastik, you should have realized that changing the default theme in 3.2 would have been bad since Keramik has only been the default for ~1 year. Changing the default theme so rapidly goes against your professed belief in keeping things consistent and simple for beginners, which is why KDE will switch to Plastik in the next revision after 3.2
The main problem with menu and configuration clutter in Konqueror is that its menus and dialogs are not different when in KFM or KHTML. This is bad and ought to be changed before release.
Your remark that no one would ever want to zip or burn an HTML document is right on the money.
> It is bad design to make only one (not obvious) way of doing something.
Most users know about the context menu. The rest, won't be attempting to change the toolbar behavor anyway.
>you really ought to have mentioned Konqueror's wonderful Clear Location button
That's there for years, nothing new to report. Everyone knows about this.
>Your attitude of shove every power-user setting into the registry is rejected by all the millions
It is the only way to get rid of the clutter. Advanced users will know where to find these extra options and newbies won't have to deal with all that clutter.
>the default theme in 3.2 would have been bad since Keramik has only been the default for ~1 year.
Keramik as default was a bad decision from Day 1 IMHO.
I agree about Keramik but it's somewhat understandable considering the environment shortly after the release of Windows XP and its absolutely horrid Luna interface (ridiculously large title bars, excessive use of bright colours, inconsistent application to older programs).
It is the only way to get rid of the clutter. Advanced users will know where to find these extra options and newbies won't have to deal with all that clutter.
Beginning users will never use stock KDE or stock GNOME. Nor should they. Total noobs will always stick to the defaults provided to them by their beginner-friendly Unix distro.
KDE is extremely customizable, yes. Way more than gnome.
If finding an option is hard, then thats a problem of layout out the configuration or interface.
In any case, though, KDE has a good Interface philosophy, because after not too long, you get used to where is everything.
In KDE, I most of the times find the option I'm looking for..
compared to gnome, where the option I'm looking for rarely exists and I have to stick to the default.
and the geometry app are not new in 3.2 they exist in my 3.1 menu.
Like many of Eugina's numerous nitpicks in this review, I
likewise could find quite a bit to nitpick about the review
itself - however, I was quickly able to forget my misgivings
once I read the first two paragraphs of the final part.
Those two paragraphs summed things up extremely - KDE's got
everything necessary to be a real winner, all that's needed
is a little more polish, and a little less clutter. While I
don't personaly think that KDE should go nearly as far as
Gnome has gone in this direction; I do agree that a few
more focused cleanups to the UI, would make huge impact on
the usability, and very much increase those all important
first impressions for new users.
And I also believe that it becomes _very_ clear with this
release, that honestly - KDE's foundational technologies
far outclass Gnome's current architecture. It will be
_significantly_ easier and timely for KDE to add polish and
to focus further on usability/HIG, than it is for Gnome to
bolt/hack a comparable underlying architecture to that of
KDE's.
The panel applets do look cleaner with their lefthand menu widgets now revealed only by mouseover.
Some questions for Eugenia
1) When you use the mouse to customize the panel height by dragging its top edge, do the panel icons now scale smoothly as in Gnome ? as I would expect by the brief mention of SVG support.
2) When the panel height is at 36 pixels, does the desktop switcher applet draw its previews to have a wierd aspect ratio with only half their expected width ?.
3) Is there an option to separate out how some of the various panel elements resize because I usually cfg just 2 or 3 desktops but they become to tiny and look silly when being stacked into 2 rows as the panel ht exceeds 35 pixels.
Thanks
Brian N
Keramik as default was a bad decision from Day 1 IMHO.
I agree! Again, I do agree with you about that the Plastik theme should be default because it looks more professional than Keramik.
If you look at screenshots, there are plenty of gnome-apps in menues. And if you install all packages it's not suprising that menues are full of apps. Installing what you need (e.g. libs,base,network, multimedia and pim), menues are much cleaner. At least when you build from source (RH-packages has been more or less br0ken a long time).
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. I don't understand the question, possibly not.
Honestly, it's the packager who should bother about it, not the developer. KDE is distributed in sources.
Also, I would advocate for some Qt UI changes, e.g., expanding a few pixels the space between words on the application menus. Currently, they read like a sentence instead of being wisely spaced out.
Actually the spacing is larger that those on Windows. The problem is that the font used in Menu is larger than the default in Windows. If they shrink the font size, the rendering quality will suffer, just look at the ugly text in Konqueror's address bar in this picture
http://img.osnews.com/img/5410/kde2.png
the "www" part is significantly thicker than the rest in the sentence and even in one word - news - the w looks more like a bold font.
> Actually the spacing is larger that those on Windows. The problem is that the font used in Menu is larger than the default in Windows.
No, this is not the case. Check on this shot how much better the GTK+ app's menu text looks compared to the Qt's: the words are well spaced-out. On Windows the spacing is bigger than in KDE too, but their font is much smaller at the same time indeed.
http://img.osnews.com/img/5410/kde1.png
KDE menu should ignore all non-KDE applications by default which would reduce the menu bloat. You user should be force to manually add non-KDE applications to the menu.
Btw, gnome does this, which is the reason why gnome menu looks better or less bloated.
PS, more spacing who be easier on the eyes.
The three things that bother me the most about KDE at the moment are.
-Preformance. Kde 3.1 is noticeably slower than gnome2.4 on a k6-2 450Mhz.
If 3.2's faster then good and it's about time.
-Memory it eats the main mem (256) just loading and starts on the swap file as soon as I run an app. Gnome 2.4 usually leaves me with 30-40MB once loaded.
Hopefully 3.2 being faster uses less Memory
- Arts. It's slow resource hungry and a pain in the neck. Why does arts require 12% to play an MP3 when XMMS is already using 10%. In Gnome with esd esd uses 1% Xmms 11% on average. Taking twice the CPU time to do the same thing is Stupid! Also when apps like mplayer aren't set to use esd they still work alright in gnome just overridding esd. In KDE when not set to use Arts they either don't play sound or Arts grabs the sound and stuffs it up!
Combine those problems with all the Apps I use the most being Gtk based or similar to gtk. MozillaFirebird, OO.org, xmms etc...
I see no reason to use KDE. Hopefully 3.2 will fix many of these problems if so I'll be interested but other wise I'm sticking to gnome!
As a user of both DEs (first KDE then Gnome) I agree with your points, KDE is too bloat while gnome has poor menus but they are clear, both filemanager sucks IMHO, they are too slow (myabe is not their fault) and confusing, maybe konqueror is a little better but has too many option (and that puzzling location menu, why they didn't called it file like the rest of the world fms)
But one of the most annoying issue IMHO is the size of QT widgets, most of time windows are opened with wrong sizes, for example the open with dialog or the file selector, and its bad to have to resize them manually in order to read all the content of the window, those windows should have a fixed size.
Thumb Up for Plastik, it should be made default (and also a gtk port would be good :-) its light years away from keramik
Is it possible to "stack" the buttons next to the K in current versions of KDE as shown in these screen shots or is this something new?
Ive been fiddling around for a while trying to figure this out, I have them stacked up in the system tray area, but this makes the other icons huge and butt ugly.
This is just the quick launch applet I use there, right click on the kicker and add that applet if you want it.
No, this is not the case. Check on this shot how much better the GTK+ app's menu text looks compared to the Qt's: the words are well spaced-out. On Windows the spacing is bigger than in KDE too, but their font is much smaller at the same time indeed.
http://img.osnews.com/img/5410/kde1.png
Yeah, you are right. I aligned the menu in the image with the one in my IE window. In my previous post, I must have used the Gnome one to get my conclusion.
I think Windows' default menu font is Tahoma in 8 point,
it looks taller and as such more compact horizontally than Arial.
That would be contrary to the freedesktop.org specifications which are trying to have the same config file/format for both gnome and kde menu.
I think Eugenia makes good points but...
On the first page I see many "new" features that are not new at all. Just to name a few:
-The kicker detail for example has been available since 3.1 I beleive. (with a GUI checkbox to set it in 3.1.2 I think). KDE 3.2 just made it a default.
-Someone allready mentioned the tabs in KFM
-Service menus have been here for ever, they might have added a GUI to customize it (haven't installed it yet). If that is the case it would seem ironic that Eugenia appreciated the new "bloat".
As was said above. KDE is nicely bloated: you get used to it really quickly. The only part where their is an emergency is the konqueror service menus.
My guess is that they need to look inside (open, read then close) the file to determine file types - text or binary, etc. This kill speed.
On Windows, file types, for the most part, are determined by their extensions, so Windows explorer is pretty snappy. There are exceptions, though. If FrontPage is installed, explorer will look inside a html file to determine if it is generated by M$ front page and in this case, browsing a folder with hundreds of html files will slow down explorer dramatically.
You are _so_ right about KDE having the best technology and just needs polish of the default GUI settings.
Using the GNOME HIG is a good idea, since the current problem with yes/no-buttons is really, really stupid. A polish of KDE and a standard format for widget themes (maybe developed by freedesktop.org) that all toolkits can use would really be the best thing to happen to the Linux desktop.
Good article!
"Tabs available for file management" and service menus were already available in KDE 3.1. Also KStars and kdialog were already part of KDE 3.1 (btw, the geometry app is really new, it's another one than in KDE 3.1).
"KDE 3.2b2 had a copy of the latest beta of KOffice as well" is plain wrong. KOffice has it's own development and release schedule.
The screenshots show that there changes/tweaks by your distribution (Fedora RPMs), e.g. the "Open Terminal" in the desktop background context menu is not original KDE.
Next, there is no "Kontrol Center": It's descriptive name is "Control Center" and the KDE name is kcontrol.
Last, "the "configure toolbars" should be accessible by right-clicking the toolbars". How about trying and discovering that the case since at least KDE 2.0?
> "KDE 3.2b2 had a copy of the latest beta of KOffice as well" is plain wrong. KOffice has it's own development and release schedule.
It does not matter. My copy of KDE came with it, and it is one of the official betas.
> It's descriptive name is "Control Center" and the KDE name is kcontrol.
Big deal. We all know what we are reffering to. Let's be practical around here.
> How about trying and discovering that the case since at least KDE 2.0?
I know that there is a context menu there, but it is not doing the same as the "configure toolbars", we are not reffering to the same thing.
Great review, but a couple of errors : tabs are available in Konqueror as a file manager, ever since tabs entered KDE, and you already can hide the lefthand menu widgets of applets in kicker as of 3.1.x
That would be contrary to the freedesktop.org specifications which are trying to have the same config file/format for both gnome and kde menu.
The last thing *nix heads want is to seek common ground with their rivalry, as they always think theirs own peppy is the best and there should be no compromise. They probably hardly ever give thoughts on what is good for end-users, as they think users should be no different than themselves.
Hi
Stupid remark. The ground reality is both kde and gnome along with xfce considers freedesktop.org to be a unified front and actively seeks to interoperate.
Dont talk about stuff you dont have an idea of.
Regards
Rahul Sundaram
Why should KDE "fix" its nature? Why should GNOME become more like KDE?
KDE is a geek toy. GNOME is the DE for Linux's cooperate/home-user future. You can't satisfy both "markets" at the same time. A middle-ground between KDE and GNOME would be too "dumbed down" for the geeks and to "toyish/overloaded" for the serious users.
The technical issues of GNOME can be fixed. And more important the GNOME people have the will todo so. Improving the preformance of GTK, writing a good IDE/RAD tool etc. can be done.
I come straight from the "developerworks" section of IBMs website. It contains articles which praise the wonders of GLIB or get you started on developing for GNOME. All the big cooperate Linux players (IBM, Sun, Novell) are on the GNOME bandwagon and for a reason.
Serious users don't want to have to worry about two different DEs and they won't have to. GNOME will be the standard, believe me.
The ground reality is both kde and gnome along with xfce considers freedesktop.org to be a unified front and actively seeks to interoperate.
Dont talk about stuff you dont have an idea of.
Regards
Rahul Sundaram
The reality is that they are **considering** it, and **seeking** to interoperate. Don't equal hype with "knock on the wood" results.
One might not know all the details, but that doesn't prevent one from inductive reasoning and reach certain conjectures.
>KDE is a geek toy.
Apparently not:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=5409
The reason might have more to do with the licsening issue.
I like u review, Eugenia, I allways thought KDE is too much bloated, and need a clean up. What also bother me is that u cannot have separate application, if u want kopete, u have to download kdenetwork .... bah !
Mandrake did it the good way, they splitted all packages, but in other distribution, where is nothing like that (I've got gentoo, and I allways must compile kdegraphics only to get kghostview ! )
>Apparently not:
>http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=5409
Debian and KDE developers.. Both projects aim to produce geek toys. Debian even more than KDE. Call me again if a cooperation that is a little less laughable than Lindows.com jumps on the KDE bandwagon.
The whole fact that the Debian devs have chosen KDE proofs my point. These are the same guys who refuse to add a GUI installer to their distro because it wouldn't work on their MIPS Toaster from 1974. Bah.
Hi
Apparently you arent aware of the interoperability improvements
Let me list them for you
Fontconfig is used by all gtk2 and qt3 apps.
pkgconfig is used by both gnome and kde apps
Apps can dock on the panel regardless of the toolkit like gaim in kde and kopete in gnome.This is called system tray specification.
Book mark specification - XBEL
Desktop file formats - .desktop and .icon files
DBUS is already used by some gnome apps and it is very close to the similar kde technology which is about to be adopted by kde in its next release
Cairo
Shared mime support will be adopted with the release of gnome 2.6
Check here for a complete list of stuff
http://freedesktop.org/Standards/Home
While there is still a good amount of work to do this isnt vaporware or hype. If you are in either the kde or gnome lists you can find developers actively participating in the freedesktop.org effort
Rahul Sundaram
First of all, you do NOT need to download a complete package for most applications. Kopete can be downloaded from it's website without problems, for example.
If you're skilled enough to use the sources directly, I think it's time you learned how to download applications selectively. For the default packaging: that's the work for the distribution. KDE does not make these, it only makes sources.
You may know more about user interfaces than me, but I think I know more about marketing than you. KDE shouldn't diss its current market just because they could gain another. If they must gain the new one, they should at least accomodate their current userbase instead of alienating them.
When I download KDE, say in the form of RPMs or DEBs, or make it myself, I don't want to have all the tweak options hidden from me. I want them right at my face, because if I could install KDE by myself, and I even bothered to install KDE by myself and even more I know what KDE is - I don't want default. I may not like the default colour and theme, for example (which I don't, I loathe Keramik, and I don't quite like the blue used in the default colour scheme. Some people may like animation, but I don't, and would love a way to switch them off.
Without changing some XML document or something (ala GConf).
Now, what about the home users? As you say, KDE has a lot of flexiblity, and even more so, it is easy to develop for. If you want a clean control panel - get a distribution that does it well for you (like Xandros, which had a great product with 1.0). But leave us geeks alone.
With KDE, it isn't even near imposible to change contextual menus (Oh BTW, I do zip up the web sites I save, normally of news sites like New York Times which after a few days it goes cold and I need a subscription to read it again. But I save it in Opera first than zip it up to save space). The sky's the limit with changing KDE in and out. And still maintain compatiblity with the rest of the KDE world (well, in theory at least).
As a distributor, you don't have to bundle 3-4 text editors. Even if you have to keep the backend to run certain applications (IIRC, KDevelop needs Kate), on the menu you could put one text editor. And you can shed some applications here and there, and because of KDE's architecture, you can further integrate certain applications to fit your target market.
But, as for me, I don't want KDE to change into a GNOME. If Xandros or Lindows.com or any other company wants to simplify it to the point of OS X or Windows XP, be my guest. But for pure KDE from kde.org - please, leave it as it is. Sure, rearrange things if you like, but to kick out certain features. It is after all targeted towards geeks.
From the article...
Kontrol center's modules and move them to a KConfig panel (a-la GConf or a-la Registry) so both worlds are happy (advanced and newbie users).
I think you are correct here, but I think it should still be kept as a GUI based config. But it should be offered a-la Windows Powertoys, not Registry.
But make sure it is kept away from those users who don't kare 
about configuring all those options.
I too agree with this article about KDE's clutterness. It's definitely one of the main reasons I don't use it. The second main reason is that their graphical interface just "feels" weird to me. I guess it's the difference between QT and GTK.
But the main thing is that Gnome is so much cleaner, more classy and more elegant than KDE ... IN MY OPINION. (Opinion ... look it up if you don't know what it means.)
Take Konqueror's file manager for example and compare it to Nautilus. Nautilus gives you back, forward, up, stop, reload, and home. Konqueror gives you everything including the kitchen sink. My God. I just want to browse the file system hierarchy, not launch a nuclear missle. And what is the deal with the Kontrol Panel. Could it be any more convoluted?
The KDE developers need to learn that some times less is more.
After using Kde for a while, it becomes hard to take the "kde should do this, be like that" arguments seriously.
If used on a daily basis - all the menus and configuration options become second nature. It's quite easy to customise everything to suit your individual needs/preferences!
You really don't need to zip the pages. Konqueror is capable of saving Web archive files directly from the Location menu. Plus, you can just print to PDF to preserve the images if you want full compatibility.
Zip HTML isn't necessary IMHO.
If used on a daily basis - all the menus and configuration options become second nature. It's quite easy to customise everything to suit your individual needs/preferences!
Is that like learning to smoke? You hate it first. It tastes terrible, you cough and gag and get a headache. But if you keep with it, eventually you'll like it?
Personally I don't think it says much for a Desktop Environment if I have to "learn" to like it.
If such options intimidate you, you can always buy a distro that will dumb it down for you.
Hi
Some stuff just get time to understand. The beauty of kde is in stuff like io slaves and kparts which is hidden.
Its not a bad quality at all.
Rahul Sundaram
> How about trying and discovering that the case since at least KDE 2.0?
> I know that there is a context menu there, but it is not doing the same as the "configure toolbars", we are not reffering to the same thing.
I'd suggest you look again in KDE 3.2 before you do anymore comments... if it isn't there then it has been removed by your distribution.
Is that like learning to smoke? You hate it first. It tastes terrible, you cough and gag and get a headache. But if you keep with it, eventually you'll like it?
Personally I don't think it says much for a Desktop Environment if I have to "learn" to like it.
Thats really twisted and shallow .........
You have to learn to use it - if you don't like it you have the choice of modifying it or using something else.
Majority of linux people like to tweak, tinker, modify and learn. If you want a desktop for dummies it will only be for people who don't care what the underlying OS is.
Majority of linux people like to tweak, tinker, modify and learn. If you want a desktop for dummies it will only be for people who don't care what the underlying OS is.
That may have been a valid argument up until now; Linux has so far been a geek's OS. However, if we want Linux on the desktops of ordinary users, thus posing a real threat to M$, its user interface will have to be so simple that neither the dummies (How arrogant!) nor anyone else will have to care about the underlying OS. It agree with those who say that there is the time now for the KDE team to clean up and sort out, not necessarily omit anything, but to find some better ways of making the KDE interface simpler to navigate within. For ordinary users you can hardly over-simplify anything.
Have they taken care of the bug in Konqueror that causes index.htm to be displayed automatically in file-management mode as well as in web-browser mode?
> If you're skilled enough to use the sources directly, I think it's time you learned how to download applications selectively. For the default packaging: that's the work for the distribution. KDE does not make these, it only makes sources.
Ok, U can download kopete and compile it as a standalone app. but what about Kghostview? I found it nowhere.
Or better Konqueror Would be nice to have it as a standalone app (I think, it should be possible to do that).
So I could use fluxbox + konqueror + Control center ... I need nothing else.
I also don't want download so big files - Download and compile time is too
.
they certainly have less peoples who wants to test the beta's && release candidate. - 1 Day to compile kde is to much.
I don't see the add-value they get than delevering so big sources. Or do u can find a reason for doing that ?
Most of the KDE apps in the base packages can be "compiled out" with compile-time flags.
If you search around in the source-based-distro-that-shall-not-be-named's forums, you'll see more then a handful of people discussing it. And even a script or two to automate it for their packaging system.
But that said, this should be the job of a distro's packager. The fact that no one does it is not a fault of KDE, but rather the distributions.
For me it was exactly the other way around with Gnome, within minutes I was getting frustrated because I couldn't find any of the more detailed options, everything was hidden. I switched to KDE and was immediately relieved to see that almost everything I could ever wish for was right there.
I _do_ agree that certain things are not always origanized ina logical way and the Kontrol Center is a good example of that. I like the way it works but there are quite a number of options in places that wouldn't expect.
First of all, linux is a kernel, not an OS. Second of all, KDE is more like an OS than a simple environment. If you don't like the size of it, then you haven't understood that something that is more than a simple environment (more than a windowmanager and a panel) is bound to be bigger than say a web browser.
We have started getting people who argument for KDE or Gnome because of the "feel". That is on the same turf as the arguments between AmigaOS, Windows and MacOS's "feel". We have a new situation: windows vs. KDE or KDE vs. Gnome. These environments have become operating system like, or more technically correct, platforms.
I love the KDE platform -> it gives me a highly customizable environment in which I feel totally at home. I can modify the various window gadgets to my liking (AmigsOS style), and I can set a theme I like, with no problems. The panel is wonderful to modify. Actually, when using "easy to use" windows, I get claustrophobic, I can't modify the environment because I have no real choice.
KDE lets me be creative, and I am sure MacOS users and Gnome users can achieve creativity and productivity just like me. The versus fights must stop. They are irrational.
Rationally, KDE has some steps to go. More polish, yes, like finding crystal icons where there are none right now (you also see a mix of icons some places on the screenshots of Eugenia). We also need more system configuration utilities, and better control over fstab so that we are sure we can mount/umount cdroms without hassle (and we're 96% there). I'm really looking forward to 3.2, and I have been for a long time now. It's the best environment I have used! And it has a reason. A rational one. Why I use it exclusively is on the other hand less rational. But that choice is hardly open to rational discussion. I just love it
Congratulations, Eugenia. This is an excellent review. If you don't mind, I will fill some usability bugs citing your review.
I specialy agree that cervisia is a bit too invasive. How many times do you use it inside Konqueror? Why not start it as a separate program?
Also, you get the main KDE point: it should be easier to make kde usabl than GNOME, since KDE has a unified framework. KDE has all it takes to bee an excellent corporate/user desktop. The project and the distributors could use better this flexibility. I think the KDE community already noticed that. And they are acting to make it happen, see the KDE, Debian and UserLinux iniciative.
Many people talk about desktops like they talk about religion. They talk about fate. No explaining, just fate. This leads to nowhere. One example is:
Desktop XXXX is going to be the next default desktop.
Why? Is it better? It is more used today? It has the right technologies? It has the right defaults? These are the right questions, because they provide the answers for going forward. And your article does that.
I don't know why gnome fans must be so agressive. Must be some kind of inferiority complex. KDE is most definitely not a geek toy. It is the standard desktop environment in europe, just like gnome is the standard desktop environment in the US. Oh and by the way: debian stable is the most stable and reliable linux distribution in existence. If you think it is a geek toy just because it does not have enterprise written in bold letters all over it, you are just plain stupid. I use debian stable on a server for years, and apart from the occasional apt-get it has not required any maintenance.
About the features: I use KDE on a daily basis, and I use almost every feature you see in the konqueror menus. If you can't handle it, it is easy enough to remove the options you do not like. And if even that is too hard for you, there are numerous distros that offer a dumbed down KDE, such as Lindows.
The whole KControl issue is really ridiculous. I often install and use KDE productively without ever touching KControl. So a normal user could use KDE just fine without even knowing what KControl is or does. But when I have to use KControl it is much cleaner than the mess of windows XP configuration. Everything is in one place, and third party stuff like SuSEs Yast integrate just fine into the KControl.
I think the most important thing for KDE is to become even more stable.
What bug? To "Use index.html" is an option and not enabled by default I think.
...don't use Linux. Seriously, save everyone the time it takes to read your rants about how having options is so terrible and confusing for you and go back to using MacOSX or WindowsXP/Longhorn or whatever and leave Linux to those that enjoy options.
If it really isn't confusing to you to have so many options, but you feel it is likely going to be confusing to newbie users, then mention a potential solution.
Here's an example...
On the first start of KDE, a 'configuration' dialog could startup to determine the level of skill the user has as well as the tasks the user will be performing with the desktop. This could be limited to a handful of questions and could even have an 'expert' setting allowing the user to have complete customizing control. Then, once the dialog is done, the Kmenu could be customized for that particular user, thus cutting down the number of options that are so completely dizzying, in your opinion.
That way, everyone could be happy.
Hi
Go to view menu in konqueror and check out use index.html. That should work for you. If not file a bug report on bugs.kde.org
Regards
Rahul Sundaram
I agree about konqueror. It's really the only thing I hate about KDE (it's my primary environment).
Konqueror Web Browser and Konqueror File Manager aren't separated enough... They need completely different right click menu's for start. Also, the normal menu's and toolbars should change. I have tried for ages to get rid of the "up" button from Konq. Web Browser, but _keep_ it in KFM. "up" has NO MEANING when browsing the web. KHTML and KFM should NOT share the same toolbar!
Please for the love of all things holy, clean konqueror up (pretty pretty please with sugar on top?
Oh and btw, I am a technically proficient user and yes, a "geek" who likes to tweak things. The need to clean things up is more to do with speed than anything else.
With the right click menu's; it takes longer to mentally filter through all the options to get what you want. A lot of the options are pointless (e.g View Document Source (should be provided in a normal menu), Encoding (ditto), Open with... (in KHTML), etc).
Less options means I'd find what I want faster.
For a change: an OS X user reviews KDE: http://e-scribe.com/osx/freebsd-kde-and-me/
On features: I agree with tutte. Nothing compells anyone to even touch kcontrol if the distro u use ships KDE with sane defaults. On the other hand, should you need to configure something, you would find everything in the same place - for newbies, knowing that, is a lot of help.
Out of curiousity, I always try gnome, but come back to KDE exactly because GNOME configuration is confusing. For a newbie, the default config tools offer too little, and if a want more, I have to use that hideaous gconf. I guess it boils down to what we are used to at the end, however.
As to memory and kde: here is my output of top. As you can see, swap isn't even touched, and I have lots of free ram as well. It is easy to blame everything on KDE, whereas it might be possible that the distro u use is to blame for it (bad compilation/packaging or patches choice ???) Note that I have every eyecandy turned on + lots of applets (kgpg, juk, kget) running.
last pid: 860; load averages: 0.30, 0.16, 0.10 up 0+01:30:52 14:35:30
49 processes: 2 running, 47 sleeping
CPU states: 5.4% user, 0.0% nice, 4.7% system, 0.4% interrupt, 89.5% idle
Mem: 119M Active, 53M Inact, 47M Wired, 8600K Cache, 35M Buf, 15M Free
Swap: 491M Total, 491M Free
PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME WCPU CPU COMMAND
854 mcsaba 96 0 30304K 16588K select 0:02 3.65% 3.08% kdeinit
521 root 96 0 99M 34168K select 2:30 2.83% 2.83% XFree86
603 mcsaba 96 0 32600K 18692K select 0:50 0.93% 0.93% kdeinit
362 root 96 0 1188K 568K select 0:07 0.15% 0.15% moused
566 mcsaba 96 0 27820K 13124K select 1:19 0.05% 0.05% kdeinit
601 mcsaba 96 0 29768K 16232K select 0:11 0.05% 0.05% kdeinit
772 mcsaba 96 0 37376K 31552K RUN 1:27 0.00% 0.00% opera
630 mcsaba 96 0 37232K 25448K select 0:22 0.00% 0.00% juk
608 mcsaba 96 0 28168K 14524K select 0:10 0.00% 0.00% kdeinit
588 mcsaba 96 0 11584K 7040K select 0:10 0.00% 0.00% artsd
596 mcsaba 96 0 29640K 15912K select 0:08 0.00% 0.00% kdeinit
618 mcsaba 96 0 28244K 15876K select 0:05 0.00% 0.00% kget
223 root 96 0 672K 180K select 0:02 0.00% 0.00% natd
625 mcsaba 96 0 27228K 15800K select 0:01 0.00% 0.00% kalarmd
613 mcsaba 96 0 27712K 13728K select 0:01 0.00% 0.00% kgpg
I find it funny that one of the replies stated kde being for geeks, while gnome is more for corporations/offices. I'm a geek. I'd call myself a fairly advanced user. Why then do I use gnome and OSX?
As a geek, I value productivity and time. If I want to make text bold in an application, I can quite easily find the bold button among 5 icons. It's not so quick and easy with 10 to glance at. The simple problem I find with kde, just like eugenia, is it's bloat. I know it seems a very cliched term, but I hold it with proper meaning. If I don't use a button/option regularly, why is it in the bar cluttering my oftenly used actions? This slows down my regular work. It isn't a burden opening up the registry if it's something I do every six months. If I do it so uncommonly, it shouldn't be in my menu among day to day actions.
The option doesn't need to be taken out, it just needs to be out of my day-to-day viewing. Hence why windows has a registry.
kde having three text editors is just stupid. Sure, as someone has stated, a distro doesn't have to package all three, but if this is the case, then why doesn't my distro just use dillo instead of konqueror? After all, the consistancy has already been lost among the DE.
It should have one default and stick to it for each major application. This is one of the major points of having a DE in the first place.
I also don't like the fact that if I'm browsing the web with konqueror, I have options in front of me that I'd only use if I was browsing my own hdd. Same for the reverse. Konqueror has a beautiful web rendering engine, the ui has just always annoyed me with it doing two things at once and not specialising at either. That's never been the unix way! A geek's ui?
Keep up the great work eugenia.
I learnt a long while back the power simplicity gives you in almost every art. I would love to see kde take up such a challenge.
- Jeremy H.
Hi
I use the up button in konqueror web browsing very frequently. We check broken websites as part of our work. If some particular link is not working I try going one level above using the up button.
You may find it useless but that doesnt mean it doesnt serve a purpose. This is precisely why kde doesnt remove options
Regards
Rahul Sundaram
no libranet review in the last 2 weeks.. the world has ended.
KDE still needs polishing, matter of fact someone need to make KDE and GNOME work togeter and be polished. while KDE has advanced further and further up the interface chain. Hopefully in a year, no more KDE crashes, before some smart ass chirps in and says "my kde never crashes" its probably cause they do not use it extensively.
KDE is nice, but MacOS X is nicer 
KDE should emulate the Mac instead of Windows.
I agree. Konq gets hailed by KDE fans as the greatest thing since sliced bread, yet in reality, it's a cluttered mess.
In fact, most of KDE is like that in my experience. Yes, I can customize it to be friendly, but why am I supposed to waste my time doing that?
Interesting how few people here know anything about proper usability heuristics, though...
-Erwos
"I agree. Konq gets hailed by KDE fans as the greatest thing since sliced bread, yet in reality, it's a cluttered mess."
This was one of the funnies comments I ever read. So KDE fans (that outnumber GNOME fans by a large margin) love Konqueror, but 'reality' (whose reality?) overrides that judgement. It is good to know that we have someone with the authority to decide what Konqueror is in reality ))
The point really was, with the "up" button, was that I couldn't remove it from KHTML without it being removed from KFM, because they share the same main toolbar... if KHTML and KFM had a totally different main toolbar, I could get rid of up, and I'd be happy. (I'd also get rid of cut/copy/paste, and whatever else).
Also, let me totally configure the right click menu for KHTML and KFM (separately), and I'll be happy too. If you don't want to get rid of options, at least let me do it.
"Also, let me totally configure the right click menu for KHTML and KFM (separately)"
pssst ... Eugenia will have your head for that suggestion (what? another configuration option?!!!)
Hi
You got a point there with the up button. The subject heading is your answer if you want to be involved
Regards
Rahul Sundaram
Just stick the config file somewhere and let me edit it with a text editor. It'll be the geeks little secret.
Nice too see that the clock uses a normal font instead of the old one with those stupid digital clock numbers, but still, why leave the clock in that beveled box? (especially when the date is not on it)
My guess is that they need to look inside (open, read then close) the file to determine file types - text or binary, etc. This kill speed.
I wonder if it's possible to have an ext3 extension for saving type information as seperate metadata? Sounds like a good idea to me.
I do like though how Konqueror lets me open text files and such straight away regardless of extension, but in Windows I have to deal with the 'Open With' dialog. But you could detect type when the file is created/copied (like BeOS did) instead of doing it every time you open a folder...
With leaner environments, you always find that designers have made choices that you can't always agree with. I find that everyday with my Apple Powerbook..
KDE is at the other end of the spectrum. When u thought that something was not possible or not catered for, then you find the option somewhere.
It'd be nice if a 3d window manager was adopted for those of us who have recent hardware. I've found it clarifies the desktop perception in a lot of cases.
If you don't like it, it is possible to take it out. Right click the clock and configure it.
(The configuration dialog is _very_ nice. It is an example of power and ease of use.)
I believe the default should be a simple clean clock, and not the binary clock, and without the frame.
But you are probably just nitpicking, and probably didn't try it out, it is available since KDE 3.1.
With not the binary clock , I mean not the _digital_ clock.
I too, think that there are too many similar apps installed by default. Why do I need 4 different editors? I say pick one to install by default and add a "install others..." option immediately below it. Then if you want you can install everything on the CD. Ditto woth OOo and Koffice, etc...
I rely on kaddressbook and wish that I could get my hands on the handbook. But it is never loaded and it is not available on the website. Kaddressbook should include an easy way to backup your data so you can open the data in another computer using kaddressbook. Also the phone numbers dont stay put, they always default to the home category although you already have them removed.
Most of a 'desktop environment' important details are underneath, not the pretty GUI. ( though the importance of having a CONSISTANT GUI shouldn't be dismissed. )
GNOME should have had mechanisms in place from DAY ONE for shared information and intercommunications.. not something that was seemingly tacked-on later.. Integration of the desktop must be done on the fonctionnality level, not on the software level.
KDE is much closer to this, as they PLANNED ahead, and didn't just wing-it since it was 'pretty'. See http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/view/232 for example.
On the other hand, the problem with GNOME is that they use GTK+ object-oriented style, but don't borrow the most important aspect of (early, anyhow) GTK... cleanliness and simplicity! Without that, the GTK-inspired GNOME macro, er object, system is COMPLETELY INCOHERENT and to put it completely blunt: SHIT.
Not to mention the fact that the numerous API libraries do not work well together and stability will _never_ be achieved since one package will _always_ depend on something that is considered beta or unstable.
Don't even get me started on the various ad-hoc configuration mechanisms and the nightmare that is CORBA and Bonobo.
Sorry to sound harsh, but it was a complaint of mine from day one of GNOME, it just wasn't professional.. They worried more about a smelly foot in the menu then making it solid and consistent.. Now they are finding out the price to be paid if they want to stick around and be more then a cute plaything...
But I'm not really sure what to think of it, honestly. That they'd have to involve money to have things that SHOULD be simple get done.
Well, almost. I've got a few tiny complaints:
1) The different editors aren't really similar. KWrite is simple like notepad. Kate is advanced like BBEdit. I think there is a decent reason for those two to be there, especially since a lot of programmers do not want to use an IDE like KDevelop. It might be worth moving Kate to a developer package. KEdit is there because it supports BiDi and the others don't, but I don't think its in kdebase anymore. Kommander is not a text editor, but rather, a GUI editor that comes with Quanta. If it got installed in the base distribution, its the packager's fault. On Debian, installing Quanta just gets me Quanta --- you have to install Kommander seperately.
2)I mostly agree about KControl, but disagree with the solution. I personally use almost every single on of those options. I wouldn't mind moving them to a seperate app ala PowerToys, but I definately would not want them to be GConf'ed, or (shudder) taken out entirely.
I agree about everything else though, even (especially), as a KDE user myself. Toolbars and context menus are definately too cluttered.
I've got a few KDE complaints of my own to add:
- There needs to be fewer menu icons. They just make menus look cluttered. OS X doesn't use them at all, and even WinXP uses them sparingly.
- The visual layout of some dialogs need to be better. Many of them need to undergo the polishing the clock dialog did awhile ago.
- Toolbar arrangements aren't great. Not just because they're cluttered, but because they're not in a good order. This is more of a problem with some apps like KOffice.
- KOffice stability needs work overall.
- There are still many missing icons in CrystalSVG. KOffice still needs to adopt Crystal-style icons.
PS> TO whomever was complaining about the packaging --- the packaging is entirely up to the distro maker. The source layout is organized in large packages for developer reasons. That doesn't mean they have to be organized that way in the distro packages. Debian, for example, does ship each application seperately.
- To people complaining about Eugenia complaining about too many options. Its not the options, really, but how they're presented. Lots of new users don't get the whole "hierarchical" thing, and they shouldn't have to deal with it. Anyway, its not just about choices, either, but efficiency. Having tons of stuff in the toolbars and context menus hurt efficiency, because those things are supposed to be easily scanable.
- As for the "Settings" menu, you're completely wrong First, a proper "Settings" item is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The fact that "Settings" keeps moving between the File, Edit, and Tools menus in other OSs indicates that it doesn't belong in either! Its like putting page margin setup into the File menu in Word! And "Configure Shortcuts" and "Configure Toolbars" needs to be in the menu. Its pretty standard HIG policy that the menu should offer access to all the functionality of the app --- functionality should never only be accessible through the context menu.
Just out of curiosity, what makes u an expert on gui-issues. This is really not meant as a flame, just interrested, just find that u bring across your opinions very strongly and convinced, when sometimes i would think it is just a matter of taste ...
I filled 2 usability bugs and one wish based on this review:
Bugs
Cervisia add-ons to konqueror are a bit too invasive
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70495
Show text shadow is a usability feature, should be on by default
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70496
Wish
KControl should have a simple and an advanced general layout
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70505
I added another bug that was discussed in this list:
In web-browsing mode, the up button should be removed
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70506
Translation: This is my opinion. This is only my opinion, any resemblance to other opinions is a concidence.
Sorry to be harsh, but that's basically what your posts amounts to. One programmers clean API, is anothers "pile of clothes in the corner".
That's part of the reason there's more than one Linux windowing environment.
Just look at the vi verses emacs war.
I say let the results speak for themselves.