Linked by Christian Paratschek on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 18:35 UTC
Features, Office A long-time Gnome user takes a week to try out SimplyMepis to see what all the hubub is about. The result is not only a favorable look at a capable Linux distro, but an examination of the state of the Desktop Environment landscape, and the areas in which KDE can tempt even a dyed-in-the-wool Gnome fan.
Order by: Score:
refreshing
by Flatline on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 18:27 UTC

Well, it's nice to see a Gnome user actually giving KDE an honest shot (it would be nice to see KDE guys give Gnome one, too). Usually, there are a lot of knee-jerk reactions by KDE/Gnome fans and they don't actually TRY the other environment.

I think that his take on KDE would have perhaps been more positive had he tried SUSE instead of Mepis (it's more polished out-of-the-box) but Mepis uses (if I recall correctly) the "vanilla" KDE with very little modification, so it's still a pretty fair test.

re: refreshing
by hobgoblin on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 18:40 UTC

last time i checked the main kde community have a very pragmatic view on the existance of gnome, but at usual there is allway a vocal fringe that wants to go after anything that looks similar and call it copycats...

I have SimplyMepis by here, but it's Ubuntu that I have installed on all my three computers. Nowadays, I can update and upgrade my systems without worrying it's going to boot up again. And I haven't had to learn any new tricks to do that. One of the policies of Ubuntu is to support a release up to one year and a half. So I have two wartys and one hoary to try out the new things. I only wish some brazillian guy created a national distro based on Ubuntu, that would be simply (pun) awesome. :-) I'm trying to get the Kurumin community interested, but it's not easy to make the conversion. :-)

The most important featue is file management
by Grumpy on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 18:48 UTC

And thats where Gnome easily ooutshines KDE. I have given Konqueror hours of configuration effort and I still cant get it to funtion like windows explorer or Nautilus Browser. I dont doubt Konquerors power but I find it totally unusable. Until they do something about it I will remain a faithful Gnomer.

RE: Grumpy
by Flatline on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 18:55 UTC

I've never understood why people say that Konqueror is "unusable". A bit cluttered, maybe, but "unusable"? It's a file manager, and it does its job well IMHO. It's not going to behave just like Explorer or Nautilus because it is not Explorer and it is not Nautilus - it is Konqueror. For me, at least, the file manager is not the end-all be-all (keep in mind that I do use both KDE and Gnome); the aforementioned file managers all do their jobs. I have always basically had the impression that the choice between KDE and Gnome is based more often on aesthetic taste than functional superiority.

Nautilus/Konqueror
by salmacis on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 18:55 UTC

And thats where Gnome easily ooutshines KDE. I have given Konqueror hours of configuration effort and I still cant get it to funtion like windows explorer or Nautilus Browser. I dont doubt Konquerors power but I find it totally unusable. Until they do something about it I will remain a faithful Gnomer.

You see, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I love konqueror, but I can't stand Nautilus. I will say one thing about konqueror, mind - the default toolbar is far too crowded. I always spend 5 minutes on a new installation reducing the toolbars to a single toolbar with the same buttons as firefox. Much nicer, and I don't know why this isn't the default.

No matter how I try and configure Nautilus, I simply cannot get it looking the way I want. The icons are always either spaced too far apart or packed together.

It's a good thing there are (at least) two desktop environments, as I don't think it would ever be possible to satisfy everybody.

My 2 cents
by amiroff on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 18:56 UTC

I've been running Mepis for 8 months now after switching from Mandy. I think the only 2 things Mepis lacks is, out of the box beautifull desktop setup (theme, color scheme, icons, not crowded desktop) and good graphical system tools.

Unfortunately, I don't share author's opinion about Quanta+, because I really find it the most buggy webdevelopment app.

Oh, quickshow is much faster than gthumb and mepis has more plugin support out of the box in my experience.

Thanks, good article!

err, grumpy...
by hobgoblin on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 18:58 UTC

maybe you could define what behavior of windows explorer or gnome natilus that you cant get in kde konqueror? blanket statements like that dont help in the future development of anything...

I don't see the big deal
by Chris on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 18:59 UTC

I use Gnome, KDE, Xfce4, and Enlightenment all the time. I don't have two machines running the same DE anymore and I really like them all for different reasons. I end up switching around all the time just for a different feel on my main desktop.
I do, though, have an opinion on which is the best for a newb; and it isn't KDE. KDE is far too much for a non-geeky person. It needs to organize a control center with fewer options for normal people or something like this. Gnome has done this: gconf and desktop preferennces.
It also needs to explain to its app developers that you don't need an introduction screen for every program.

RE:amiroff
by Flatline on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 18:59 UTC

Have you tried gwenview? It's actually quite good IMO.

http://gwenview.sourceforge.net/

RE:Chris
by Flatline on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 19:01 UTC

"It needs to organize a control center with fewer options for normal people or something like this."

I agree with you on this...a "look and feel"-centric control center and a separate system-centric control center would clear a lot of things up for KDE noobs.

Still Opting for KDE
by Garret on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 19:01 UTC

Ubuntu was the first Gnome experiance I've had that I felt like (hmm,this isn't so bad after all) so I am trying. I think the deal is that by this time I've just become so comfortable with KDE that it's difficult to make the switch. That coupled with the fact that KDE just keeps getting faster and faster with every release, not what one would expect from something that so many refer to as bloated. And to me, all of the kio slave functionality is very difficutl to beat . . . but I'm giving Gnome a try.

Garret

re: re: chris
by hobgoblin on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 19:08 UTC

hmm, are not the general kde control center just a collection of diffrent kpart settings dialogs? should not be that hard to seperate them.

still, after some looking around i found the general kde control panel quite logical. all the settings for looks are more or less gatherd under the same sub-section, with the rest being under the section dealing with personal settings like language and keyboard layout...

RE: hobgoblin
by Flatline on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 19:14 UTC

I don't mind the KDE control center as much as a lot of people do, but it is a big mother and can be a bit confusing (especially for new users). For some reason, it's always also bothered me that there is a "look and feel" AND a "desktop settings" section in it. I personally think it's kinda nice to have everything in one place, but the placement of the controls can be a bit odd. I think that more than anything is what needs to be cleaned up about it. I don't think it would hurt at all to consolidate "look and feel" and "desktop settings" into one control center and have that control center come up when users right-click on the desktop instead of just "desktop settings" (even if it just did that and wasn't a truly separate control center, a lot of noobs would be less confused by it).

Just remember that we are all creatures of habbit. I use konqueror even in xfce just because I'm used to it.

...
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 19:21 UTC

I think KDE team should do something about putting a 'K' for everything I think is annoying.

v ...
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 19:24 UTC
v ...
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 19:32 UTC

I tried to like Gnome...

Please, stop using that word
by Joe on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 19:42 UTC

"usability". You use it too many different ways for it to retain its meaning.

very good review
by maceto on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 20:05 UTC

and I really don`t have anything to say, just one thing:
To try kde in it`s pure form try it on slack or Suse.
Gnome try it on that Umbutu something, not Fedora. Why I am saying this Fedora gnome is slow compared and don`t look that good.
Kde on slack is just FAST and very crisp

RE: Yeah
by Rafael on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 20:12 UTC

Can you contact me at rrezende gmail.com? I have a few ideas to make ubuntu more brazillian friendly and maybe you're interested too.

RE: Flatline
by amiroff on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 20:14 UTC

Never heard of that one!

Thanks for the advice, definitely worth trying!!!

au contraire, mon capitain
by l3v1 on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 20:21 UTC

I definitely think Gnome's way of handling things is better here: the Gnome team tries to reduce all programs to their most important tasks so you have easy access to these most important functions.

And just that is the most what I don't like in Gnome: if I want to do some config quickly, I am better off with gterm. It's true, that mostly I'm also doing so under KDE, but thing is, if I want to do the config stuff by clicking around, I can find my way quite quickly and easily - given that I use KDE since KDE2 betas. As always. it's just a metter of getting accustomed.

When I use Gnome (which I do from time to time, it's always installed and I always update it regularly - I use Debian SiD by the way since ages for my main machine), so when I use Gnome, there are some things I just couldn't manage to do quickly with GUI tools. Gnome/Nautilus VFS-based config for me is just another piece of "gnome solutions" which drives me insane from time to time ;)

Oh, and if you use Nautilus file browsing capabilities in normal mode (i.e. not in spatial mode), then again you find yourself at a point where Konqueror just rules.

Yup, one more thing: I had to wait years for a usable gtk-based file selector... The only one which I liked appeared with gtk2, which was a bit late for me... KDE had good and usable controls for ages.

One can call KDE too shiny, too candy, sometimes evenbloated, but its usability is still pretty damn good - no matter how well Gnome's GUI guidelines are (which I also know well enough to consider it a very good piece of achievement, onfortunately I can't tell that about the actual status of the Gnome environment).

and kdevelop
by l3v1 on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 20:23 UTC

I just forgot to mention Kdevelop - which the writer also didn't mention, how come - which is a wonderful piece of software, especially now, since GUI-editing got integrated. It's just on the way of becoming a very good RAD tool indeed.

It's quite fair
by Emil Oppeln-Bronikowski on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 20:39 UTC

It's quite fair review. I'm using KDE (at work, Debian SID), Gnome (at home, desktop, Ubuntu) and XFce (laptop, Slackware). I can use all of them without any problem.

ProMepis Beta?
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 20:49 UTC

> I am fully aware that SimplyMepis 2004.06 has KDE 3.2.3, an already outdated version of the KDE desktop. I still chose this distribution, mainly because I was interested in the small hype around Mepis Linux.

You could have chosen ProMepis Beta 3 with KDE 3.3.1 then.

Commercial Apps for Linux
by Anton Klotz on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 20:55 UTC

Hello,

That also means we will see less graphical applications that don't "belong" to either desktop, thus probably even less commercial 3rd party applications.

This seems to be a big confusion among commercial 3rd party vendors which environment to support. The quickest way to port an UNIX-program to Linux is to use Motif libraries, which normally have been used for UNIX too, but Motif is really outdated nowadays. So IMHO there are two possibilities, either to use JAVA, which is only viable for applications developed from scratch (too much hassle to connect the existing C++ backend and JAVA frontend together), or use QT. It seems that many vendors are starting to port its application to QT, because they can use C++, it is supported by commercial vendor and the API is pretty stable and well documented. Neither KDE nor GNOME APIs are stable enough, because of the steady refinement and change of these DEs. Another point is, that QT is pretty cross-platform. So to get back on topic, it is really required that KDE (which should be easy) and GNOME interoperate with QT, if Linux should become a serious player on desktop. The problem is that many workers need some commercial apps for their work, so if these apps will be ported to Linux then on QT basis.

Regards,

Anton

KDE v. GNOME
by troy banther on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 20:55 UTC

Over the last year and several months, since I went completely Redmond free, I have tried quite a few distibutions. Each had the preference of its team of creators.

An individual, organization, or institution has the choice to use KDE, GNOME, or other window managers in the wild. I, personally, am partial to GNOME 2.8. It is easier on my eyes and my method of accessing data on a computer.

I don't like "take-no-prisoners" attitude presented by sys-admin wannabes or clueless neophytes who are locked into a single technical mind-set that my desktop system is better than yours.

Even though I prefer GNOME does not mean I dislike KDE. I like its power but usually have to dress down the eye candy to a somewhat plainer theme like Plastik to make it usable for me.

Both GNOME and KDE are, from my experience, mature, stable, well tested. They both have a huge collection of tools and programs that assist "power system admins", "enterprises", "small businesses", and "mom-and-pop" computers. Each window manager brings its set of strengths to the proverbial table of computing. At almost all levels, it still basically boils down to file-and-print serving, web serving, e-mail, office productivity, databases, graphics, media, and web-based research.

I think it's good to know both GNOME and KDE, even though I am partial, so that it can be used in our personal knowledge kits.

The other side of Mepis and KDE
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 20:56 UTC

I had used Mepis in the past. It has excellent hardware support and all of the other distributions at the time had problems with my laptop - power management, display/graphics, touchpad. . . Mepis did brilliantly there. The bit problem with the system is that it purports to be "Debian-compatible" which is very different from Debian-based. Installing packages and upgrading using apt often will leave you with a useless system. Ubuntu is not Debian-compatible either, but they don't say they are and unlike Mepis, they have their own repositories for apt.

As for KDE and Gnome, their equivalents seem to be Windows and the Macintosh. KDE throws useless masses of features, tons of non-descript buttons everywhere, etc. all with no regard for usability or esthetics (just like Windows). On the other hand, Gnome focuses on these areas where KDE is lacking and polishes everything. Gnome usually doesn't put as many features in an application in favor of ease of use and simplicity.

An easy place to see this is Epiphany and Konqueror. Epiphany uses a very minimal, easy and elegant interface that allows people to do everything they need (or at least 99% of users). By contrast, Konqueror has a lengthy button bar that is unlabeled and a menu system that takes a lot of getting used to. Now Konqueror does include features that Epiphany doesn't - like the ability to change your user agent so that you look like you're using MSIE or Netscape or whatever. Of course, do you need such a feature? Do you need all the features like it that are added simply to claim features while weighing down the interface?

Gaim and Kopete are the same way. Kopete tries to be everything, but then when you just want to get a buddy's info, you have to right click, go to the bottom, go to a sub menu, then go to the option. In Gaim, it's the first option when you right click.

I don't know about K3B myself. I don't burn CDs - I have an iPod for my music and files and so all I burn is ISOs and I can just right click them in Gnome and select write to disc for those. Everyone says that Gnome is really lacking here, but since I don't use it, I don't notice it.

Fundamentally, there is a difference in philosophy. KDE tries to add features. Gnome tries to enhance the user experience.

Quanta V Screem / Bluefish
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 21:12 UTC

I can't speak for the Bluefish developers, but as the author of Screem I don't believe such applications have any place as part of a specific release of a desktop environment, they are just not common use apps. As such Screem will probably never be proposed as part of Gnome.

It doesn't seem right that just because Quanta has an "official KDE" label you seem to discount Screem / Bluefish. Feeling it more feature complete fine, but complaining because they aren't labeled "official GNOME"? bizzare.

kde vs gnome
by mezzanine on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 21:19 UTC

Kde has a big problem with defaults, take kicker for example, it's more powerfull than gnome panel, but it just looks hideous, too big and cluttered, there's buttons all over the place, big ugly fonts and that stupid big ugly "digital" clock. Xandros has a cleaner look but it's an exception and is still much uglier then Gnome panel which looks much cleaner. And it takes to long to customize it the way you want.

A little better!
by Morty on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 21:46 UTC

Well, this article was a little better than usual for a Gnome writing about KDE. But as a distro review of SimplyMepis it was not very interesting or enlightening.

The comments on the other hand fast deteriorated to the same "too crowded" nonsens as always on this site. As always talking of the hypothetical newbie, and forgetting the fact that he/she soon evolves to a experienced newbie. Combined with the way the human brain works. The way the brain filters out unneeded information are awesome.

Evolution vs. Kmail
by Eero on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 22:05 UTC

I think the main reason I'm at home using KDE over Gnome is KMail. I've never seen so bugridden program as Evolution (on RedHat 9). I need to use it at work (to be compatible with Outlook) and one never knows when it's going to next freeze or crash. KMail at home has never frozen or crashed on me.

To be fair, Evolution hasn't lost mail yet although it crashes (or I need to kill it because it has frozen) and I got almost 1GB of mail at work...

@Morty
by renox on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 22:10 UTC

> The way the brain filters out unneeded information are awesome.

Sigh, you're not a usability expert, apparently..
In a 'fixed setup', the brain filters out unneeded information ok, but as windows are iconified and maximised, the setup is far from being constant!

It's more like 'experienced newbies' will (hopefuly) learn to remove from their toolbar the unwanted junk to improve the behaviour of the desktop/application.

Unfortunately, *many* users will never reach this state: I recently had to change the configuration of the wallpaper for an user because she didn't know how to do it, and I got 'criticised' for changing the with of a colum under explorer, she asked me to put back the colum to the previous width as she didn't know how to do it.. She is simply not interested enough to learn.

Strange but ....
by Marc on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 22:10 UTC

Every time i use a KDE desingned system and install Gnome,
or use a Gnome desingned system and installed KDE, i get
a messy installed DE that i have to tweak so much it not
worth to try anymore. So if you need to use Gnome and KDE
on your system (together) the best choices are Mandrake
and Fedora IMHO. But the day your made your pick you will
allways miss one anothers applications. (same as Winblows
and Linux).

mmm the sweet smell of war
by Shadowhand on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 22:13 UTC

i definately appreciate the KDE vs Gnome arguments. personally, i choose not to use either one. i appreciate KDE in terms of integration, speed, and easy configuration. i like that Gnome is HIG-ified and simple.

honestly, i think KDE is a better DE than Gnome, but i think the best applications are still GTK based. Gimp, Inkscape, Gaim, and the Mozilla family aren't Qt/KDE apps.

for myself, i choose to use Xfce. i use non-Gnome apps when possible (the only ones i still have to escape from are gimp and bluefis.) for what i do (web and graphic design, general school stuff) GTK is the answer. not KDE, not Gnome, but GTK and Xfce.

here's a quick run-down on GTK alternative to Gnome apps:
gThumb - gqview: i actually like it better than gThumb
gedit - leafpad: again, i think it's actually better.
nautilus-cd-burner - xcdroast: works for me, but took a while to get used to
rhythmbox + totem - xfmedia: i don't need a program to organize my music
nautilus - xffm: when i need a gui file manager, i like it to be usable

there are plenty more, but that's enough for now. i think too often, Gnome apps get confused with GTK apps and vice-versa. i like GTK more than i like KDE or Gnome.

Choice are good... no really they are!
by freespace on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 22:17 UTC

Except for a few comments this is one of the more mild mannered KDE vs. Gnome Disscussion I've seen in a while. As for my personal view, both DE have ups and downs, as for people who act like KDE is going to be picked over Gnome or Vice Versa, I would say it's very split. I have been installing Linux on Desktops for family and friends who are sick of viruses and just Windows in general and can't afford the price of a computer to run OSX (which is always my first recomendation, since it commercially supportes and still in some areas easier to use than either KDE or Gnome). That being said the reason I know it's split because in offering people a chance to pay with both for awhile using my many installs, I get a very consitant split in request for each desktop. And most of it as previously mentioned is based on aethetics more than pure functionality. Since mostly of the machines I've installed on are for school and home web browsing use, they could careless about all the really fancy application like Quanta and Screem, they just want to browse the web and write reports, this can be done in either one, as well as the third most requested function, playing solitare. The reason most people tend to choose gnome is it's clean appealing apperance... as for most people that I know who choose KDE is cause it kandy for the eyes. I do get more calls from people using KDE to have simple configuration done I would agree with everyone else the control panel is too cluttered as well as the menu's, but in gnome there missing a good cdr app. I personally use gnome for most my work, i do web design and like screen and gimp and like the gtk+ toolkit as well, my wife chose the same because it very clean and the menu's are easy for her to move through, my brother and his wife on the other hand love kde, tons and tons of stuff and eye kandy to boot. So really there very comparable and I'm honestly glad there is two desktops to choose from, I just wish the application for each integrated better, that would make more happy I love Scribus and gnome really doesn't have anything that compares, also people complain the gimp doesn't look the same as the rest of there desktop... oh well I hope they both continue in there own direction, and it would be nice if the communities could work together to create some good middleware to cooporate between the two

kde vs gnome
by bubu on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 22:20 UTC

As gnome lover konqueror rocks

@author of screem
by christian paratschek on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 22:22 UTC

hi!

thx for your answer.

>I can't speak for the Bluefish developers, but as the >author of Screem I don't believe such applications have any >place as part of a specific release of a desktop >environment, they are just not common use apps. As such >Screem will probably never be proposed as part of Gnome.

very interesting comment... do you really think? evolution is a complex program too, and so is rhythmbox. ok, mail and musicbox programs are more common use than web development... but i guess it's quite possible that screem gets included into gnome some time in the future. a hig-ified deluxe web devel suite might be just another "pearl" in the gnome desktop., don't you think? time will tell, i'd say...

>It doesn't seem right that just because Quanta has an >"official KDE" label you seem to discount Screem / >Bluefish. Feeling it more feature complete fine, but >complaining because they aren't labeled "official GNOME"? >bizzare.

i am not complaining. i just thought that the only reason why gnome has no "official" web devel suite is that both bluefish and screem are not ready enough for official inclusion. i never thought that it might be not planned at all to include a web devel suite. so, i merely mentioned the fact that none of them are included into gnome as an excuse. i wanted to compare "official" software like gedit and kwrite, rhythmbox and juk. when there was no "official" counterpart, i mentioned it just to for the sake of accuracy.

so, what's left to say? keep up the good work. be sure that i enjoy screem almost every day. it's a fine piece of work and i would love to see it as the default web development suite for gnome :-)

christian

...
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 22:33 UTC

If the case was compare KDE to GTK applications (Like Quanta vs Screem)then why not compare the GIMP vs whatever exist in KDE?

Re: I don't see the big deal (Chris)
by Kanwar on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 22:34 UTC

You said:

I do, though, have an opinion on which is the best for a newb; and it isn't KDE. KDE is far too much for a non-geeky person. It needs to organize a control center with fewer options for normal people or something like this. Gnome has done this: gconf and desktop preferennces.

-------

GNOME's control center is too simplistic. KDE's is too complex. Gconf-editor is too geeky. Unfortunately, real users are somehwere in between.

For instance, I find GNOME's control center too restrictive to make the desktop look exactly the way I want. There is always a sense of not completely configuring every aspect of the desktop. At least with KDE, maybe it takes hours, but I can make it look entirely un-KDE like. So I get a more personalized feeling with KDE.

What we really really need is a control center which is somewhere between the GNOME control center and that of KDE.

re:KDE/GNOME
by anon on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 22:40 UTC

I use both KDE & GNOME on a variety of distributions - a strong KDE on Slackware & Mandrake etc, etc... a strong GNOME on Fedora, Ubuntu etc, etc... don't really have a problem or issue with tailoring a desktop/distro combination as needed.

Find KDE excellent, GNOME good & improving, XFce weaker but improving etc etc... fair to say that they're all improving nicely ;)

Question about KDE menu organization...
by Rich Steiner on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 23:12 UTC

Isn't that really a function of the specific distro rather than KDE itself?

RE: Please, stop using that word
by captainmellow on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 23:14 UTC

Yes, that word's usability has definitely suffered as a result.

:D

Konqueror is horrible
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 23:17 UTC

"
I've never understood why people say that Konqueror is "unusable". A bit cluttered, maybe, but "unusable"? It's a file manager, and it does its job well IMHO. It's not going to behave just like Explorer or Nautilus because it is not Explorer and it is not Nautilus - it is Konqueror. For me, at least, the file manager is not the end-all be-all (keep in mind that I do use both KDE and Gnome); the aforementioned file managers all do their jobs. I have always basically had the impression that the choice between KDE and Gnome is based more often on aesthetic taste than functional superiority.
"

Konqeuror is horrible usability: the sidebars complicate functionality and the menus are full of clutter. Note that I am not saying this as soem kind of Firefox freak who loves ot reduce things, as I prefer MOzilla suite in terms of interface.

See Xandros File Manager for how Konqueror should have been done if not for the stubborness of certain maintainers and devs.

Also...
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 23:18 UTC

no offense but Mepis is not a good KDE distro ("good" as in polished usability). Xandros or Suse or Mandrake is a good one. Mepis has 4 different control panels!!!

What you missed
by Jonas on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 23:53 UTC

You missed the great things about KDE!

KDE has a different kind of simplicity which I use all the time and miss when I go to Windows or Gnome. When I want to view a man page, or info page, or anything like that, I just bring up the nearest Konqueror (or hit alt-f2!) and type man:perlfunc (for example).

The KMail which you skipped over is now a part of Kontact, a whole suite of applications where you can schedule meetings etc.

When you add somebody to your address book, they show up in Kontact as well as Kopete, they sync with your KPilot, and everything else. THAT's simplicity for you! I completely adore it!

KDE/GNOME & APPS
by iges on Mon 3rd Jan 2005 23:56 UTC

KDE has come long way in the UI usability department, at work I still have a box with KDE 3.0 and comparing that to 3.3... well these are two different worlds.

As for the so much praised GNOME HIG... well there is much more to a good app than just the UI. First of all it needs to have the functionality that makes it usefull and the stability to make use of the functionality (and not to forget - speed). Thats where KDE has been better and to me still is.

Another thought on the less is more UI design. What is the most common way how people learn new things?! Tril and error - you see it, you do it (try it), you don't see it, you can't even try it because you don't know its there.
And how many newbies read the manual first and then try it?

File management, Nautilus - have had only bad experiences full of nasty bugs... Konqueror, well its usable, but only if you're unbearably slow at your keyboard. Luckily KDE has Krusader. Always had a thing for Norton Commander ;)

I've used KMail for my mail accounts, but recently tried Thunderbird to see what the hype was all about... well I was not impressed. There is nothing so ground shaking that would give me a reason to switch.

Article - at the end of the day (1:57 am here) it's still good to know that there are people having a different opinion. Making the world so much more intresting ;)

Some Criticism
by David on Tue 4th Jan 2005 00:05 UTC

In terms of technology KDE is the best desktop available on Unix platforms, bar none. Good technology is very, very hard to do right and can take forever if you get it wrong, but it is so difficult to see because it is clouded by top-show a lot of the time.

However, having said that there's a lot of tidying up the KDE people have to do, especially with Konqueror and the Control Centre, if they are to push usability forwards and progress the whole of the desktop. Even the Gnome people have become blinded by usability from a textbook when they haven't looked at what it is people practically do with their desktops every day.

Konqueror in its web browsing mode, by default, has a couple of pointless toolbars where a distributor is going to do nothing else but remove them completely. A distributor shouldn't have to do it. It is far away from being usable in its default form. There's also the configuration diaogue, but to solve that Konqueror needs to be separated out whilst still keeping common technology between browsing modes.

In its file browser mode it has all the underlying technology it needs to be a perfectly usable swiss-army knife, but in its default form its a mess. What you want to do is copy files to and from your home folder, to devices like floppies etc. and to and from your local network. Doing that in Konqueror is doable, but its far more difficult than it should be. Nautilus isn't any better at all, and just doesn't provide the flexibility you need, as is the case with Windows - it doesn't give you Windows Explorer by default. People shouldn't have to go looking around to find what to copy files with when they've outgrown the usability that has been thrown on them by default. Xandros' file browser does about the best job on Linux today (Apple do a reasonable job with theirs, but not 100%), and its ridiculous that we're talking about something as basic as copying files around in this day and age.

The KDE Control Centre - well..... There have been some attempts and mock-ups to tidy it up, but it probably won't be remedied at all even for KDE 4.0. In order to solve the problem a search mechanism has been discussed (its not the same as what there is now), but this will at most cure the symptoms. Any search mechanism will ultimately reflect the nature of the way KControl is structured internally, and it will still appear an ungodly mess to an end user. When a distributor gets a new version of KDE the first thing they'll do is to rip out KControl, and worse, some leave it in and put their own control centres in so a user is left with two or more control centres!

What the KDE people should do is re-organise KControl, keep the one window layout, and possibly emulate OS X's control panel. OS X probably provides the best Control Panel on any desktop today. They can then put any Search/Find technology they see fit over this, but I'm afraid they won't do it any time soon. If any change is put forward it is usually declined with the excuse of consistency, and it seems that they're just afraid of change. That happens in any organisation, but nevertheless, it is someting they need to do.

Kontact is a good set of technologies, but again, it is plagued by dialogues that you can't even see at times let alone use. There is a global Kontact configuration dialogue that is unusable, the KMail dialogue is OK but it really needs a wizard. Thunderbird's is OK and about the best, but it misses out a lot of the security detail you need to get it working first time.

The mail folders on the left hand side of Kontact are not clearly visible, and are obscured by other columns in a list that are supposed to number your unread mails. Evolution is better in that regard, but it is slower than hell as all reasonably large GTK applications are, and has always been rather buggy even after many years and all the money pumped into it. They want to run this stuff on Mono?! Having slow and buggy applications on a non-solid base also qualifies as bad usability I'm afraid.

I'm probably being a bit hard on KDE here, as I'm going from a CVS release with this here, but why does anyone think its a good idea to leave things in that state (as it has for some releases now)? There are instances where Gnome, despite its new-found usability approach, doesn't get it right. KDE needs a serious lick of paint and to have its Is dotted and its Ts crossed.

konqueror
by csabimano on Tue 4th Jan 2005 00:09 UTC

I absolutely love konqi, and I couldn't find a good replacement for it (when I use fluxbox-devel, although rox comes close). I find the "konqi is unusable" arguments a bit superfluous. Don't tell me you can't use it for filemanagement becaouse there are 4 extra buttons in the toolbar... konq works uses the same principles as (non spatial) nautilus: click home, there is your home dir. Click icon, now you are in a directory. Click whatever.avi and kmplayer opens it. Freaks!

And since I'm on a fairly large network, the lanbrowsing (lisa) component is a godsend. Pressing F9, clicking Lan, and I see all the puters on the network, and all the services they offer, just as if it was on my own local filesystem. Now look at this screenshot and tell me with a straight face that "konqi is unusable" or is a "usability nightmare" :
ftp://hatvani.unideb.hu/pub/personal/screenshots/konqi1.png

note that this is a default setting without any tweaks, but without sidepanel (F9).

now with side panel:
ftp://hatvani.unideb.hu/pub/personal/screenshots/konqi2.png (this is the absolute default, using vanilla kde on freebsd)

Let's just admit that "konqi is a usability nightmare" is just a little (?) bit of an exaggeration ;)

KDE 3.3 is impressive
by spank_da_monkey on Tue 4th Jan 2005 00:25 UTC

I've been running Debian "Unstable" for the past few days, giving the newest goodies from the KDE camp a try. It's surprisingly snappy and the level of intergration just blows me away. The Kontact - Kopete contact sharing is very nice aswell is kioslaves. This coming from a Gnome user of 2 years, I think KDE despite its usability (in particular Konqueror which has been getting worse over the last couple of releases), has really come along these past few years.

KDE will stay on this desktop. ;)

RE: David
by csabimano on Tue 4th Jan 2005 00:29 UTC

What you want to do is copy files to and from your home folder, to devices like floppies etc. and to and from your local network. Doing that in Konqueror is doable, but its far more difficult than it should be. Nautilus isn't any better at all, and just doesn't provide the flexibility you need, as is the case with Windows - it doesn't give you Windows Explorer by default.

Not surprisingly (see my post above) I don't agree with this. Well, I agree with some points, but I think Explorer compared to konqi _is_ usability nightmare. Copying to my usb key: just drag and drop - how can it be easier? (the clutter u see there is due to multiple mount_nullfs for ftp server purposes, not a normal setting in average joe's environment ;) ) I dragged mp3 foltery to another folder on my usb card:
ftp://hatvani.unideb.hu/pub/personal/screenshots/konqi3_copytousb....

Copy from lan or ftp, the same:
ftp://hatvani.unideb.hu/pub/personal/screenshots/konqi4_copyfromne...

Copy to an ftp - would also be the same (kde would popup an authentification dialog).

This is what an OS X user had to say about KDE - and konqi - with respect to the easyness of copying to and from a network (or copying your mp3 dir from your audio cd - meaning ripping and encoding in one step) :

http://e-scribe.com/osx/freebsd-kde-and-me/

And that article reviews kde 3.1 - and 3.3 has many improvements over that ;)

I don't say you don't make valid points on the other hand, in fact I agree with most of what you said otherwise ;)

KDE vs. GNOME
by Scoop on Tue 4th Jan 2005 00:41 UTC

Interesting that the comments are less about MEPIS and more about KDE vs. gnome. I switched from Gentoo (after about 10 months) to MEPIS. Big change. It's a nice distro and things just seem to work without much fiddling (just don't stray too far from the default path of course; even then it's not too bad). I've upgrade to KDE 3.3 and kernel 2.6.9. It runs like a champ on my old PIII.

As for KDE and gnome. I've tried both. I think Gnome looks much better but KDE just seems more functional to me. Also, Konqi is a little over-loaded with features but I've become addicted to it. Is there anything it can't do? It's the center of my computing universe. As for all of you that like gnome better. Good for you. Glad you like it.

Finally is there any particular reason people have to compare GTK versus QT apps when comparing DEs? Most people I know use a mix of both. Gaim, IMO, beats Kopete like a red-headed step-child. I don't care if it's a GTK app; I like better so I use it. Amarok absolutely smothers any jukebox type music collection player that gnome has at the moment. So I use that.

I'm personally glad there are both Gnome and KDE (& GTK/QT) because it provides all of us with more options.

RE: @author of screem
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Jan 2005 01:00 UTC

Just read Freespace's comment (http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=9305&offset=30&rows=45#31...
), his users couldn't care about a web development app. and I suspect this is common, Nice tightly integrated apps for specialist purposes are always great, but just don't fit into an environment. Another example would be a development IDE, no real place in a desktop platform, only the development platform for that desktop IMO.

Dear David,
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Jan 2005 01:10 UTC

Your comments were excellent! ;) I hope you're in contact with the kde team...

Most exposed to KDE more often than to GNOME
by Marco on Tue 4th Jan 2005 01:12 UTC

I understand that KDE is more easily installed by users and distro creators than GNOME. That alone explains why there are so many KDE fans.

Besides that, many distros are based on Knoppix, which chose KDE for a good reason explainded above.

But there are some distros that take care of GNOME for us. Better yet, the latest GNOME is very cool, while previous GNOME versions might have disappointed many. These distros that support GNOME have their own packages which are somewhat independent of the packages of Debian, so a "testing" package won't be responsible for headaches. On the performance front, many of us have modern machines (P IV, Athlon XP 2400+ or above), so performance is good enough whatever we wish to do in KDE or GNOME.

You see, sometimes GNOME is as a good choice as KDE. KDE is simply too crowded and too comercial (the QT folks that sell licenses) for me to like it. And you see, there is a reason why platforms fight to attract developers. Maybe you can understand why some apps are developed on GTK, maybe not. But whatever you do, don't rule out any of these desktop environments, because things may change in the future and you may cross the bridge. :-)

Re: renox
by Morty on Tue 4th Jan 2005 01:25 UTC

>> The way the brain filters out unneeded information are awesome.
>Sigh, you're not a usability expert, apparently..
Nope, I'm no so called usability expert, but I have lots of experience with inexperienced users. And I have had to physically put my finger directly over the screen to point to toolbar icons user "did not see" on several occasions.


>In a 'fixed setup'
But it is fixed, it's "the window" othervise its hidden and they are working in another window/panel/screen or whatever they use as term.

>It's more like 'experienced newbies' will learn to remove from their toolbar
>the unwanted junk to improve the behavior of the desktop/application.
Nope, they will just ignore it. Or hopfully they will try them out and become 'immediate user'.

KDE and GNOME versus Windows and Apple Mac
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Jan 2005 01:55 UTC

I hear many people complaining that KDE and GNOME are not yet comparable to the two major commercial GUIs. However, I never hear any specifics. What work needs to be done? Is it just general polish or lack of applicaitons or are there specific features lacking that is preventing home and commercial users from feeling comfortable with KDE and GNOME?

54 icons!
by weorthe on Tue 4th Jan 2005 01:56 UTC

I just booted up with my Simply Mepis CD, opened my home folder, and counted more than 50 buttons and icons on the screen. Many of the buttons are too tiny to see clearly. Konqueror's sidebar buttons especially - the media player button looks like a grey blob and the network button is a circle with a line under it. And what is a user supposed to think the "three blocks" button does (devices), or the clock (history) or the star (favorites)? I won't even mention the "quick launch center." Well, I just did.

There is no hope of using motor memory with this sea of buttons. It's not empowering to users when you slow them down by forcing them to find and interpret little icons instead of just putting the 5 most commonly used ones on the tool bar, or desktop, or panel.

Of course the purpose of SimplyMepis is to show off the technology. But this is KDE's default desktop stuff....

dev
by JD on Tue 4th Jan 2005 01:59 UTC

Gtk+ needs to be written using C++ like MFC or wxWidgets are. It can still have stripped down api subset suitable for game engines that don't need the whole gui/msg mechanism. There should be one dev. IDE like visual studio and all these tools/apis should be done by one coordinated group. There wouldn't be this lag that we have now. Kde toolchain is like this but is a bit overpriced for close source dev. in my case. Finally, as a closed source dev I would love to just create one binary installation and have it installed on any distro. Not just the few popular ones. But for this to happen something significant needs to be done with the whole linux platform. Linux is too wild west type of an atmosphere without any thought on cooperation and integration. MFC is integrated inside vc6 so that it automatically writes correct class declaration without having me to type that redundant stuff in like you would do in wxWidgets. This is the type of integration I like to see, less work and more time spent on the actual work I have to do. Do you know why I like wmp? Because it has both music and video integrated into one. I have thus only one tool instead of two and it makes sense to me because as a player I don't need special functionality dedicated to either one. So some things work nicely integrated like this. This is the reason why there needs to be an oversight committee because individual devs. don't often think beyond themselves. So you need someone else who coordinates both the video and music devs and tells them to integrate the two into a joint project. Same for glade, gtk+ and anjuta for example. It's the same thing that Qt and Kdevelop have done and it makes sense. I don't know. Maybe I'm the only one to see this.

KDE VS GNOME
by luzerlinux on Tue 4th Jan 2005 02:10 UTC

For me the "KDE vs Gnome" argument comes down to two main things:

Applications: I use *no* KDE apps...I don't think any of them are very good in comparison to their GNOME/GTK counterparts..for instance, the KDE IRC app(ksirc?) is trash compared to X-chat,
Kopete hs crazy config compared to GAIM(and alwasy seems to be behind on atleast one protocol..so i cant use it for all of my accounts),
for music players i hate this trend towards jukeboxes and still use XMMS so..no winner there...
Konqueror as a webbrowser doesnt compare to Firefox very well,
Konqueror as a filemanager is on par with Nautilus in features, but I find in most cases Nautilus is simpler to use when doing things like browsing my network

the only application that is KDE/QT based that I think beats all gnome/gtk counter parts is K3B..

Sound:
Gnome is usually automatically configured perfectly for sound(nothing locks my sound card) whereas KDE is usually a pain..especially if you want to play games(usually they conflict with artsd)

Re: 54 icons!
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 4th Jan 2005 02:13 UTC

Very true. And you should see the default Debian KDE: it is incredibly naked, but I prefer it that way, I can add the icons I need.

For some reason the panel is also not the default Debian or even the default KDE one. For instance if I add KSysGuard it places itself to the left and it is very difficult to move it.

Re: The other side of Mepis and KDE
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 4th Jan 2005 02:32 UTC

Well, I have successfully performed an aptitude dist-upgrade both on SimplyMepis and Promepis.
I tend to agree with you though: Mepis is not fully Debian compatible (and they say so): sooner rather than later apt will break the system.
However Mepis is my favourite LiveCD, more so than Knoppix, which is without plugins and without root access (I *want* root access if I must repair something, why make things more difficult)
Of all the Debian derivatives, very few are Debian compatible, let alone Debian based. I have found the only one to be Libranet: once you have learned how to use Libranet you can move to Debian Proper with very little effort.

Re: anonymous --nt.tas.gov.au
by csabimano on Tue 4th Jan 2005 02:35 UTC

I hear many people complaining that KDE and GNOME are not yet comparable to the two major commercial GUIs. However, I never hear any specifics. What work needs to be done?

The answer is quite simple: inertia. Nothing else. And ignorance (not the fault of most people!) For the average user that is (for a game freak, linux/~bsd is not yet there).

Take my girlfriend as an example. I installed WinXP (SP2) on her laptop, and she uses it regurarly but just today she asked if she is running OfficeXP (because she heard the name from her father, and thought she is running OfficeXP on her notebook because the XP part rang a bell). She didn't have a concept of the "OS" at all. Applications matter. (She needs WinXP because she uses SPSS - and there is no free alternative for that).

Most of the time, however she uses my home computer, which is either running KDE or fluxbox-devel. She sits down to browse the net. I showed her firefox, I showed her middle-click > new tab feature. I showed her where she can store downloaded files. I showed her how to attach, detach usb flash drive. I showed her OpenOffice, the taskbar (on top, just browse the ftp site I linked to for more screenshots). She uses amarok, watches movies with kmplayer, tv with fxtv, etc. on by bsd box.

She now knows that FreeBSD is an OS, can start it up alone if I'm not there, enjoys the multiple desktops, knows how to switch keyboard layout, and knows that there is another OS called linux (that has something to do with penguins) - and now something XP on her laptop ... and she doesn't care at all what she is running - as an OS. Is firefox/konqueror good for browsing the net? Is konqi good for file management (she mostly sees the save file dialog anyway). Is OpenOffice good for editing texts? Amarok for playing mp3s? Kmplayer to play movies? That's what an average user does with his or computer, and these programs are just perfect for these tasks.

And since I have trashed my kde install(just reinstalled it recently) I've switched to fluxbox for a while (which I began to like very much btw). And even that switch didn't confuse her. She just recognized that there is a fluxbox icon on the desktop, and clicked it (I use idesk with fluxbox) without any problems. I had to show rox - but it took 10 seconds to grasp that it's a 'different view' of the same layout. And a different way of saving to her flash drive. And that was it. She didn't sit in front of BSD, KDE, gnome, flux or whatever. She spent most of the time in front of firefox, amarok, kmplayer, fxtv, openoffice - and as far as she is concerned, that was the OS for her. That's why I mocked "oh that horrible and unusable konqueror that confuses the hell out me" kinda people. Is FreeBSD or Linux good for her (to use it on her laptop)? NOT! Simply because it doesn't run SPSS, which she needs for her studies (psychology major).

The details lie in the setup. She wouldn't be able to set up WinXP with all the functionality she needs (codec-hell, players, net, etc.). I set it up for her. I could have set up FreeBSD on her laptot were it not for SPSS. I didn't create a separate account for her on my BSD box btw, just showed her where things are in the menu, how the desktop works, etc. It took approx. 10 minutes, and there were only a few things I had to repeat later.

So, to repeat what I began with: what prevents commercial or home users using KDE and GNOME is that most users never heard of them. Most users never heard of Linux, much less of FreeBSD. And many (if not most) users don't even know what an OS is (and why should they?). If you set up whichever *nix flavour you prefer properly, no one would have problems using it (and you can make a nice fluxbox desktop as well) if it provides all the functionality he or she needs: which, I think is more or less what my girlfriend expects from a computer (well, SPSS is not that common requirement): watching movies, listening to music, browsing google, editing texts, watching tv, checking emails, and playing the occasional simple game.

SPSS and linux
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 4th Jan 2005 03:08 UTC

Is this link useful in any way?

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/sscc/pubs/7-18.htm

@luzerlinux
by Chris on Tue 4th Jan 2005 04:57 UTC

filelight

If there's something gtk that touches it, I wanna know cause then I can remove kdelibs ;) .

comment on FUD
by Shaman on Tue 4th Jan 2005 05:01 UTC

IRC client: KvIRC - available for other OS as well. Xchat is matched easily.

Konqueror DOES compare well with Firefox today.

Kopete is simple. Maybe so is the poster.

Once you get used to Juk, it's far superior in many ways to XMMS. But in case you don't care... just use xmms. Or use Amarok in xmms lookalike mode.

Basically, "luzerlinux" made some derogatory comments a) not based in fact and b) based on lack of knowledge and c) assertively as if he was an authority on the matter. Clearly, he is not.

RE:The most important featue is file management
by Uno Engborg on Tue 4th Jan 2005 05:36 UTC


I dont doubt Konquerors power but I find it totally unusable. Until they do something about it I will remain a faithful Gnomer.


As a long term KDE user I actually agree with you.
If you would care to elaborate on what, you find unusable in konqueror, here and perhaps on the KDE usability list, things might change.

RE:What you missed
by Uno Engborg on Tue 4th Jan 2005 06:17 UTC


The KMail which you skipped over is now a part of Kontact, a whole suite of applications where you can schedule meetings etc.

When you add somebody to your address book, they show up in Kontact as well as Kopete, they sync with your KPilot, and everything else. THAT's simplicity for you! I completely adore it!


Yes, the KDE contact suite is very good. But the K-Mail part of it is horrible. Why do I need to have a text on the left side of each mail telling me if it is, or is not a HTML mail?. When I read my mail, I always start at the letters at the side. If they at least had put that bar to the right and had the text run sideways, it would have been much better.

I suppose the intention is to warn users of html mail that could pose security risks or privacy if they e.g. contain javascript or imagelinks. The warning would have been much more effective if it only appeared when a html mail was displayed (and then hopefully displayed in a way that it didn't blend in with the text in the mail).

This is what keeps me from using kontact. Other than that it is great. I especially like that you can use shared IMAP mailboxes for storing shared calendar, and todo list item.

Thanks Mepis
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Jan 2005 06:43 UTC

Thanks Mepis, much better than the Mandrake I have been using.

@Anonymous Penguin
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Jan 2005 06:55 UTC

Kanotix (http://kanotix.com/info/index.php) is a Knoppix derivative based on Debian Sid.

Supposed to be apt compatible with Sid (http://kanotix.com/info/index.php?lang=en). Might be worth a look for those who want that. I've played with it briefly, and like it, but haven't yet used it enough to test it too thoroughly.

gnome burning cds
by Brian on Tue 4th Jan 2005 07:04 UTC

Threre are a couple of up and coming programs which are gnome styled and burns audio cds, both a not available in repos atm. But they are Coaster and Graveman
check them out: http://scresto.site.voila.fr/gravemanuk.html
http://www.coaster-burn.org/

Coaster does not have binaries out but Graveman does, rpm and debs.

GNUstep!! GNUSTEP!
by Gurkan on Tue 4th Jan 2005 07:38 UTC

don't forget gnustep! http://www.gnustep.org/ -- shallow waters are deep

KDE user on Gnome
by Don Robertson on Tue 4th Jan 2005 07:39 UTC

I have been using KDE on Mandrake for years, but am now using Gnome on Fedora Core 2.

I agree KDE has to many options and they are not always in the obvious place. but Gnome ... sheesh. I do not see how to change the defaults so it won't open a new window everytime I click on a folder. It is so Irritating.

The other thing that is tempting me back to KDE (and Mandrake- for that mater) is I cannot fish://server/ in nautilus.

But - Gnome is growing on me - like athletes foot - I just don't see how I change what I want to change.

oh no - powers out/

I Can Leave FTP Client
by emey on Tue 4th Jan 2005 08:03 UTC

It seem that there are no more need for command line ftp. Using konqueror I can browse, copy and paste files between desktop and server, change permission etc on my remote server. Feel like working directly on ther server except the speed which depend on internet line.

Anyway, I'm bit worry about security aspect using "fish" under konqueror. Is there anybody here can give some information on security aspect of "fish".

By the way, it seem I can also directly upload files to server within Quanta but unluckily my web development station at home doesn't have internet access, my home actually.

If it's not in apt, it's not there. HUH
by kimo on Tue 4th Jan 2005 08:35 UTC

I wanted to switch from Gentoo to debian. Knowing that Debian boasts the biggest repos on earth, I was pretty sure I'd find anything. I tried & couldn't find many stuff

omnibook (drivers for ma laptop)
skype
gammu (for ma nokia phone)
variant kernels (alan cox , ...)

Baah, sure some of them can exist in external repositories, but one central repos sure beats this. All this stuff is directly in Gentoo. So, I guess I learned to admire portage now! Thanks Gentoo teams

Kmail and Konqueror
by Ryan on Tue 4th Jan 2005 08:48 UTC

I actually like KMail and Thunderbird. I hate evolution. It looks too much like Microsoft Outlook. I like KMail's support for gnupg. Konqueror doesn't work with all webpages, but I like the Samba support with Konqueror, since I don't know how to use samba in the command line. I could just run smb://(IP addy or site) to log into a Windows share.

He just compared apps...
by Niek on Tue 4th Jan 2005 09:04 UTC

Christian oly compared KDE apps with there Gnome counterparts. What I didn't read in this article are the small 'trics' that makes me love KDE.

For example KIO slaves. In Gnome, only a few VFS slaves are provided, and these only works in Gnome apps (like Nautilus), not in e.g. The Gimp. I _love_ fish:// for saving files on every remote (SSH-enabled) server. And guess what, this works in every KDE app (yes, I know they're not working in Qt apps).

Another example is the speed of apps. Most GTK2/Gnome apps feel sluggish, while their KDE counterparts are faster (only when KDE (dcop server) is already running).

Things like man:// and service menu's are also extremely handy. And I really, really like Alt+F2 ;)

These are the things that make me stick to KDE instead of Gnome. I don't care so much about pixelperfect GUI's. If I can do my job better and faster with a DE, it's usable for me, no matter if it has too much options, ugly corners or a 'bloated' interface.

RE: RE: renox
by renoX on Tue 4th Jan 2005 09:59 UTC

> And I have had to physically put my finger directly over the screen to point to toolbar icons user "did not see" on several occasions.

Maybe that is because there were too many icons?

I'm not sure if we disagree or not, I thought that you said that an user with a crowded toolbar will just filter out unneeded icons in the toolbar, to which I disagree: quite often the user will just ignore the whole toolbar altogether..
I know: I tend to do it with Word which has a cluttered as hell toolbar.

@ renox
by Vide on Tue 4th Jan 2005 12:03 UTC

You have a distorted vision of usability. There are some kind of apps (for example Word as well as other apps) in which crowded toolbar and even much crowded menus are the only way to go cause that program NEEDS to be configurable and NEEDS lots of options.
The Gnome way IMO is wrong, cause hiding in a registry lots of options is making them to not exist. The only praticable way is providing good defaults, and with the GUI possibility to modify them, if the user feels this need.
Yeah, probably Konqui default toolbar are a little bit too crowded for what the program is meant, at least in internet browser mode, but this is miles away from saying "rich toolbars are bad at all"

@ KDE suggestions
by Allan Sandfeld on Tue 4th Jan 2005 12:35 UTC

To those who likes KDE/Konqueror but has suggestion to make it better. Please consider joining the project either at the newbie KDE-quality project or directly at KDE-usability.

KDE has never had a real problem with developer arrogance, there is just a lot more to UI design than locating problems. To solve the problems you need to come up with a redesign that does not reduce usability for anyone else. KDE-usability would take kindly to mockups of new Konqueror design, use-case analysis etc. Just be ready to change your original design several times to deal with common use-cases you hadn't thought of. After all, the reason it has changed is because the current interface is very usefull.

RE: IP: ---.server.ntli.net
by csabimano on Tue 4th Jan 2005 12:40 UTC

Thank you very much for that link ;) ) I will look into it!

Recovery is possible too!
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Jan 2005 13:28 UTC

I have used Mepis for 8 months now, and have discovered that when I finally manage to mess it up I only need to pop in the livecd, run the hard drive install again, and tell it to preserve the existing Mepis install, and all my settings and desktop configurations are preserved. Very useful!

Gnome, what's the point?
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Jan 2005 13:38 UTC

Since this already seems to have degraded into another KDE - Gnome flamefest instead of having anything to do with mepis, I may as well contribute.. ;)

I've recently been tinkering with both gnome and KDE(2.8 resp 3.3.2) and while I think 2.8 was a great step forward for gnome, my impression was pretty much "what are those gnome-libs for?".

If you look at those applications that the people I use to refer to as "the retarded gnome-nuts" like to claim as "theirs" you'll see that pretty much most of them are gtk apps, pure and simple.

Newsflash for the gnome-nuts:

* GTK means "GimpToolKit". Not "GnomeToolKit".

* This means "the GIMP" is not a gnome program.

* This means that gaim is not a gnome application.

* This means that Mozilla is not a gnome application. (Mozilla doesn't even need gtk. You can compile it agains xlib instead, even if that's really unstable - probably due to lack of testing.)

I could make the list longer, but I think it's fair to say that something like 90% of the well known applications the gnome-crowd try to claim is really just gtk apps. Adding gkt-spell and enchant to pango, atk and gtk will even further strenghten the case for calling gtk applications by their right name. Since the integration between these programs really isn't great, which btw is another evidence that the programs really aren't "gnome-apps" since they don't use each other to minimize duplication and enhance functionality, what do the parts that makes up the rest of gnome except gtk really do besides waste resources? Are there any major applications that needs them, or even uses them at all? Evolution is the only thing that springs to mind as both useful (if not for me) and hard to replace that really need gnome. If you compare all of this to kde, all kde apps needs and links to kdelibs. A lot of them even needs each other to add functionality, so the conclusion can only be as far as integration gnome has a looooong way to go to even begin matching kde.

So, from my point of view all you get is a clunky filemanager and a common look for all your gtk apps - one that is both unpractical, a strain for the eyes (schemes too bright - all of them) and to top it, comparetively hard to change. Don't give me that crap about googling for better themes, kdeartwork provides me with schemes that are prefectly good enough, and much easier to set up.

I agree that if you compare the default settings side by side, KDE looks pretty cluttered to begin with, but the huge difference is that you can whith ease make KDE to look a lot cleaner, AFAIK even cleaner than Gnome. Gnome on the other hand has this annoying attitude that the developers know better than you what you need, and you really shouldn't mess with the settings. Anyone calling gconf anything less than hostile compaired to Control Center is completely of their rockers.

Conlusion: Gnome offers *nothing* that KDE doesn't except a cleaner default look, and lacks a whole lot of other things. And if you are after gtk applications I'd say you are with a few execptions better of with a decent windowmanager and just the basic gtk stuff or xfce .

why simplymepis?
by Eric on Tue 4th Jan 2005 14:33 UTC

I was expecting to hear why the author selected simplymepis for review. What was the inspiration or motivation? What is the stand-out characteristic that mepis is about?

I tried going to the simplymepis site, and their faq said that mepis was created out of frustration, but it doesn't specify what kind of frustration or examples of what mepis is supposed to overcome. I just don't get it.

I'd have to agree--this is more of a "Gnome user's walk through a KDE distro" than the kind of review I was looking for.

Problem
by Bob on Tue 4th Jan 2005 14:57 UTC

You must have a serious problem if you won't use KMail for the sole reason it has a bar which says "HTML message" and you think it should be on the right. What a complete insult to the developers who have given their time to program the excellent feature packed into KMail. Can you not see how petty that is?

As for konqueror, my web-browser and file-management profiles has 8 buttons on the one horizontal toolbar (the sidebar is turned off): Back, Forward, Home, Up, Reload, Stop, Address Bar and Go/Enter. It took me about 2 minutes to do. You can customize all KDE toolbars to get rid of everything you don't use. It's a shame it's not the default, but it's a pretty lame excuse to dismiss konqueror if you can't take 2 minutes to change some toolbars when you've probably spent 100 odd hours trying out different distributions and configuring Linux to work with all your hardware. Konqueror lets me browse the web, manage my files, access remote files via SSH, access Samba etc. from one consistant interface.

And what do people propose to do about KControl (the control panel)? There are hundreds of options available to the user which can be easily changed with GUI widgets. It can be fairly daunting to navigate the first time when you're looking for on specific option, but what are the alternatives? Group them differently (many options come understand several groups)? Get rid of options? Gnome doesn't even have a GUI for most options. You either like the default Gnome settings or have to muck around with the registry style editor, which isn't a whole lot better than editing a text-file and is time consuming. Once you've configured KDE, you shouldn't be visiting KControl that often (beginners probably won't touch it anyway) so I don't see why KDE is rubbish just because of this.

Why cannot KDE and Gnome be more like Blackbox?
by easyfree on Tue 4th Jan 2005 14:59 UTC

IMO, KDE and Gnome are just too ugly to use. Are there any themes that make KDE or Gnome look like these beautiful Blackbox themes? http://bb.nlc.no/themes.html

Also, is there any way to make a right mouse-click on the desktop to pop up the application menu in KDE or Gnome?

If these two fundamental problems can be solved, I might give KDE and Gnome another try.

Gnome suits to Mepis Linux
by mcg on Tue 4th Jan 2005 15:06 UTC

both Gnome and KDE suits to the Mepis Linux.there should be two options KDE and Gnome,those who likes Gnome will download Mepis Linux-Gnome and who like KDE will download Mepis Linux-KDE

Konquorer/Nautilus
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Jan 2005 15:28 UTC

If nautilus added tabbed browsing that Konqueror has (which is just awesome for file management) and used space more effiencently like Konqueror has, see:

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=34603&action=view

Then I would say they are closer to equilivent for what I need, i.e. file managment not eye candy.

Re: Why cannot KDE and Gnome be more like Blackbox?
by Bob on Tue 4th Jan 2005 15:32 UTC

Look on kde-look.org for lots of themes. You can customize everything in KDE from the control panel, such as icons, fonts, colours, window decorations and widgets. Also, under the desktop configuration, you can make clicking any button you want on the desktop pop-up the applications menu.

Blackbox
by Bob on Tue 4th Jan 2005 15:36 UTC

I found this: http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=355

It lets you use any blackbox theme in KDE.

Quite the opposite for me...
by Dan Ostrowski on Tue 4th Jan 2005 15:45 UTC

And thats where Gnome easily ooutshines KDE. I have given Konqueror hours of configuration effort and I still cant get it to funtion like windows explorer or Nautilus Browser. I dont doubt Konquerors power but I find it totally unusable. Until they do something about it I will remain a faithful Gnomer.

To the contrary, the one reason I CANNOT use GNOME is the terrible file browser. Nautilus doesn't seem to do all the things Konq can do like split frames with drag and drop ftp/fish/sftp/etc and dozens of other nifty gems. Also, Konq 3.3.2 renders pretty much everything just fine. I rarely ever have to open Mozilla. I would say 2 times a month now. And the convenience of having the file manager combined with the web browser is too good for me to go back to seperate apps.

I can swallow that. :-) Let-me use Firefox for browsing, Nautilus to access some files, burn CDs, and the other GTK apps that are great. Keep your new internet explorer, I mean, konqueror, and be happy with it. :-)

The powerful KDE users are just powerful tweakers and users of Konqueror, after all...

@ Silvio
by Vide on Tue 4th Jan 2005 16:18 UTC

The only appropiate comment to your post is:
ROTFL

RE: silvio
by csabimano on Tue 4th Jan 2005 16:23 UTC

Keep your new internet explorer, I mean, konqueror, and be happy with it. :-)

Can you show me how to split IE window in two? Or access my files on a remote machine through an encrypted connection just as if they were on my local puter? I didn't know Microsoft implemented tabbed browsing in IE. And last time I checked IE didn't spellcheck whatever I posted on a forum - it does it now? And...

But just as Vide said: ROTFL

Ask Microsoft to port Konqueror over to Windows
by Silvio on Tue 4th Jan 2005 16:37 UTC

And maybe you could even use Windows instead Linux. Oops, I just gave a great idea to MS...

v ...
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Jan 2005 16:38 UTC
RE: ...
by cm on Tue 4th Jan 2005 16:53 UTC

> That's why we call Konqueror OVERBLOATED.

And that's why I call you clueless.

Calling essential functionality bloat is just plain stupid.

csabimano mentioned some of the most important features I use in my daily work.

Is this the typical attitude of the GNOME camp (assuming that's what you're talking about when you say "we")? Thinking you know better than the user what the user needs? I thought that was the Microsoft way...

RE: Blackbox
by easyfree on Tue 4th Jan 2005 17:03 UTC

I found this: http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=355

It lets you use any blackbox theme in KDE.


Cool. The comments to that theme at kde-look.org show that I'm not alone in thinking that a simpler & cleaner look would do good for KDE. :^)

...
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Jan 2005 17:10 UTC

Calling essential functionality bloat is just plain stupid.

No is not, would be valid if atleast 80% of the OS did this but don't.

Take a look on FireFox, they use something called pluggins, a user browse for them and if he need it they download it and install it, not the case with konqueror, they don't care if a need it or not they just included there's where the bload comes, put the neccessary to do your work if you need something else install it, but not, that is why Konqueror is a sad overbloated mess.

Nautilus' Spatial Browsing is not so bad...
by Silvio on Tue 4th Jan 2005 17:15 UTC

Unless you want features that GNOME does not have yet, you could open as many windows as you want and drag and drop like mad. :-)

You could use some virtual desktop that contains the usual folders that you use and that's it, just switch to it when you feel like?

Maybe you could use some ftp program to access remote files?

That "fire up the app, do something, quick close it". And when you need the app again: "fire up the app, do something, quick close it". Is cool and all, but some other method could work wonders also? Like: "Fire up the app, do something, let the app open, ready for another round of tasks".

What if you needed to administer several desktops, would you like each one with its own ugly configurations?

Isn't standardization some goal of the desktop as well? Why so many menu options and meaningless icons? Just because we can't agree on the minimum apparent options/icons? It seems so... Maybe we should replace Windows with Windows 2.0?

I tell you what. I don't miss windows explorer, internet explorer, the registry tweaks... They are past for me. I believe that in a couple of years you will see many small apps that will allow easy tweaking of even GNOME. Everyone will write such apps, even you. So yeah, I think Linux is better than ever and will keep improving.

Sorry if I pissed anyone off...

@csabimano
by Sinan on Tue 4th Jan 2005 17:29 UTC

"Can you show me how to split IE window in two?"

Hint: Open explorer twice and place the windows next to each other.

Also, Gnome supports sftp and so on. It looks just like a folder on your desktop. Very nice feature.

RE:Problem
by Uno Engborg on Tue 4th Jan 2005 17:29 UTC


You must have a serious problem if you won't use KMail for the sole reason it has a bar which says "HTML message" and you think it should be on the right. What a complete insult to the developers who have given their time to program the excellent feature packed into KMail. Can you not see how petty that is?


Not really. It slows down my reading spead considerably as the characters in the message sort of blends in with the message. When we read text we do not read it character by character, but rather word by word. I.e we recognize the image of each word. If that image gets distorted we read the words character by character which is considerably slower.

On second thought, the message shouldn't be on the right. The positioning should be locale dependent. In locales that reads text from left to right As we tend to interpret the image in our preferred direction of reading until the word image is formed in our mind, and we go on read the next word to form phrases.

It is not uncommon that small flaws like this deside what program we use. This is something you need to be aware of as developer. Sometimes it doesn't help if the application can do everything and the kitchen sink if there is something that disturbs the user.

This is why it is very important that usability bugs like this are reported, and not only technical stuff.


As for konqueror, my web-browser and file-management profiles has 8 buttons on the one horizontal toolbar (the sidebar is turned off): Back, Forward, Home, Up, Reload, Stop, Address Bar and Go/Enter. It took me about 2 minutes to do.


Two minutes may be all you get if you are trying to sell the product to a busy executive. That is wy good defaults is important.


Once you've configured KDE, you shouldn't be visiting KControl that often (beginners probably won't touch it anyway) so I don't see why KDE is rubbish just because of this.


I strongly agree. It seams that KControl needs to be redesigned for every new major version of KDE. The usual result is that it is still too complicated. So why not leave it as it is for a while, and instead concentrate on getting more sane defaults. That would do much more for the overall usability of KDE. If we feel the need to help the user configure his system, it would probably be better to expand the functionality of the kde configuration wizard that starts on your first kde login.

Other things that could be done is to remove all KDE promotion in the program. Once running it he have allready made his choise. There is no reason for backgrounds with large KDE logos, or the KDE banner on the side of the KMenu. They fill no function, and just constitutes information noise. Why not have a more toned down default appearance. The GUI shouldn't scream at you. If you use colors they should be used for a reason.

We also need artistic guidelines for how icons etc should be designed. But this is probably something that should be done at freedesktop.org rather than in Gnome, KDE,... If we had a common guideline all the effort put in by all the great artists out there could be used in more than one DE without looking misplaced.

RE:
by Bob on Tue 4th Jan 2005 18:00 UTC

> That's why we call Konqueror OVERBLOATED.

Konqueror is just a shell for kparts which aren't loaded if they are not being used. There are kparts for viewing pdf files, watching movies etc., but they don't take up memory or startup time unless you're using them. Have you actually used Konqueror? It's very fast and starts up very quickly. KHTML is actually more lightweight than Geko. It's the integration that makes Konqueror so great. I can use tabs, split windows etc to view HTML pages and browse files. Also, I can view and manipulate files over SSH, over Samba, over FTP etc. as if they were local from one consistant interface.

@Anonymous (IP: ---.prod-infinitum.com.mx
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Jan 2005 18:07 UTC

You don't know what bloat is eh? Since you bring up firefox as an example, I bet you are one of those gnome-nuts who think every gtk-program is a GNOME program, that KDE is so full of bloat and Gnome is so lean and can't say two sentences in a row without gibbering about the "HIG".

Then let me (who has actullay used both environments recently) bring you some news.

* First of all firefox is *not* a gnome app. Hell you can even compile it against pure xlib (mighty unstable though), and without any gtk stuff at all in your system.

* Second: On my system KDE(3.3.2) uses less resources than Gnome with the required and almost equivalent functionality loaded (gaim, xchat, firefox and so on vs to konqueror, kopete and so on), and it gives *more* functionality, as your apps don't really cooperate. Konqi(46636 kb viewing this page) uses *significantly* less resources than firefox (86708 kb also viewing this page) while giving more functionality because it's totally integrated with kde, which obviously already is loaded and caters with pretty much everything. It has also *less* functionality than firefox as a pure web-browser (I miss firefox way of handling popups which is not a plugin, and I miss adblock, which is). However as a browser I must say I prefer konqi as it is smaller, faster and pages tend to look better in it - with the exception of the few that requires firefox to render properly, but they are very few. Having less functionality and using less resources does not qualify for bloat.

You, on the other hand confuse a overloaded interface with "bloat". Blah. I suggest you read up.

And before anyone gets any ideas, this was brought to you by firefox and fvwm. :-)

RE: ...
by Morty on Tue 4th Jan 2005 18:12 UTC

>Take a look on FireFox, they use something called pluggins

In Konqueror you have something called KParts, which is loaded only as you need them. Functionality not in use don't use any resources (except some disk space), hence no bloat. KParts are basically an advanced form of pluggins, and its usable all over KDE not only in the browser, in the end reducing overall bloat ind the DE.

Your first comment made you look like a troll, but your followup clearly marked you as clueless.

RE: The other side of Mepis and KDE
by gnumdk on Tue 4th Jan 2005 18:17 UTC

>Do you need all the features like it that are added simply to claim
>features while weighing down the interface?

This features are plugins, on debian, you can use konqueror without all this features. In kde 3.4, this plugins can be disabled like in firefox.

>In Gaim, it's the first option when you right click.
http://l3lx202.univ-lille3.fr/~bellegarde/kopete.png
Right click, then go to user information ;) But you have to click on the account icons(icq, jabber, ...) :p

...
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Jan 2005 18:18 UTC

* First of all firefox is *not* a gnome app. Hell you can even compile it against pure xlib (mighty unstable though), and without any gtk stuff at all in your system.


And tell me? In what part of my comment did I mention GNOME? or in what part Did i say FireFox whas part of it?

And Yes, I've used konqueror and sadly I see how 90% of my RAM is used when I dont have nothing loaded and a have 384 RAM.

If useless libraries are not loaded? then what is all the crap loading at the start of KDE? it takes to much time.

And bloated is not only about resources, it is about looks, options, etc, and KDE simple is OVERBLOATED.





RE: bloat
by csabimano on Tue 4th Jan 2005 18:23 UTC

Hint: Open explorer twice and place the windows next to each other.

And make sure one does not cover the directory in the other window where I want to move my files. It's not that I can't manage it. It's just that I don't want to. I don't get these "Konqueror has this feature _I_ don't use > therefore its bloated > therefore its a mess > therefore I won't use it" kinda comments.

That "fire up the app, do something, quick close it". And when you need the app again: "fire up the app, do something, quick close it"

Now that's interesting. And kde is bloated, right? Hint: you are always one step behind if you need to fire up another program to download a file from an ftp server. One more prog on your puter. One more item in your menu. Perhaps: one more icon on your desktop. And yet another interface for a task that should be as trivial as ripping CD's in kde is: pop in cd, click audiocd in konqi, copy the MP3 directory from your cd to your music folder. Contrast this with: fire up grip. Select tracks. Press rip. (change default folder - can you do that?). Now browse to ~/mp3/whateveralbum. Select folder and copy it to your music folder.

Yeah, konqi is so bloated. Right. Because it has easily accessible and often-used functionality (so you won't need another app, another interface, another item in your menu, another icon on your desktop, blah). Can you say HIG? I know you can. lol.

If you are happy using GNOME: fine. I don't care. I still like a good debate, but I expect at least some attempt at thinking followed by actually _saying somthing_, not just the cry: ITS BLOATED everytime you see the letters K.D.E.

I still maintain that those who say that they are "unable" to use konqi because it's too "bloated" are over-dramatizing the issue. I'm still awaiting someone pointing out with a straight face what makes konqi as a filemanager unusable... Is it the side-panel that prevents you from clicking on Documents? Or are those pesky icons (which one is unneeded btw?) at the top that makes it a "nightmare"? haha.

...
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Jan 2005 18:33 UTC

Yeah, konqi is so bloated. Right. Because it has easily accessible and often-used functionality (so you won't need another app, another interface, another item in your menu, another icon on your desktop, blah). Can you say HIG? I know you can. lol.

And because users who don't know to much about computer will call for support every 30 mins to know wehere a button is and saying "I just wanted copy a file".

KDE doesn't have and option for begginers, if you have to much time in your hands or nothing to do then Konqueror is right, but If you need a file browser do to common tasks like copy, paste, etc just like the other 95% of the computer users then Konqueror will just waste your time.

Re: iges
by dpi on Tue 4th Jan 2005 18:35 UTC

Luckily KDE has Krusader. Always had a thing for Norton Commander ;)

Hmmm. I'd put it

* Norton Commander is to Midnight Commnader
* what Windows Commander is to Krusader

.. if there's a way to get Nautilus or some other GTK app behaving like Windows Commander/Krusader then i'm interested in trying it out. When i learned about MC and WC i already lost my NC habits and love for it .. ;) i just use aterm + tcsh now; always fast.

@Anonymous (IP: ---.prod-infinitum.com.mx)
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Jan 2005 18:52 UTC

By your description I'd say you are getting your impressions from too limited material.Some distros do stupid things to kde/gnome.

Just because you percieve it as slow doesn't mean that it really is. Example:

I tried out FC2 with gnome 2.4(6?, don't quite remember and can't be bothered to check). Anyway it was slow as molasses running uphill. Using the logic you have catered us with, this proves gnome is totally unusable. However I'm a curious guy, so I tried the same version of gnome on my normal system (crux) and suddenly it was a *lot* faster. Don't ask me what the fedora folks were up to, but they had done something that was less than optimal. Suddenly using the previously mentioned logic Gnome was no speed demon, but quite useable.

"Yes, I've used konqueror and sadly I see how 90% of my RAM is used when I dont have nothing loaded and a have 384 RAM."

This proves nothing as you can se in the example above. I have otoh a Duron@800, 384MB ram right here running kde, and I have yet to hear any complains from the daily user about slowness..

"If useless libraries are not loaded? then what is all the crap loading at the start of KDE?"

Well, that might have to do something with the fact that konqueror isn't the only kde program. So you will pay a price in a overhead when you start up kde, however, when you start loading more applications (compareable ones, like evolution and gaim against kmail and kopete, not mutt and micq), the on the surface less bloated approach of a windowmanager and gtkapps starts to cause *more* bloat because they don't share components. For me that points starts somewhere around 110MB loaded stuff (kde without applications running takes something like 70MB, so how you arrived at 345MB by loading up konqi is true enigma).

So as you see, the bloat is only visual. I have given you hard numbers and examples. What do you give except the usual KDE is BLOATED whining?

...
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Jan 2005 19:08 UTC

[i]So as you see, the bloat is only visual.[i/]

I can deal with the waste of RAM, but no with the Visual, that's my complaining.

@Anonymous (IP: ---.prod-infinitum.com.mx)
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Jan 2005 19:37 UTC

"I can deal with the waste of RAM, but no with the Visual, that's my complaining."

May I then suggest lynx, mutt, micq, mpg123 and mrxvt? That ought to solve the problem ;)

I whish you could tell me where the visual bloat is infront of me.. This konqureor window has the fw, bw, parent, reload, stop and security buttons + the adressbar, the tabs and the statusbar (which I wish I could hide, anyone know if that's possible?) and that's it. I'm sorry, I can't see what you are complaining about. The only way I can agree with you is if you say "KDE default settings are too much". That however, does not translate to "KDE (or konqueror) is bloated" since a few buttons too much is easy get rid of, and really doesn't use much resources either...

RE: prod-infinitum.com.mx
by csabimano on Tue 4th Jan 2005 19:41 UTC

And because users who don't know to much about computer will call for support every 30 mins to know wehere a button is and saying "I just wanted copy a file".

KDE doesn't have and option for begginers, if you have to much time in your hands or nothing to do then Konqueror is right, but If you need a file browser do to common tasks like copy, paste, etc just like the other 95% of the computer users then Konqueror will just waste your time.


Anonymous@prod-infinitum.com.mx - meet Clue. Clue, this is anonymous.

Users are not as stupid as you make them out to be. The concept of file-management (for better or worse) is basically the same across a variety of OSs and desktop environments. Taken the screenshot that I posted (many times) above: what prevents a user from utilizing the knowledge learned in Windows and use copy and paste and dragging folders/files around? 30 minutes?

As I noted in another post, my girlfriend didn't have any problem using rox after konqi: she noticed the up button and the icons in the display window, and knew if she pressed up, she will move out of the directory, if she clicks on an icon, she moves into a directory. I told her a place she could save: /usr/home/mydir/temp/hername/ - and that's what all she needed. Didn't get confused by the different save file dialog of firefox (used konqi as webbrowser before), because the concept was essentially the same (there was the familiar up button, icons, etc.) and it's the same in a variety of OSs - up usually means out of your current dir, clicking icon means going into it, etc... Once they understand the concept, they understand and can use a variety of file-managers, including Nautilus, Konqueror, Explorer, etc.

Must I spell all this out? And remember, she is the kind of person that thought OfficeXP is an OS.

but If you need a file browser do to common tasks like copy, paste, etc konqueror is a waste of time

I heard this over and over and over in this thread, and when I asked for specific details as to why, my question is always conveniently side-stepped. Repeating your claims over and over again won't help your argument, and it only makes you look very silly. Anyway, my last try. Below is a specific screenshot of konqi without any tweaks. What prevents a user from copying, pasting, opening files there? The zoom icon? lol. ftp://hatvani.unideb.hu/pub/personal/screenshots/konqi1.png

May I then suggest lynx, mutt, micq, mpg123 and mrxvt? That ought to solve the problem ;)

Hey, leave mrxvt alone!!! It's one of my favorite console apps! ;)

ftp://hatvani.unideb.hu/pub/personal/screenshots/flux_mrxvt.png


...
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Jan 2005 19:58 UTC

Users are not as stupid as you make them out to be.

I can tell you, they are, I've given support.

May I then suggest lynx, mutt, micq, mpg123 and mrxvt? That ought to solve the problem ;)

No thx, there's already a Desktop that gives me all I need by default.

KDE default settings are too much". That however, does not translate to "KDE (or konqueror) is bloated" since a few buttons too much is easy get rid of, and really doesn't use much resources either...

I don't wann waste my timw configuring. read above:

there's already a Desktop that gives me all I need by default.

SimplyMepis
by Ake Nilsson on Tue 4th Jan 2005 20:21 UTC

Take the best of 2 (four) worlds. I run SimplyMepis Gnome with a mixture of Bluecurve and XFCE4 themes for the look. And I use Gnome menustructure with some KDE-apps added.

RE: What you missed
by Pietro on Tue 4th Jan 2005 20:42 UTC

Why do I need to have a text on the left side of each mail telling me if it is, or is not a HTML mail?

You can turn it off.

@anonymous (IP: ---.prod-infinitum.com.mx)
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Jan 2005 20:44 UTC

So now have we gone from "KDE IS OVERBLOATED" to "there's already a Desktop that gives me all I need by default" in a few posts. Looks like you had really strong arguments to begin with..

If you are already comfortable with xfce or whatever you use that's fine, I for one, am not trying to convert you. I'm just telling you to quit yapping about stuff you obviously have very little experience with, especially if you can't be bothered to spend 10 minutes to customize your working environment the first time you use it in what's pretty much a one-time-only exercise. But remember that *you* aren't prepaired to spend that time is *no* base for such a general statement as "KDE is OVERBLOATED!!". It just gives the association to the "1337" crowd..

End of discussion. Have a nice <insert time of day.>

...
by Anonymous on Tue 4th Jan 2005 21:53 UTC

End of discussion. Have a nice <insert time of day.>

Was I even discussin with you?

The best way to do it for Konqueror or KDE in genereal could be this, instead giving a bloated Desktop by default, start with a simple desktop and if the user wans add all the bload they want, is that hard? NO, the problem is KDE deveopers don't really care.



bloat
by mattb on Tue 4th Jan 2005 22:25 UTC

theres many kinds of bloat, it totally depends on the context. some people are talking about size and memory consumption, which i have alwas found far superior to gnome, but whatever. the valid one is feature bloat.

when i install gnome, i can just start using it. my perferred setup is very close to the vanilla gnome setup (the only problem i have with it is they dont use all the corners effectivly enough, other then that probably the best uses of fittes law ive seen from anyone other then apple). when i launch an app, once again i can just go. if ive never used an app before, i learn it extremely quickly, as it behaves just like every other app. when i have ten different things open in gnome, i dont get the patchwork effect that is so prevelent in linux, the land of a billion toolkits.

this comes from putting design first. think about this, amiga died, be died, but both still have vibrant communities, even though the products are downright ancient from a technology standpoint. that is because design actually does mean something to people, even if they dont realise why.

when i use kde, its completely different. i need to learn each application, cause the all behave differently. i need to spend time pruning down the various toolbars, and wading through configuration dialogue boxes. any similarity in behavior or look in kde applications comes from the toolkit, not from following the design paradigm of the environment. people say gnome is for newbs, and kde is for "power users". this is also pretty silly, a well designed interface helps you work and doesnt get in your way. when your mind is off the interface, it is on your work. "power user" also is not a good thing, it tends to mean someone who knows very little but thinks he knows alot. (i.e. the power user will typically have a row of tightly packed 8x8 icons on his browser and consider himself "leet", while his aunt tillie has five 16x16 in hers, and manages to hit them while the power user is "aiming".) there are many things you just dont (and cant) realise until you do a formal usability study, and the power user will argue to the death, or until you actually pull out the stopwatch.

now, im not bashing kde, im bashing the design choices. i would use it over windows any day. also, interface is not the end all, kde is far ahead of gnome on the technology side of things, and that counts for about as much. gnome uses a c api for example. now c++ isnt exactly the way of the future anymore, but at least it was taught in schools in the last ten years. and dont get me started on glade/anjuta vs qt designer/kdevelop. not even comparable. gnome zealots will do their best to push that aside, just like kde people will try and tell you that 50 button toolbars by default is a good thing. both are completely different approaches to the same problem, and saying one is better then the other is saying apples are better then oranges. use whats better for you, and ignore (or flame) people who tell you otherwise.

RE: RE: Grumpy
by Richard Sullivan on Tue 4th Jan 2005 22:33 UTC

>>maybe you could define what behavior of windows explorer >>or gnome natilus that you cant get in kde konqueror?
>>blanket statements like that dont help in the future
>>development of anything...
Konqueror should synchronize a folder view with the directory listing the way windoze does (after you poke around with the view options) and make this the DEFAULT setting so that newbies feel at home immediately. In fact make it look and feel like a windoze explorer with "view folders" enabled - make the present default view easily available under "settings". Don't get me wrong - I love konqueror and KDE but unless it gets less cluttered and more familiar for windoze-newbies it's gonna become cult (i.e. dead for most of us). While I am on a rant I would also like to demand that creating a new tab (Ctrl-T) in filebrowser mode would clone the current folder-directory-listing view (i.e. open a new tab containing 2 such panes).

I am also happy to say I hate windoze but sad to say that my boss insists that I have to work with that shit. The usability of windows explorer went rapidly downhill after Win95 (except for the location bar).

I just checked Nautilus - here the folder synchronization works well (maybe I did something to enable this in the past, maybe I didn't). Just to make sure that the world has not suddenly become perfect I hit Ctrl-T and see there it deleted something (symbolic links in the directory listing view) without asking so much as "are you sure you stupid jerk". F*ck you Nautilus !!!

have fun flaming,
Richard

RE: bloat
by Peter Nuttall on Tue 4th Jan 2005 23:38 UTC

quote:
(i.e. the power user will typically have a row of tightly packed 8x8 icons on his browser and consider himself "leet", while his aunt tillie has five 16x16 in hers, and manages to hit them while the power user is "aiming".)
end of quote

um, I hate to mention it, but I would call myself a poweruser and I have 5 icons in my toolbar on konqi. I have them at size 32x32 and down the side for easier aiming. Here is what they are, I would be glad if you could point you the useless ones:

1) back: for going to the last url

2) forward: undoing a back

3) up: moving up in a tree (this is very useful for file-mangement and can be used on websites as well)

4) home: takes me to ~

5) reload: reloads the url

I also have the location bar and my bookmarks and thats it. Please point out my massive konqi bloat.

Konqi(46636 kb viewing this page) uses *significantly* less resources than firefox (86708 kb also viewing this page)

Oh really? I call bullshit. My Firefox 1.0, GTK2, with 10 extensions, custom theme, and 9 tabs open in 1 window (including this one -- doh) uses 50924 kB (RSS).

Peace of mind
by csabimano on Tue 4th Jan 2005 23:52 UTC

FYI:
konqi and firefox open on exactly the same page, two tabs (the same in both browsers)
konqi: 42084K
firefox: 50860K

ftp://hatvani.unideb.hu/pub/personal/screenshots/konqi_firefox1.pn...

@dpi (IP: ---.ipv4.freeshell.bofx.net)
by Anonymous on Wed 5th Jan 2005 00:47 UTC

Bullshit? You tell me.. 1703 is the pid of firefox-bin

pmap -x 1703 -> total kB 84480 - - -

Perhaps I have some stuff you don't? This is also firefox 1.0, with the java and flashplugins.

It is kind of pointless to compare how much RAM is being consumed on one system to the other; considering how greatly each setup could possibly vary.

A couple of more KDE Features
by Anonymous on Wed 5th Jan 2005 01:46 UTC

The author mentioned the fact that Konqueror is more complex than Nautilis and Epiphany. So it is hard to compare. Which I agree. But did not mention some of the cooler things that Konq does with its extra complexity.

It is very easy to split the main Konq window, into different many frames. This is handy for things like loading two pages side by side for comparison, or simple drag and drop across multiple machines. Using the I/O Slaves I will often split a Konq screen into four or six windows. Use sftp:// to connect to machines in several differnet physical locations and simply drag and drop a few updated files. Yes I know rsync could do the same, but w/ Konq I have all the locations bookmarked, and I feel better because I can "see" what is going on.

You can bring up an embedded terminal console for quick command line operations while in filemanager mode. This is handy on local machine for quick operations.

I really do not use it for a browser that much, mainly because I really like firefox, but as a file manager, Konq, simply has not peer.

Also the comparison of gedit probably should have been made to Kate. Kate is the "advanced" editor.

The other advantage that Kate and most all KDE apps provides in the seemless integration of the I/O slaves into the file dialog. It is as easy to open up and edit files on remote servers as it is local files. using either fish:// or sftp:// in the file dialog.

The remote files work in Quanta, in fact you can manage an entire development project remotely. This is handy to me because now all the websites can be managed on the servers, no more worry about keeping them up to date.


pmap -x 1703 -> total kB 84480 - - -

Uhm... we're discussing different things here. You discuss the total memory used while that includes shared libraries. You do that on a system which runs KDE hence which uses KDE and QT libs already. My system, in contrast, runs GNOME and hence already uses GNOME and GTK2 libs even when i don't have Firefox running.

This is why i only check the RSS (or RES). This is the memory which is in use by Firefox which would otherwise, when Firefox would not be in use, be freed. We'd use that memory anyway in our DE's, so its not a burden on our systems (its different on e.g. Fluxbox; see the screenshot from csabimano). If you do the same on your KDE system then we're ~ on par. The only thing we don't benchmark then, is which is more bloated (or so or similar): KDE, GNOME, QT, GTK *themself*. Although these weren't the subject either afaik.

What you state (quote from man top) is this: [i]The total amount of virtual memory used by the task. It includes all code, data and shared libraries plus pages that have been swapped out.

Oh and i have all the plugins including Java 1.5, Flash 7.0.xx, and many more. That's not the difference. The difference is what i state here above, and luzerlinux has a point. One way to cheat would be, to already load the other libraries Firefox or Konqueror uses, making them appear to be 'shared memory' whereas they're normally not. I can give you my word thats not the case on my system since i normally run a minimal GNOME with near to nothing (GNOME or GTK related) open except with lots of Aterms and Firefox tabs open. At the time i ran the 'benchmark' this was also the case.

OT: @dpi (IP: ---.ipv4.freeshell.bofx.net
by Anonymous on Wed 5th Jan 2005 04:04 UTC

Actually, I didn't use KDE when I posted that. But just for kicks, I did a reboot and did a startx to fvwm, so this time you can't claim there is ANY kde involvement. From there I started up firefox straigh away, browsed the same page and guess what.. total kB 86108 :-)

Besides, regarding the method I use, I thought the entire memory consumption that was interesting.. after all, memory consumed is memory consumed, viritual or not, as neither are endless resources.

We can go on with this forever, konqi will still be smaller and faster for me, but at the end of the day I suspect the only thing we will accomplish is to prove "luzerlinux" right. About the only thing that can be learned from this little experiment is that you (in a general sense, not specific) shouldn't jump to conlusions about bullshit..

/me is off to bed.. Have a nice [insert applicable time of day] :-)

Actually i still find your view on the matter quite bullshit, indeed and if that sounds harsh then so be it. But if i may teach you a lesson then: assume that when someone wants to know how much memory an application uses, they mean 1) RSS 2) want to know whats futher running on the system (to evade that cheating i talked about earlier). You didn't provide the circumstances you were running (i guesses you were running KDE) and you didn't state what you meant with 'the memory used' was. You used your own definition, which is far from being the normal one.

Besides, regarding the method I use, I thought the entire memory consumption that was interesting.. after all, memory consumed is memory consumed, viritual or not, as neither are endless resources. -- Not really, because that memory would be used anyway. It doesn't matter that IE uses like 128 MB either because say 64 MB of that is already loaded when Windows is booted right away. And 99/100 have IE preloaded on Windows. So the fact IE uses say 15 MB when having 3 pages open where FF uses say 55 MB is in _IE_'s its advantage regarding 'which uses more' memory argument (smart MS ehhh..) total kB 86108 :-) ..and RSS (which actually matters, but which you don't bother or dare to state) is about ~50 for FF and 45 for Konq (:

Make a good point
by Anonymous on Wed 5th Jan 2005 06:18 UTC

>I don't know about K3B myself. I don't burn CDs - I have an iPod for my music and files and so all I burn is ISOs and I can just right click them in Gnome and select write to disc for those. Everyone says that Gnome is really lacking here, but since I don't use it, I don't notice it.

This is a good point someone made earlier. Nautilus, with a bit more polish, would be fine for burning data CDs. I use it all the time for that. But do we really need a Gnome app for burning audio CDs?

I burn FLAC, OGG, MP3, etc. files to DVD-R for back up. I don't even own a CD player anymore and who would want to lug CDs around?

RE:So, KDE is unreplaceable because konqueror does everything...
by Uno Engborg on Wed 5th Jan 2005 08:58 UTC

No, konquerer is really not powerful at all. It is mearly a component viewer, with lots of plugins. People who like Gnome usually talk about all the fine applications, that mostly turn out to be non Gnome apps as they tend to count things like the Gimp, Mozilla,...

In KDE the boundary is not between applications its between components. The power is in the architecturre. Just look at kontact the new MS-Outlook look a like. All the components was allready there, it was just a matter of pulling them together in one window. The most important is of course kio-slaves that is supposed to do the same thing as gnome-vfs, only it works. Kio-slaves alone, is probably what keep people from switching to Gnome. They make it feel like you are sitting in front of the internet instead of in front of a computer screen.

The component architecture, and the highly network centric approach is very much in the unix tradition. But unfortunately KDE follows the unix tradition of making the configurability an excuse for not creating good defaults.

Even with all the wonders of kio-slaves I'm a bit worried about KDE. It is if they have no direction. Some parts of it is randomly chosen to be dumbified beond belief to fit newbies, and some of it is designed for the advanced user.
This means that there is no natural user for KDE in its default form, so most users tweek it heavily. This means basically that the newbies lose, as they don't know how, and the geeks gets irritated having to turn off a lot of annoying newbie stuff.

The KDE team have to decide for themselves, who are they developing for, or Gnome will run them over, and that would be a pity on the excellent KDE technology.

RE:RE: What you missed
by Uno Engborg on Wed 5th Jan 2005 09:08 UTC


Why do I need to have a text on the left side of each mail telling me if it is, or is not a HTML mail?

You can turn it off.


GREAT!! How?

RE:RE: What you missed
by Morty on Wed 5th Jan 2005 09:30 UTC

>>Why do I need to have a text on the left side of each mail telling me if it is, or is not a HTML mail?
>>You can turn it off.
> GREAT!! How?

Configure->Appearance/layout tab ->Show HTML status bar.

@ Ugo Engburg
by Vide on Wed 5th Jan 2005 09:37 UTC

"Even with all the wonders of kio-slaves I'm a bit worried about KDE. It is if they have no direction. Some parts of it is randomly chosen to be dumbified beond belief to fit newbies, and some of it is designed for the advanced user."

May you elaborate this, please? I mean, real KDE examples, what apps are you talking about? And what does you feel this?

REMEMBER, Gnome can run on MEPIS also
by devnet on Wed 5th Jan 2005 14:25 UTC

SimplyMEPIS is Gnome ready. Just apt-get into it and you've got a gnome desktop.

RE: Quanta V Screem / Bluefish
by Andras Mantia on Wed 5th Jan 2005 15:27 UTC

Quanta+ is a KDE application, because it uses the KDE libraries and technologies, conforms to KDE style guide, not because it is included in the standard KDE packages (and it wasn't always included). Yet Bluefish (AFAIK) doesn't use any Gnome libraries. Don't know about Screem.
This is why you cannot call them Gnome applications (same for GIMP, OpenOffice.org or Scribus from the other side).
Regarding bugginess (for the other comment): 3.2.x was indeed more buggy that usually, so give it a try to 3.3.x if you are still interested.

@peter
by mattb on Wed 5th Jan 2005 18:56 UTC

im sorry, heres some clarification.

the vast majority of the people who would call themselves power users are people who think they know everything there is to know about computers, when in reality they know very little, or their knowledge is only in a very tight scope. good job for leaving your icons the default size, they are that way for a reason, and you realise this. you arnt the kind of guy im talking about. the kind of guy im talking about aliases ls to ls -al because he feels more powerful by hunting through all the stuff that was made invisible so you dont have to wade through it. im sure you know what im talking about, they exist for every operating system.

@Vide
by Uno Engborg on Wed 5th Jan 2005 19:50 UTC


It is if they have no direction. Some parts of it is randomly chosen to be dumbified beond belief to fit newbies, and some of it is designed for the advanced user."

May you elaborate this, please? I mean, real KDE examples, what apps are you talking about? And what does you feel this?


Well, its in many apps, but as you wanted a real examples lets take konqueror and file copy/move/link.

When you drag a desktop item to an other folder, a menu pops up at the drop location and asks you if you want to move,copy or link the file. The popup even contains a cancel item. This could be considered newbie friendly, but imagine sorting a couple of hundred images from your digital camera into various folders this way. Each time you move something you are asked if you want to copy or link or cancel.

To make it even worse the cancel item have the most graphically heavy menu icon. This means that most users will have their eyes on the cancel item as soon as the popup appears, and then move their eyes uppwarde to the move item at the top of the menu. In the process our newbie have to figure out what linking is, and in what direction the link have.

Now, consider, how often do you create a link, how often do you move things. Most people will find that link creation is an extremely rare activity. On a system with about 800 user, most of them technically skilled working in the computer business less than 0.5% of the files was links. Most of them was not created by human users but by various install scripts and the ones created by users was mostly created by sysadmins. Yet, you get the question if you want to link every time. As for the rest of the alternatives (move, copy , and cancel) I don't have much statistics on move, copy and cancel, but from my own experience I would say that move dominates strongly and that cancel almost never occur.

By the way, why does this menu need a cancel button, when all other menus (exept one in kmail) seam to be able to do without it? How is it harder to click outside this menu to close it with no action, than do the same thing for the file menu? Either all menus should have this cancel button, or all.

To make it even worse, there is no other way to make links in than drag and drop the link target and selecting the link item. I have video taped lots of fairly advanced users that have have not been able to find how to do it. They look in context menus, and in file and edit menus, they test various toolbar icons but they don't drag the file, even if thy just a few minutes ago moved or copied a file, and should have relized where the link menu was to be found.










RE: RE:RE: What you missed
by Uno Engborg on Wed 5th Jan 2005 20:09 UTC


Configure->Appearance/layout tab ->Show HTML status bar.


Thanks!

It was a "bug" in the Swedish translation that made me miss it. The word "bar" was translated into the Swedish word "rad" that I would translate back to english as "row". I.e. something horizontal, and not vertical like the HTML status bar. So I never realized what the functioality was for or that it turned this thing off.

@mattb
by Peter Nuttall on Wed 5th Jan 2005 22:47 UTC

Quote:
im sorry, heres some clarification.

the vast majority of the people who would call themselves power users are people who think they know everything there is to know about computers, when in reality they know very little, or their knowledge is only in a very tight scope. good job for leaving your icons the default size, they are that way for a reason, and you realise this. you arnt the kind of guy im talking about. the kind of guy im talking about aliases ls to ls -al because he feels more powerful by hunting through all the stuff that was made invisible so you dont have to wade through it. im sure you know what im talking about, they exist for every operating system.

end-of-quote:

Ok, where I come from they are normally called "leet" ( quote marks pronouned) rather than power-user

RE Uno Engborg
by mattb on Wed 5th Jan 2005 23:54 UTC

/clap

very well put. usability is a techie blindspot, and it seems like the more of a geek you are, the less you really understand about interfaces (i know i was that way until it was pointed some tings out to me). what is kinda frustrating is that kde really is ahead on the technology side of thing, if they would spend a major version cleaning up the front end it would really be something to be reconed with.

@Andras Mantia
by Anonymous on Thu 6th Jan 2005 00:26 UTC

Bluefish can use gnome-vfs, but I think that is where it ends with regards to gnome

Screem however is most definetly a gnome application and always has been, using gnome widgets, vfs, gconf, taking notice of gnome desktop preferences etc.

Bluetooth and Desktop integration
by Tristan Grimaux on Thu 6th Jan 2005 14:42 UTC

KDE is a clear winner on that! I use both gnome and kde on different periods (like seassons, or stages?), so I know what I love from one and hate from the other. Konqueror has a better use of different protocols, as sdp: sftp: ftp: smb: and many more copying files from one window to another without a glitch, thanks to kget.

On the browser side, I use Firefox in GNOME but in KDE, konqueror consumes less memory.

I find GNOME relaxing, its clearer, but WindowMaker rocks on speed and responsivness.

Gnome looks like Windows95
by Nixen on Sat 8th Jan 2005 11:58 UTC

IMHO use GNOME today as good as use Win9x in modern computers with modern configuration.
Need a simplicity? Use Win3.11, good OS for writin' small docs and playing minesweeper.
If you don't need some KDE features, which you cannot see in GNOME, just forget about it...and upgrade your machine! ;)