Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Sep 2007 14:45 UTC, submitted by thebluesgnr
SuSE, openSUSE "OpenSUSE has been driving innovation on the Linux desktop, and in today's serial we'll be discovering just what has been happening on the GNOME front. Among other things, openSUSE 10.3 is set to contain, and be among the very first to have, the new GNOME 2.20. We'll see what new things you can expect from this version, what additional polish openSUSE brings to the desktop, and finally we'll be talking to JP Rosevear, an openSUSE and GNOME developer, to find out a little more."
Thread beginning with comment 273215
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: KDE?
by manjabes on Fri 21st Sep 2007 19:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: KDE?"
manjabes
Member since:
2005-08-27

I was not going to flame, but this is too much even for me.

If you are THAT easily intimidated by a button or two then you shouldn't use computers AT ALL. Amarok is just about the cleanest as it gets UI wise. Damnit, even OSNews has gazillion more distracting elements on their site than 'Rok has in its interface. Pry tell me, how DO you manage to browse OSN? Don't you feel a bit scared? Y'know with all them buttons n'stuff?

I know that idiots prefer to have a single big button labeled "do stuff" that they can click to DO STUFF(tm) and get confused when there's a second button added so they have a *gasp* CHOICE!!!!
Fine, have it your way but do not squeak about programs that are actually usable instead of "simplistic" and with "no clutter".

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: KDE?
by apoclypse on Fri 21st Sep 2007 19:46 in reply to "RE[4]: KDE?"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

First of all stop being an ass. I just happen to like well designed interfaces. Amarok is a hodgepodge of every bad UI design decision ever made in KDE. In-terms of interface Amarok is inferior because the developers don't know or didn't bother to actually learn how to put a functional UI together. I was being nice about it and not pointing out that I think Amarok is a piece of shit in-terms of Ui design, but I guess the KDE fanboys want to start the flameage. Learn how to put together a f--king UI then you tell me why I have this button that does everything I want it to do and you have 3 that basically the same thing but call it a "feature".

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[6]: KDE?
by Archangel on Fri 21st Sep 2007 20:22 in reply to "RE[5]: KDE?"
Archangel Member since:
2005-07-23

"I think Amarok is a piece of shit in-terms of Ui design"
Care to give even one concrete example backing that up?
I'm finding it a bit hard to figure out what this "one button that does everything I want" would be vs. the "3 that basically the same thing" in Amarok - unless you've somehow merged play, pause and next...

Back on topic, that SUSE design is nice. My only minor nitpick would be to lose the brackets on the taskbar - they're just distracting noise.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: KDE?
by segedunum on Fri 21st Sep 2007 21:11 in reply to "RE[5]: KDE?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Amarok is a hodgepodge of every bad UI design decision ever made in KDE. In-terms of interface Amarok is inferior because the developers don't know or didn't bother to actually learn how to put a functional UI together.

And yet, Banshee and Exaile are trying to be exactly like Amarok in terms of features and Amarok is still more functional. Can you care to give me an example of what you mean by this, given that I've never seen anyone have any real problems using Amarok when compared to something like Windows Media Player.

Yet again, it's easy to liberally throw around words like hodgepodge, clutter, simplicity and usability (and they're thrown around a lot), but if you can't explain them up then they're pretty meaningless.

I was being nice about it and not pointing out that I think Amarok is a piece of shit in-terms of Ui design

Can you give us an itemised list to back that up?

but I guess the KDE fanboys want to start the flameage.

No. If you're going to liberally throw around meaningless words such as simplicity and phrases like 'good UI design' without knowing what they mean then you're going to get people calling you on it.

then you tell me why I have this button that does everything I want it to do and you have 3 that basically the same thing but call it a "feature".

Can you give us an example of of where Amarok has three buttons to do the same thing, whereas the oh-so well designed Banshee, Exaile and Rhythmbox only have one button (or none, because they don't do what Amarok does)? I mean, it's always been an easy and casual thing to throw around stuff like 'clutter' and 'three buttons when one will do', but without telling us what you mean it's simply meaningless. I have my playlist, I have album art, I have support for lyrics and Magnatune, and I don't see them repeated all over the place.

Like I said, if you don't have the features people like then don't start throwing around words like simplicity in order to make up for it. I can't think of any piece of software in history, or of Microsoft or Apple marketing Windows and OS X on the basis that they are better because they have less features and therefore more simplicity.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: KDE?
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 21st Sep 2007 20:57 in reply to "RE[4]: KDE?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Amarok is just about the cleanest as it gets UI wise.


Amarok uses vertically labeled tabs for crying out loud. Any UI with vertical text is a down-right abomination to UI design.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: KDE?
by kungfooguru on Fri 21st Sep 2007 21:09 in reply to "RE[5]: KDE?"
kungfooguru Member since:
2006-11-01

Explaining to a KDE user how bad the design is is like trying to explain how stupid the theory of Intelligent Design is to a "believer". Its just SO obvious and right in front of your face its hard to put into words. Especially when they don't understand simple words like "clutter", or "natural selection". I believe it is a choice if you want a lot of features visible at all times, or only the necessary features for use visible and the others placed elsewhere. I'm no GNOME user, I use Xfce. I was under the impression that KDE users knew this and just liked the clutter... only recently found out that they deny it.

To each is own... but at least admit its cluttered and bad design... but just that you like it that way.

Reply Parent Score: 3