Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 1st Jun 2008 21:46 UTC
KDE KDE 4.1, which is supposed to become the KDE4 version usable by 'normal' people, is coming at the end of July. When Ars reviewed the beta release, they were positive in that it was moving forward at an "extraordinary pace". Despite the positive notions in the news, many seem to have problems actually seeing all the new stuff being done in KDE4 - just like how people fail to see the massive amount of work put into Vista. KDE developer Rafael Fernandez Lopez (I'm sorry for the lack of diacritical marks, an OSNews bug we're working on) decided to put together a screencast showing off all the new stuff coming in KDE 4.1.
Thread beginning with comment 316621
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Screen estate
by lemur2 on Mon 2nd Jun 2008 12:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Screen estate"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

"Or why use the desktop for what its for: files

You have to be kidding.

The Windows-only IT staff at work spend a good deal of their time beseeching people: "don't put your files on the desktop".

...
Any particular reason or is it just some pet peeve?
I personally think the desktop is a great place to dump files and do so all the time. Just because it doesn't fit into your way of working doesn't make it bad, and trying to make everybody work the way you work will just piss people off.
"

Roaming profiles is one reason. Too many files on the desktop kills the intranet performance when people try to logon or logoff. If a size limit is reached for too many files on the desktop, then roaming profiles corrupt.

In addition ... there is the issue of the "hit by a bus" scenario. You should not keep the company's files that you are working on in your own private directory areas ... they should be stored in a public directory belonging to your project or your department.

There are very solid reasons for not using the desktop as a file manager ... any largish network of Windows machines should have such a policy.

Edited 2008-06-02 12:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Screen estate
by dagw on Mon 2nd Jun 2008 13:11 in reply to "RE[3]: Screen estate"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

But those are all policy issues and issues tied specifically to your particular windows network implementation, and not connected to the general concept of using you desktop as a place to dump files.

You should not keep the company's files that you are working on in your own private directory areas ...

But this true for any storage on local hard drives and has nothing to do with the desktop, and isn't really relevant for personal files anyway. At work my desktop area points to a folder on a central fileserver so all my files can be accessed from there if necessary. Anything that needs to be stored in different places can be solved more or less transparantly throught clever use of symlinks and mount points.

These are all solvable if one really puts ones mind to it. Especially if one happens to have the source code to the OS and all the infrastructure code ;)

It's one thing to say, saving files to the desktop is a bad idea when using the OS and particular setup and policies we happen to have. It's quite another to say saving files to the desktop is a bad idea.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Screen estate
by lemur2 on Mon 2nd Jun 2008 14:39 in reply to "RE[4]: Screen estate"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

But those are all policy issues and issues tied specifically to your particular windows network implementation, and not connected to the general concept of using you desktop as a place to dump files.

"You should not keep the company's files that you are working on in your own private directory areas ...

But this true for any storage on local hard drives and has nothing to do with the desktop, and isn't really relevant for personal files anyway. At work my desktop area points to a folder on a central fileserver so all my files can be accessed from there if necessary. Anything that needs to be stored in different places can be solved more or less transparantly throught clever use of symlinks and mount points.

These are all solvable if one really puts ones mind to it. Especially if one happens to have the source code to the OS and all the infrastructure code ;)

It's one thing to say, saving files to the desktop is a bad idea when using the OS and particular setup and policies we happen to have. It's quite another to say saving files to the desktop is a bad idea.
"

The problem with this reasoning is that a fair percentage of computer users do not really "grok" what they are doing.

"All quite good reasons, sure, but do you happen to know if such roaming profiles suffer from the same shortcomings in Linux environment? (Or some other *nix for that matter?) Also worth of note is that there should be a company policy for not storing company data in your personal directory areas, including desktop. Would be good to explain also why not, people are more inclined to follow rules if they understand the reasoning behind them."


In this scenario ... it is often easier to just implement an office-wide policy of "no files on the desktop ... all working files are to be stored in the <whatever> area" (or perhaps in Sharepoint or some other collaboration utility). The reason for such a policy can most simply be stated as ... "when the files are stored there, they are correctly backed up nightly, and all of the people in the office who should have access to the data can see the latest copy of the file".

A home computer is an entirely different scenario. Fill your boots as far as file management on your own system goes ... as long as you don't carry the habit into a networked collaborative environment.

The situation is different for home users though; all the people I know like to store frequently accessed files on the desktop, and like f.ex. I do, I store some temporary files there where they are very quickly and easily accessible and then later on store them in the more proper location.


Well, as I said ... fill your boots. My own recommendation here for Linux is to use your home directory rather than your desktop. Most "open file" dialogs start at your home directory (not your desktop) anyway, and it is fairly easy to put a quick-launch filemanager icon to open up your home directory with a single click anyway.

Back to the offince network scenario ... as far as Linux goes ... implementing samba means that there should be a commonly-accessible area to store files other than the desktop. I can't comment on "roaming profiles" for Linux ... I have never encountered such. Rather than Sharepoint, in a Linux context or a mixed environment, one would probably be better off using a collaboration system such as Citadel, Alfresco or Open-Xchange.

Edited 2008-06-02 14:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Screen estate
by WereCatf on Mon 2nd Jun 2008 14:05 in reply to "RE[3]: Screen estate"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15


Roaming profiles is one reason. Too many files on the desktop kills the intranet performance when people try to logon or logoff. If a size limit is reached for too many files on the desktop, then roaming profiles corrupt.

In addition ... there is the issue of the "hit by a bus" scenario. You should not keep the company's files that you are working on in your own private directory areas ... they should be stored in a public directory belonging to your project or your department.

There are very solid reasons for not using the desktop as a file manager ... any largish network of Windows machines should have such a policy.


All quite good reasons, sure, but do you happen to know if such roaming profiles suffer from the same shortcomings in Linux environment? (Or some other *nix for that matter?) Also worth of note is that there should be a company policy for not storing company data in your personal directory areas, including desktop. Would be good to explain also why not, people are more inclined to follow rules if they understand the reasoning behind them.

The situation is different for home users though; all the people I know like to store frequently accessed files on the desktop, and like f.ex. I do, I store some temporary files there where they are very quickly and easily accessible and then later on store them in the more proper location. The folder view widget has some serious shortcomings in this regard, it just doesn't cut it yet.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Screen estate
by HappyGnu on Mon 2nd Jun 2008 19:49 in reply to "RE[4]: Screen estate"
HappyGnu Member since:
2008-06-02

In my (limited to school really) experience of large scale *nix deployments, the home directory generally simply resides on a file server. I have no idea what the implications of roaming profiles are on windows, but the only problem I can think of affecting *nix desktops would be if you're constantly opening huge files. The desktop is treated just as any other part of your home directory.

As for KDE 4.1 and the folder views, I rather like the idea of being able to display multiple directories on the desktop. The folder views can also filter by file type, so you could have one type of file in one folder view and another in a separate one. It makes for a very organised desktop, unlike the messiness of current desktops.

I've been trying out a SVN version of KDE 4.1 on Arch (there is a repository of compiled SVN packages for Arch) and I find it to be somewhat stable considering it's not to be shipped for another two moths (end of July). The only time plasma has crashed for me was when I was logging out.
The KWin effects are working quite well too. Those were lagging quite hard on 4.0 for me.

Reply Parent Score: 2