Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Nov 2009 00:05 UTC, submitted by elsewhere
KDE We all know what KDE stands for, right? Unless you're new here, you'll know that it stands for the K Desktop Environment. While this certainly covers a large chunk of what KDE stands for, it has increasingly lost its meaning over the past few years. Consequently, the KDE team has decided to 'reposition' the KDE brand.
Thread beginning with comment 396571
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Problem they have is KDE 4
by alcibiades on Thu 26th Nov 2009 08:34 UTC
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

The problem they have is surely KDE 4? I think its beautiful, and its most creative as a redesign of the UI. But no way am I ever going to offer this stuff to a naive user, any more than I would start them off with fluxbox or enlightenment, which are also both great, in their own ways.

I don't know what they were thinking of. Not in terms of the thing itself, but in terms of the people who were going to have to use it. You just cannot do this stuff to the mass market. And yes, I have fired it up several times, quite liked it, decided fluxbox was still the main choice, and each time wondered what on earth I would say to a naive user if he/she were confronted with it.

And answer came there none.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Problem they have is KDE 4
by lemur2 on Thu 26th Nov 2009 08:58 in reply to "Problem they have is KDE 4"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The problem they have is surely KDE 4? I think its beautiful, and its most creative as a redesign of the UI. But no way am I ever going to offer this stuff to a naive user, any more than I would start them off with fluxbox or enlightenment, which are also both great, in their own ways.

I don't know what they were thinking of. Not in terms of the thing itself, but in terms of the people who were going to have to use it. You just cannot do this stuff to the mass market. And yes, I have fired it up several times, quite liked it, decided fluxbox was still the main choice, and each time wondered what on earth I would say to a naive user if he/she were confronted with it.

And answer came there none.


Pfffft.

I have introduced KDE 4 to quite a number of new users in the past month or so.

Not one of them had any particular trouble with it.

It works great.

Reply Parent Score: 4

mgl.branco Member since:
2009-07-22

I have introduced KDE 4 to quite a number of new users in the past month or so.

Not one of them had any particular trouble with it.

It works great.


Me as well, and I gave them Ubuntu (with GNOME) but they prefer KDE.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Problem they have is KDE 4
by segedunum on Thu 26th Nov 2009 13:10 in reply to "Problem they have is KDE 4"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

And yes, I have fired it up several times, quite liked it, decided fluxbox was still the main choice, and each time wondered what on earth I would say to a naive user if he/she were confronted with it.

You would say nothing because a 'naive' user would simply pick it up and get on with it, as long as there were integrated applications there for a user to do the things they normally do.

You're being naive for even thinking of bringing Fluxbox into any conversation.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Problem they have is KDE 4
by Laurence on Thu 26th Nov 2009 13:11 in reply to "Problem they have is KDE 4"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

The problem they have is surely KDE 4? I think its beautiful, and its most creative as a redesign of the UI. But no way am I ever going to offer this stuff to a naive user, any more than I would start them off with fluxbox or enlightenment, which are also both great, in their own ways.

I don't know what they were thinking of. Not in terms of the thing itself, but in terms of the people who were going to have to use it. You just cannot do this stuff to the mass market. And yes, I have fired it up several times, quite liked it, decided fluxbox was still the main choice, and each time wondered what on earth I would say to a naive user if he/she were confronted with it.

And answer came there none.


Odd to read that as I always thought KDE4.x was the most accessable DE for Linux newbies from Windows-land.

In a vanilla set up, it's got:
* a left justified start button - like Windows.
* ...in a Task bar at the botton of the screen - like Windows.
* and a system tray at the right of the task bar - like windows.
* it has a digital clock (also on the far right of the task bar) - also like windows
* KDE has simular window deccorations to Windows
* and single unified control panel (like windows) which then launches control pannel applets (like windows)

Sure, you can heavily customize KDE to look different to it's default - vanilla - set up and sure, there are also many differences (some subtle, others more extreme) between KDE and Windows.

But for me, it seems the Window-esk in design out of all of the *nix DE I've tried.

So, for that alone, I think it's probably the least intimidating DE for new users who previously used Windows.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Problem they have is KDE 4
by ba1l on Thu 26th Nov 2009 14:37 in reply to "RE: Problem they have is KDE 4"
ba1l Member since:
2007-09-08

But for me, it seems the Window-esk in design out of all of the *nix DE I've tried.


Superficially, yes.

It's close enough that you can probably use KDE 4 (and certainly KDE 3) if you'd only previously used Windows. Most of the basic parts are in the same place, and work much the same way.

However, once you get beyond the superficial level, there are so many little details that differ.

For example, in KDE, windows snap to the borders of the screen. New windows open, where possible, such that they do not overlap existing windows. The UI widgets don't behave quite the same way, in some cases better, in others worse, but usually just different. Drag and drop is more ubiquitous in KDE than Windows, but less so than in Mac OS X. The file browser determines file types by examining the file, not by file extension (sometimes an advantage, sometimes not).

Probably the most obvious little detail - files open by single-clicking, rather than double-clicking. Double-clicking simply doesn't exist in default KDE. It's difficult to get used to, but once you're used to it, it's difficult to get used to double clicking again. Absolute newbies will probably prefer single-clicking, but it's probably grating to anyone else who isn't used to it.

Really, the "problem" isn't that KDE looks fundamentally different. It's all the little details. They'd be grating to an experienced Windows user (I've seen that first-hand). They look similar enough that you're expecting the details to be the same, but they aren't. I used to get the same problem switching between KDE 3 and Windows XP.

I have fewer problems switching between KDE 4 and Windows Vista / Windows 7. They look far less similar than KDE 3 / Windows XP, so I find it much easier to mentally switch gears.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Problem they have is KDE 4
by elsewhere on Sat 28th Nov 2009 19:24 in reply to "Problem they have is KDE 4"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

The problem they have is surely KDE 4? I think its beautiful, and its most creative as a redesign of the UI. But no way am I ever going to offer this stuff to a naive user, any more than I would start them off with fluxbox or enlightenment, which are also both great, in their own ways.


You're sort of validating their decision with this comment. KDE Desktop != KDE.

When people refer to KDE, they are generally referring to the desktop itself. They don't like this, they don't like that, they wish it would do this or that...

But the Desktop is just a subset of what the KDE project provides, and should not be the entire measure by which the group and project is judged.

Personally, I've always felt that the real story behind "KDE 4" had nothing to do with the desktop changes, but with the abstraction that was done, along with Qt's built-in cross-platform capability, to provide a powerful application stack portable across multiple platforms, and not restricted just to *nix. KDE the application stack is, frankly, more analogous to Java in a very broad sense, than it is to Gnome (or E17, or XFCE, or...). The KDE desktop (plasma desktop), on the other hand, is the component of KDE designed to provide a desktop environment on *nix, and is analogous to Gnome et al.

The separation model isolates the base libraries for supporting KDE applications, meaning that users running KDE apps under a non-KDE desktop will not have to drag in all the desktop components they will not need. This will be particularly important for mobility platforms. The idea is that you should be able to cleanly port your KDE applications to things like Win Mob, Symbian or Maemo, let alone Windows or OSX, without dragging in a boatload of desktop dependencies or heavy hacking of the code.

This will also allow a focus on the KDE applications themselves, whether part of the KDE project proper, or third-party. There are numerous high-quality KDE applications that should be perfectly usable for people that don't necessarily feel comfortable with the KDE desktop, or even *nix itself.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the naming scheme, but I do think any change that tries to re-brand the key elements of the project itself are a step in the right direction, and will help clarify the development structure for future developers that may otherwise associate KDE with *nix-only development.

Personally, I think an emphasis on the advantages and portability of the development framework, versus an over-emphasis of the "native" desktop environment, has a better chance of attracting new developers. I think it also emphasizes the most distinct difference between KDE and alternative DEs, and it's about time they started communicating this point through branding.

So to your original comment, you may not feel that the KDE desktop is optimal for all users, but that shouldn't preclude evaluating individual KDE applications under your DE of choice, and choosing the best tool for your job.

Just my 2c...

Reply Parent Score: 4