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 396599
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Problem they have is KDE 4
by Laurence on Thu 26th Nov 2009 13:11 UTC in reply to "Problem they have is KDE 4"
Member since:

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.
* 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:

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

Laurence Member since:

But then an experience user could easily change KDE or Windows to reflect their preferences (as they're going to be more tech savvy) so I don't see the problem.

I love the fact that KDE has a simular GUI as Windows because, as much as I might dislike other aspects of Windows, I've always liked the way how the GUI was layed out.

But I also love the fact that KDE isn't a clone of Windows. They've taken the bits they liked from the GUI and added a few things they preferred.

So while it might grate some users who are new to the system - ultimately it's still better than creating a carbon copy (as people would stick to Windows and not bother with KDE).

Reply Parent Score: 4