To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
and I am sure that if KDE takes YOUR custom settings and makes them the default another user would write exactly the same "review" you did complaining that the defaults are not what he prefers.
At least its all highly customizable and so everybody can tweak it to whatever they prefer. Personally I love to have the freedom to do so.
Edited 2012-08-02 07:01 UTC
At least its all highly customizable and so everybody can tweak it to whatever they prefer. Personally I love to have the freedom to do so.
Yes, but KDE is making it needlessly complicated to change a "theme". You need to set every single detail manually. I find that unproductive.
I tried to express my thought about it on official KDE forum, but I get a feeling than only few people visit official forum. So talking there feels like "talking to the wind".
http://forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=101291
You are hardly the only person that has a problem with this. I am just reading Ars technica article about 4.9, and about one half of comments on first page are about "how ugly KDE is".
Some are really harsh:
And so on ...
It is strange that KDE puts so much effort in creating great technology, but for the most part ignores visual appeal. And distributions mostly just ship default build. Open Suse is the most obvious exception, but sadly Open Suse doesn't work well on my laptop.
To me, it looks as if KDE developers were paralyzed with fear of changing anything in default settings and look&feel. They just keep piling new stuff on top of old one, without taking a step back to look at the result. Which is really strange, considering that they could just get together for an afternoon and with a minimum effort make KDE twice as good as it is now.
There are three problems with pushing the design process to the users:
- It makes the desktop less attractive, despite all the work that went into it, many users won't even try it.
- Design should take place before the implementation, not after it.
- Most users can't design a desktop - they are perfectly able to judge it (which is what Gnome guys forget) but they do not necessarily know *how to make* a good desktop.
There is no central "theme" in KDE4. One needs to click "a lot" to change the way KDE4 looks (especially a newbie). And options are not always easy to find or figure out. KDE4 look and feel options strike me as something they did in KDE4.0 just to release something functional and never touched it again.
/+1000.
Let alone the fact the 99% of all comments about KDE 4.x only comments about how ugly / unpolished / semi-designed it looks.
Beyond anything else, this speaks a great deal about to lousy state the IT industry is in.
No wonder MS is betting the farm on a Fisher Price interface for mentally challenged 5 y/o.
- Gilboa
Edited 2012-08-02 15:01 UTC





Member since:
2009-06-30
They could definitely make use of a better theme and a help of a graphics designer. In the video, KDE 4.9 looks "flashy", perhaps even "impressive", but I would never called it "pretty", "elegant" or "clear".
Last time I tried KDE 4.8 it took me about an hour to switch off most annoyances (overload of animations, transparencies, features I would never use anyway) and install more sensible Plasma and Qt themes (it is hard, if possible at all, to find good ones, especially for Plasma). The sad result was that the "core" I've got wasn't particularly good because all the development steam apparently went into parts I've just switched off.