The KDE team has released KDE 3.5.8, a maintenance release. New stuff: “Improvements in Konqueror and its web browsing component KHTML. Bugs in handling HTTP connections have been fixed, KHTML has improved support of some CSS features for more standards compliance. In the kdegraphics package, lots of fixes in KDE’s PDF viewer and Kolourpaint, a painting application, went into this release. The KDE PIM suite has, as usual, seen numerous stability fixes, covering KDE’s email client KMail, the organizer application KOrganizer and various other bits and pieces.”
Yup, it came down the pipe on Debian Unstable and aptitude installed it this morning. No muss no fuss, just the real deal. I wish all software releases were like this. Looking forward to KDE4.
I am using 3.5.8 in openSUSE right now, seems fine. But I didn’t using .7 much as in openSUSE I stick with GNOME.
But I’m hoping this update will work on FreeBSD ok. I’ve been trying to make KDE from ports with no success. and there have been bug reports for FreeBSD for K3.5.7., so maybe they can just port this release over and it will make install with no problems now.
Konqueror Kpaint Kmail Ktorrent K….
I’m dizy…
Have to love ‘the Debian’– Installed without a hitch. I use Konqueror as my primary browser, so the big whack of bugfixes in KHTML is much appreciated. The same goes with Kmail. A big thanks to the KDE team who haven’t left us meagre users all in the lurch while on the march to KDE 4. Thanks! Now back to slaving away on KDE 4! :p
I’ve had to look in Konq’s Help>About to see if my Debian lenny/sid changed version of konqueror. Yes it did:)
I tend to ping over to gnome sometimes, but I eventually pong back to KDE. I really prefer the look and feel of gtk applications, but KDE seems to be glued together stronger. KDE upgrades RARELY depend on anything under the hood in the distribution, and very little in its structure changes from place to place. Taking a several yr old distro like CentOS4, add a repo from kde-redhat, and viola…latest KDE no breakage no complaints.
Try updating even a point release in GNOME and it requires replacing half of the underlying system. I have grown to appreciate that about KDE, its a very clean build that doesn’t really care whats going on down below.
“””
I tend to ping over to gnome sometimes, but I eventually pong back to KDE. I really prefer the look and feel of gtk applications, but KDE seems to be glued together stronger.
“””
No. Not really. But you are correct that the user (or distributor) do not have to worry as much about dependencies with QT. It’s a difference in development and release philosophies between GNOME/GTK and KDE/QT.
While the Gnome/GTK model emphasizes distributed development of independent libraries, each with a separate release path for each, Trolltech prefers to develop a set of libraries and release them all at once, as a monolithic lump. This is good for resource constrained projects like Slackware and PCLinuxOS. Also for individual users who want to upgrade at random times, on a whim, with minimal fuss.
Managing the dependencies of Gnome does require more in the way of resources for distributors. But in the grand scheme of things, the advantages of the Gnome model seem to pay off. Or at least, more of the larger distros seem to favor Gnome.
“Managing the dependencies of Gnome does require more in the way of resources for distributors. But in the grand scheme of things, the advantages of the Gnome model seem to pay off. Or at least, more of the larger distros seem to favor Gnome.”
That’s far more rooted in the politics of yore, and the momentum from cooperate distros fixation with “Follow the Red Hat HIGGy-corporate-desktop-itis”. KDE releases are regular, with public schedules. (About the only KDEs to really slip a schedule are the big X.0.0 releases.) I mean apply the release schedule logic to the kernel– or Xorg. That clearly must be why we haven’t had the ‘Year of the Desktop’ yet.
Those default choices have probably had a negative impact on the KDE install base, but with that being said, KDE seems to be competing rather well with certain Distros default choices. To be honest, if you like GNOME, good for you! But that doesn’t mean that you (not you specifically) have to be proselytizing about the one true ‘Free Desktop’– Because there isn’t one, and that’s a very good thing.
I’m not quite sure what relation, if any, your response has to do with my post. But here goes.
“””
“””
I has to do with out of the box usability, which the majority of people like, vs menus and submenus of submenus full of obscure options that a minority who prefer to tweak the hell out of their desktops like.
“””
“””
I didn’t really refer to adherence to any release schedule. I just said that when Trolltech releases, they release in a monolithic way, all at once.
But since you mention it, Gnome does do better at sticking to a schedule than KDE these days. It didn’t used to be that way. Gnome has gotten better and KDE has gotten worse, in that respect.
“””
“””
Let me ask you this. If Gnome were on 90% of free desktops and its users were very happy… and kde were on 10% of Free Desktops and its users were very happy, what would you think of that? I ask because I believe that most computer users want *simple*. The current Free Desktop user base is not representative of the average computer user. But if World Domination goes as planned, it will become more and more that way. And that will bode ill for the relative popularity of desktops which do not focus upon *simple*.
My guess? KDE will become a sort of niche refuge for the power user “elite”.
Uhh, yeah that would be because Gnome does time based releases, while KDE releases “when its done”. What a stupid comparison.
I would think you are living in fantasy land.
Even if there is an “average” computer user (spend any time with usability testing and you’d be rid of that myth), you have no data to back up what kind of users are on free platforms right now.
As simple as possible but no simpler. You underestimate the “average” user. The average user is not grandma. That kind of user is (excuse the pun) dying out. The average user is becoming more and more techno-savvy as computers become more pervasive, and as this happens, these users will demand more from their software. Usability is also important, but if software doesn’t have the feature you need, all the usability in the world is useless (not to mention that there is no evidence that Gnome is more usable than KDE (both have had studies done with good results)).
The average user is becoming more and more techno-savvy as computers become more pervasive
Not really, I have seen some cabbages in my local computer shop saying that they bought blank discs, but when they put them in the pc, the films would not copy themselves over. I asked how they tried to copy, they said, they put the disc in the drive and double clicked the film. Instead of it copying over, it started playing instead, hmmmm
I agree though, Gnome is very simple, but KDE is more fun.
heh, they are probably used to the good old double tape deck. there you put the original on one side, and the blank on the other. then you hit play on the original and record on the blank.
give it some time and presto, a duplicate.
Most people don’t demand a helluva lot from their cars, stereo’s or stoves other than that they perform the tasks their designed to do (transport people from A to B, play music, cook food) while being reasonably pleasant to the eye and easy to use.
Most people have absolutely NO interest whatsoever in the computer itself. It’s there to make their life easier in some way or the other, not being an object of interest in and of itself.
I’m sure we all like to think that computers are hugely interesting and fascinating to everyone and that even Jacob The Farmer wants to know all about them but that’s just not true. The computer is a tool, admittedly a very complex and flexible tool, but a tool nonetheless.
Most people have absolutely NO interest whatsoever in the computer itself. It’s there to make their life easier in some way or the other, not being an object of interest in and of itself.
The logical fallacy here is that you believe not caring about how a computer works is somehow linked to not caring whether it will do what you want.
Edited 2007-10-17 14:23
That analogy is worse than broken. A car is for transporting you from A to B, a stereo is for playing music, and a stove is for cooking. Each has one very well defined feature that everyone uses in pretty much exactly the same way.
What’s a computer for? Computing? How would you explain how one computes with a computer?. A computer is for an infinite number of tasks, and even if you just listed what the non-geek computer users use their computers for you’d be here all day.
The average user is becoming more and more techno-savvy as computers become more pervasive,
Nope, I think the exact opposite is happening. I was recently talking with a friend of mine about this and we noted how, for example, when we where kids, just about everybody who had a computer at least knew a little bit of programming. Everybody was reasonably comfortable with editing text files to make things happen, where perfectly happy using the command line, and on the whole had a reasonable grasp how computers work. This was all obviously because computers where far more rare and if you owned and used one you where almost per definition a computer nerd.
As computers become more pervasive the average computer user becomes less and less techno-savvy simply because more an more techno un-savvy people get computers.
Yes, the average computer user has become less knowledgeable, but the average person (that’s what I should have said) is becoming more knowledgeable. Yes there are plenty of people out there with no clue, but anyone under 25-30 these days knows at least enough to use a computer with some competency (even if that is only to create documents in Microsoft word, browse the internet, and send emails). Although that doesn’t sound like a lot of knowledge, it is actually quite a bit of user interface experience.
The problem I’ve experienced with many of these users is that they become incredibly retarded computer-wise the moment they are placed in front of something unfamiliar. Move the windows start-menu from the bottom to the top of the window, and they’re completely lost … user interface experience isn’t always an experience that is worth anything …
Yes there are plenty of people out there with no clue, but anyone under 25-30 these days knows at least enough to use a computer with some competency
That is probably true. Unfortunately there is a lot of people out there that still holds jobs that are a lot older than that, and they may not be all that computer literate. So if we want the free desktop to succeed we still need it to be very simple to use.
If it is just as usable as MacOS-X or windows why should the user switch, after all if he sticks to windows he is much more likely to exchange files and experience with his neighbors or colleagues, as windows applications are much more common among the general public.
True. They are also extremely unlikely to switch unless forced (through work perhaps). Targetting them is a waste of time IMO.
One could look at it another way and say that Mac OS X is generally regarded as being a very usable operating system, with a lot of attention being paid to interfaces that are intuitive. And yet it has a comparatively tiny market share. So even with fantastic usability, brand recognition, and trendy hardware, you can’t convince most people to switch. It really indicates that improved usability won’t really make people switch from Windows.
Nope, I think the exact opposite is happening. I was recently talking with a friend of mine about this and we noted how, for example, when we where kids, just about everybody who had a computer at least knew a little bit of programming.
Computers did far, far less back then.
As computers become more pervasive the average computer user becomes less and less techno-savvy simply because more an more techno un-savvy people get computers.
How on Earth do you think people would have reacted to the interface of a mobile phone twenty years ago? How do you think most people have got used to features like predictive text?
They still don’t…
Even students that know how to write a paper or a spreadsheet in MS Office, or read their e-mail freak out when they are put in front of a different DE.
Any evidence for this? I’ve seen plenty of people have a go at my linux desktop, and no-one has “freaked out”. Yes it takes a few seconds to figure out what’s going on, but without fail people have managed to find the equivalent of the Start menu and launch a browser and use it without problems. Studies have shown that the usability of KDE is approximately the same as Windows XP (and that was with KDE 3.1.2, things have improved dramatically since then) http://www.linux-usability.de/download/linux_usability_report_en.pd…
I’ve seen people freak out when they’ve been upgraded from windows 2000 to xp. trust me they are out there. I happen to work somewhere where its common and people are as computer savvy as a chimp. These aren’t stupid people, these are people who are ceo’s of fortune 500 companies and billion dollar companies, yet they freak out when a toolbar isn’t in the same place it used to be in windows 2000, now imagine them switching to KDE. When we upgraded everyone in our company to windows XP (because of the IT policy) it was a huge ordeal and most users rejected it straight away, we had to make XP look as similar as possible to 2000 in-order for them to digest it. I don’t even want to mention what happened with office 2003 and the absence of the office bar. Not everyone’s as savvy as you think.
Even students that know how to write a paper or a spreadsheet in MS Office, or read their e-mail freak out when they are put in front of a different DE.
I assume you have a study to back this up, but, they get different mobile phones all the time……
If the above is the case, then confronting them with right -> left button ordering would seem rather daft, no? 😉
“I has to do with out of the box usability, which the majority of people like, vs menus and submenus of submenus full of obscure options that a minority who prefer to tweak the hell out of their desktops like.”
A majority of users want a ‘highly discoverable’ interface when confronted with something new… And admittedly, KDE (Toolbars, menus, and config screens), might not exactly be a shining example of ‘highly discoverable’. However, KDE has been taking baby steps to clean up a lot of these things since the 3.3 era, and 4.0 promises to start taking larger steps in that direction. People only want ‘simple’ until they hit the wall of software not doing what they want it to do.
Turning KDE 4.0 into Gnome 2.0 (and I mean 2.0 specifically, because things have gotten better there.) would be a ‘regression’ to the people who are both using and developing KDE. I’m all for improving the organization and discoverability of the KDE interface, and even for pruning some of the more obscure and non-maintained bits of KDE, but a broad feature neutering in the name of (somebody else’s definition) ‘simplicity’ is available elsewhere and lovely until you can’t do what ‘you’ want to do.
“I didn’t really refer to adherence to any release schedule. I just said that when Trolltech releases, they release in a monolithic way, all at once.
But since you mention it, Gnome does do better at sticking to a schedule than KDE these days. It didn’t used to be that way. Gnome has gotten better and KDE has gotten worse, in that respect.”
As far as GNOME doing better with sticking to schedules– they’re currently plucking away incrementally. So I can empathize with why the KDE people are de-emphasizing the 3.5.x branch to some extent. They want their resources focused on KDE 4.
As far as KDE 4.0 slippage goes- Yeah, they missed October, and they may very well miss December. As long as it doesn’t turn into the Nethack release schedule it’s more or less irrelevant as you’d have to be a little nutty to bill the virgin 4.0.0 as a ‘ready for prime time’ enterprise desktop.
It’s not like 3.5.x will self destruct upon the release of 4.0.0.
I suspect the KDE 4 transition will be far more like the KDE 1 -> 2 one, than the KDE 2 -> 3 one. KDE 1 -> 2 was a major re-design, where 2 -> 3 was a straight(ish) port to a new Qt. So I expect it to be bumpy. Given the incramentalist approach to GNOME, yeah they’ll avoid those lumps. But ultimately, these things only really affect people like me anyway– so it’s not really here nor there so long as the transition occurs.
I remember GNOME 1 -> 2 as well… It happens. And? I suspect KDE 5 will be far more like KDE 2 -> 3 for that very reason.
“Let me ask you this. If Gnome were on 90% of free desktops and its users were very happy… and kde were on 10% of Free Desktops and its users were very happy, what would you think of that? I ask because I believe that most computer users want *simple*. The current Free Desktop user base is not representative of the average computer user. But if World Domination goes as planned, it will become more and more that way. And that will bode ill for the relative popularity of desktops which do not focus upon *simple*.
My guess? KDE will become a sort of niche refuge for the power user “elite”.”
Realistically, KDE with 10% of the linux desktop install base wouldn’t bother me so long as it continued to be developed and wasn’t eclipsed by an option that I preferred more. That’s what I mean about not ‘proselytizing’ about the ‘one true desktop’. I use KDE because it works well for me– If something else works better, and is available under a ‘Free’ licence, I’d use that.
As far as your guess goes about KDE becoming a refugee camp for the power user elite, time will tell. However, I’d like to think that ‘Highly Discoverable’ can indeed co-exist with features, and that the future of the Linux Desktop shouldn’t be two clay tablets with the words ‘HIG’ on top, with a fine priesthood sitting atop their thrones of buzilla printouts of denied feature requests. :p
I care about KDE winning some mythological desktop war about as much as I care about Linux ‘winning’. That’s not very much at all, so long as I have a desktop that works well for me on my hardware. This is software, not religion.
Edited 2007-10-17 04:23
I has to do with out of the box usability, which the majority of people like, vs menus and submenus of submenus full of obscure options that a minority who prefer to tweak the hell out of their desktops like.
It has to do with a decision Red Hat made YEARS ago, which no one except the people who were working there at the time can truly answer. For whatever reason, (and you could certainly be right) Red Hat became the market leader and organizations like Novell felt it was better to support a single desktop instead of forcing 3rd party developers to work with multiple ones.
But since you mention it, Gnome does do better at sticking to a schedule than KDE these days. It didn’t used to be that way. Gnome has gotten better and KDE has gotten worse, in that respect.
I agree. I think that is a very minor point, all things considered, but you are correct.
Let me ask you this. If Gnome were on 90% of free desktops and its users were very happy… and kde were on 10% of Free Desktops and its users were very happy, what would you think of that?
I would be slightly disappointed, but mostly very happy. Wouldn’t everyone? Are you seriously saying that if the situation was reversed, you wouldn’t be? You’d rather have people sad but using GNOME than happy and using KDE? I hope not, but what exactly was the point you’re trying to get at here?
I ask because I believe that most computer users want *simple*.
I agree, although where I think we disagree is that I think people actually want their software to do the things they want as well. Simple is better than complex any day, but if it just doesn’t work correctly then people will switch to something that does whether it’s complex or not.
The current Free Desktop user base is not representative of the average computer user.
I agree again. However, it’s pretty obvious that over the years both desktop environments have gotten much more user friendly – you hardly ever have to drop down to the command line anymore. This is going to continue to happen as the user base expands and demands it, and KDE4 is really making a major push in this direction. At least supposedly, I’ll reserve my judgment until it actually comes out.
My guess? KDE will become a sort of niche refuge for the power user “elite”.
No offense, but KDE and GNOME are both currently in that camp. The only OS that isn’t is Windows XP, which I have to say resembles KDE more closely than GNOME. That can be taken as a positive or a negative, but making wild guesses about what may or may not happen at some undisclosed point in the future isn’t much more than flamebait.
Edited 2007-10-17 06:21
Well, I would think that’s rather weird, as currently most linux desktop users use KDE. Sure, Gnome makes more noise so many think it’s the opposite, but in reallity it’s more like 60/30/10 (KDE/Gnome/XFCE) than the number you quote 😉
But hey, dream on.
No, they want something which works. And those who use a computer daily, for hours and hours, would prefer something which works efficiently. If you use a computer a lot, a few icons too many has less impact than missing features and shortcuts. Efficiency matters, and you can work more efficient with KDE than with Gnome.
But, as others have said, what distro’s use by default is mostly about politics – see Novell. 80% of their users use KDE, yet they go for Gnome. Why? Gnome does have better marketing, better social networking. Having the best technology isn’t good enough, apparently. I mean, let’s be honest now, KDE 3.5.8 can hold it’s ground against gnome 2.20, and won’t have troubles with 2.22 either, right? And it’s 2 years old… (3.5, that is, but 3.5.8 is mostly bugfixes and minor features).
Well, I would think that’s rather weird, as currently most linux desktop users use KDE
wow, most people use KDE. who told you that? Linus?
I was under the impression most people used the default DE, which is gnome on a lot of successful distros.
Like Fedora and Ubuntu, yes.
Suse and Mandriva both ship KDE by default (oh, suse has no default, but still 80% of suse users use KDE – and fedora doesn’t have a default either anymore, but most use Gnome, so let’s even that out), as do Mepis, Linspire, Xandros, PCLinuxOS, Knoppix, Slackware etcetera. And Fedora and Ubuntu might have many users, the fact Mandriva and Opensuse don’t make that much noise and don’t have the mindshare in the vocal part of the community doesn’t mean they don’t have users. Mandriva rolls out half a million KDE desktops each year (or was it 2 million a year?). And KDE always has been larger than Gnome, in terms of developers and code (still is) and most likely in terms of users (but that’s hard to measure). Only smaller in promotion and big talk…
Anyway, let’s assume Gnome grew more than KDE, and say KDE and Gnome now have an equal share of users. KDE keeps its ground with 2 year old technology, so I’m not worried for KDE 4 😉
I was under the impression most people used the default DE, which is gnome on a lot of successful distros.
I’m always amused by this ‘default desktop environment’ thing that some people come out with, like it is necessary for Gnome to be forced on people ;-). I also like the ‘successful distros’ comment as well. The vast majority of users use Linux by virtue of it being free, and I simply do not see very many SLED or Red Hat desktop installations around. We’ve been told time and again by many people that the these distributions are going to change the world, and the default desktop environment in them will make a difference. It hasn’t.
In any given desktop survey over the past few years, KDE has been the most popular desktop environment. This hasn’t just been a one-off either – it’s been over a number of years. Additionally, despite lots of peoples’ attempts to tell us that Gnome is the default DE in OpenSuse, around 70% of OpenSuse’s userbase use KDE:
http://files.opensuse.org/opensuse/en/6/6c/Opensuse_survey_102_data…
Despite Ubuntu defaulting to Gnome there has been enough demand for a KDE variant, and even though Gnome is the default in Fedora and Red Hat, there has still been enough demand to produce KDE packages.
Actually recent statistics indicate that Gnome is the more widely used followed very closely by KDE. If I can find the article citing the statistics, I’ll post a link.
That was the linuxdesktop survey, and don’t bother posting it, the statistics are worthless anyway (self selecting sample, vote stuffing, etc). Although I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more Gnome users overall than KDE users, that survey is completely meaningless.
Actually recent statistics indicate that Gnome is the more widely used followed very closely by KDE. If I can find the article citing the statistics, I’ll post a link.
I found the link. Here you go:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/2006-linuxquestions.org-mem…
I found the link. Here you go:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/2006-linuxquestions.org-mem…
Unless this is some sort of trick link, that doesn’t say what you think it says.
Edited 2007-10-17 21:46
It’s not a trick link. LinuxQuestions.org hosts forums for various Linux distros (and also for other UNIX-like OSs). Apparently it’s the main forum for Slackware users. Still, their “Members Choice Awards” should give a reasonably good overview of what’s currently popular among GNU/Linux users and what’s not.
“Well, I would think that’s rather weird, as currently most linux desktop users use KDE. Sure, Gnome makes more noise so many think it’s the opposite, but in reallity it’s more like 60/30/10 (KDE/Gnome/XFCE) than the number you quote ;-)”
Do you have real numbers to back this up? Not trying to be confrontational just want to know if this can be proven.
OK, to be honest, no. There are no hard numbers on this, and the numbers I gave are a few years old, by then backed up by the many surveys. So things could’ve been changing a bit (eg 50/40/10 or 40/40/20 or something).
But the recent OpenSuse survey showed 80 % KDE. And if you go for the suggestion that ppl use the default, then let me go through the top-10 of major distributions Distrowatch gives on http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major – this is totally unscientific, but it is 7 KDE distro’s and 4 Gnome. Though, sure, Ubuntu has also Kubuntu, Fedora and OpenSuse are now DE-agnostic, Gentoo and Debian don’t really count as they’re for advanced users, and there’s PC-BSD (with KDE) in there as well.
But don’t believe the stories about “it’s all Gnome” as that’s definitely not true. I’m just trying to compensate for those stories, and like the “Gnome is 90%” proponents I don’t have hard proof…
Either way, the strongest thing going for G is their well-oiled promotion machine. KDE has its technology. I know history has shown superior technology to loose out, but I hope that’ll be different in Free Software.
And I hope that for 2 reasons: I prefer KDE, and rather see it improve, and second – I believe the Free Desktop needs to be better than the non-free ones to succeed, and KDE (4) is it’s best shot.
“””
“””
Oops! You have some factual problems there:
http://tinyurl.com/2fqkf8
The 2007 desktoplinux.com survey shows Gnome winning by a landslide. Not surprising, as Ubuntu, Fedora, and all the enterprise distros use Gnome. Even OpenSuse is really a Gnome distro, these days. Note they did not even bother getting the vaunted compiz working on KDE in the latest release, and did not consider the fact that trying to use it in KDE whitescreens the machine to be a show stopper bug for the release. (This is a well known problem.)
Gnome was 35% and KDE 38% last year. This year, it’s 45% vs 35% in favor of Gnome. So maybe your information is just outdated.
“””
“””
You too. 😉
Edited 2007-10-20 23:00
I thought it was rather well know there has been some tampering with those numbers.
A bit more details: around 25% of the votes where done in a few hours on friday night, almost all for OpenSuse and Gnome and firefox and some other things (while everyone knows 80% of the opensuse users use KDE – see the many surveys about that).
So I don’t need to go into that, do I?
“””
“””
Link? Evidence?
How come the most bright always think the others are the minority. Yo.
I has to do with out of the box usability, which the majority of people like, vs menus and submenus of submenus full of obscure options that a minority who prefer to tweak the hell out of their desktops like.
I don’t know where people get this ‘tweak the hell out of the desktop’ crap from.
Listen mate – on KDE, Windows and even OS X I can readily and quickly run an application as another user. I can’t on Gnome. In KDE, Windows and Mac OS X I can alter the settings for my screensaver. Not so in Gnome. All you get is a chooser – and the choosing is all done for you.
This ‘desktop tweaking’ stuff when people advocate Gnome is a complete myth, basically because a lot of the features you kind in KDE you will also find in OS X and Windows as well.
But since you mention it, Gnome does do better at sticking to a schedule than KDE these days. It didn’t used to be that way. Gnome has gotten better and KDE has gotten worse, in that respect.
When you have a time-based release schedule then you can always stick to it. Whether there will be anything actually useful in those releases is an entirely different matter ;-).
Let me ask you this. If Gnome were on 90% of free desktops and its users were very happy… and kde were on 10% of Free Desktops and its users were very happy, what would you think of that? I ask because I believe that most computer users want *simple*.
The chances of that would be very slim, simply because as popularity increases so does the demand for features and additions.
Unless you have a desktop that can grow with people as they use more and more of your desktop environment then you haven’t got a chance. Telling everyone that it’s ‘simple’ is only going to get you so far, and it certainly won’t cut any ice with the people who can’t do what they want and can see it right there in other desktop environments.
The odds are that if Gnome ever became more widely used than it is then most people would have it chock full of add-ons to get it to do what they want. Since the vast majority of people aren’t forced into using Gnome then they’ll use something else, or stick with what they have.
The current Free Desktop user base is not representative of the average computer user.
I keep hearing people say this, with not a shred of evidence as to what they base this on. Windows and Mac OS X represent the real majority, and they are both desktop environments that do more and have more features than Gnome ever will.
My guess? KDE will become a sort of niche refuge for the power user “elite”.
Well, feel free to tell OS X and Windows users, and Windows -> Linux converts, that they have been living in a power user niche for most of their lives. You are never going to get users away from the Windows world by saying “Look, Gnome is simple!”
You’ve either got it or you haven’t, and over the next few years that’s what will really separate Gnome and KDE from each other. Although paying attention to usability and organisation is very important, the past few years of Gnome’s slant on usability, and the ‘simplicity’ buzzword, have really been about covering up other shortcomings.
Edited 2007-10-17 13:13
This is about the stupidest post I’ve ever read. With a whole bunch of opinionated crap spewed as fact. Considering the poster. I’m not surprised. Stop trolling and go use whatever the fsck you want.
This is about the stupidest post I’ve ever read. With a whole bunch of opinionated crap spewed as fact.
Can I run an application as another user like I can in KDE, Windows and OS X? No
Can I confiigure my screensavers like I can in KDE, Windows and OS X? No.
Can you tell me how some people define an ‘average’ desktop user – in a meaningful and non-opinionated way?
Given that Windows and OS X have many of the same features that KDE has (which has been the main point), and Gnome doesn’t, does that mean that most Windows and OS X users are elitist power users?
Utter crap.
If you’d like to tell me why those are opinions, and what yours actually are(!), then I’m all ears. Trolling because you’re upset isn’t going to help.
—–
I has to do with out of the box usability, which the majority of people like, vs menus and submenus of submenus full of obscure options that a minority who prefer to tweak the hell out of their desktops like.
—–
I always wondered, given infinite configurability of KDE, if somebody wants to provide a simpler, non-intimidating KDE, then the global KDE defaults can be tweaked without much efforts. But nobody seems to have chosen the route, no idea why?
Distributions like Kubuntu, Linspire and Xandros have done exactly that, and very succesfully. Linspire and Xandros chose KDE specifically because of its ease of use, and Kubuntu’s KDE is out of the box really very clean, comfortable and easy to use.
And while there have been plenty of complaints about Kubuntu’s KDE, it’s quite significant that the majority of KOffice and perhaps even KDE developers use Kubuntu.
You know that if you keep telling your opinion, they might burn your house down. lol
😛
You forgot developers, who like a consistent API covering the majority of common functions in a consistent, well documented, and stable manner without having to hunt down 5 libraries with different APIs, build systems, and levels of maturity.
[q]But in the grand scheme of things, the advantages of the Gnome model seem to pay off. Or at least, more of the larger distros seem to favor Gnome.[q]
I like to believe, that the “advantages of the gnome model” that you seem to see play a minor, or even neglectable, role in the overall cause that makes some of the larger distros choose gnome as primary option.
For example:
1. Novell bought Ximian with a lot of GNOME know how.
2. GTK is LGPL while Qt is GPL / commercial if you prefer to release your program as closed source
In my opinion, the Qt Framework is _technically_ a major advantage for KDE in comparison to GNOME. And I further like to believe that this technical advantage will some day pay off and convince “some of the larger distributions” to rethink their choice.
Anyhow. I think it’s _still_ good that both DEs exist to keep the innovation coming. (terrible cant, I know, but still true)
1. Novell bought Ximian with a lot of GNOME know how.
Novell also bought SuSE which was at that time one of the biggest supporters of KDE with a lot of paid programmers to work full-time on it. Granted, they almost ruined SuSE by trying to force its users into GNOME and cease/lessen KDE development but thankfully the users “convinced” Novell to retract this decision. I’m also under the impression that Novell bought Ximian mostly for the Mono framework, the GNOME stuff like Evolution was the icing on the cake.
2. GTK is LGPL while Qt is GPL / commercial if you prefer to release your program as closed source
Yes, and closed source applications are exactly what we want on a desktop dedicated to Free Software. Oh, wait…
Edited 2007-10-17 19:52
Utter nonsense, since when did Novell almost ruin SUSE and get people onto GNOME?
It was Novell who made GNOME better because I know one of them has moved to Germany because of it. GNOME pretty bad under SUSE before Novell came along, KDE is just as good. I think alot of people thought that because of SLED and KDE go left out, SUSE just got balanced out now.
Utter nonsense, since when did Novell almost ruin SUSE and get people onto GNOME
When SuSE was first aquired by Novell it was planned to abondon shipping KDE with SuSE Enterprise products. Novell took a lot of heat for this decision (partly from their SuSE customers base who was less then thrilled being forced into GNOME) and a couple of days later it was announced that both desktop environments would be part of the enterprise products.
Since SuSE was traditionally one of the most important KDE distribution switiching to GNOME or pulling resources from KDE development would have in fact meant for the largest part of their user base that SuSE was ruined. Or do you sincerely believe that Novell would have further continued funding KDE development if it were not used in SLED at all?
Novell also bought SuSE which was at that time one of the biggest supporters of KDE with a lot of paid programmers to work full-time on it. Granted, they almost ruined SuSE by trying to force its users into GNOME and cease/lessen KDE development but thankfully the users “convinced” Novell to retract this decision.
Suse had a lot going for it as a Linux server company. Novell ruined it long before this whole ‘default’ Gnome thing came along, and it has had little to do with desktop environments – although it hasn’t helped.
Novell’s management, or lack of it, are simply pants,
I agree….updates go without a hitch…just updated two machines right now and all is working fine! I like gnome too, but I usually just leave the basic version that is installed alone as it IS tough to get everything to work together..I have found many issues with GTK library incompatibilities…and that gets irritating…KDE comes together every time….but gnome is very pretty…
I too look forward to see what kde4 will be like….
I agree that the timed releases are good for most, but again the GNOME release you can use is usually tied to distro release you are using, with KDE that’s not the case. I actually prefer the aesthetics of GNOME, but its just a PITA sometimes.
Hmm let me backup all my gnome stuff so I can restore it later…chit what do I need, .gconf, gconf2,.gnome,.gnome2, etc…crap where is my email at, ohh thats in .evolution, but the settings are over in .gnome2..oh wait, that didn’t work….see where I’m going? Granted stuff like evolution isn’t nec all just gnome, but its gtk which is a mess sometimes.
Hmmm no need to backup this KDE, I’ll just install a new distro and boot with my old .kde…hmm yup everything looks fine (proceed to working)
Thanks one of the thing that spawned my comment, but there are about as many Gnome VS KDE myths floating around as the ones for “rpm-hell”, Debian VS Ubuntu, and Obama VS Clinton lol…
It is one thing when you are simply bombarded with a myriad of options about how to configure each and every KDE application. That most of these options are *never* used by anybody, or of any real utility, also doesn’t hurt anything. But when you have so many damned options it is impossible to test/bugtest all of the myriad of combinations of these options- and this is where KDE keeps disappointing me. It is not so much that the defaults tend be whacked beyond belief making it truly time consuming and cumbersome to turn stuff off and simply the UI, but the fact that if I accidentally get the wrong combination of operations *boom* the application crashed.
The reason why GNOME 2.0 stripped almost every option away(which was hardcore overkill from a UI perspective and was quite frustrating for users) was that only by doing so was it possible to finally be able have a base desktop which was *largely* bug-free. Stripping out all the options made it possible to test things and find and root out the bugs. Once this was done GNOME started adding back options, making things much better along the way.
I hope KDE4 can do much of the same thing- throw out the absolute overkill configurability – reduce the complexity to a point where every combination of options is testable and then gradually re-add options which can be thoroughly tested. If they do this, they might just win me over-as I do have a great deal of respect for many features and aspects of KDE.
Could you elaborate please? I have fiddled with a lot of options in KDE, but I’ve never had it become unstable as a result. I realize you are on Gnome now, but perhaps you still remember an example so I can test it and report it as a bug if it crashes.
It is one thing when you are simply bombarded with a myriad of options about how to configure each and every KDE application.
Where is this interface that allows you to configure everything in every KDE application?
But when you have so many damned options it is impossible to test/bugtest all of the myriad of combinations of these options- and this is where KDE keeps disappointing me.
See my comment above:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18781&comment_id=278830
KDE has no more features than Windows or OS X in reality when you look at what you can generally do – fast user switching, running an application as another user, configuring screensavers, configuring the desktop theme etc. I’ve also never encountered any serious bugs as a result of having these features.
Saying this enough times won’t make it come true.
The reason why GNOME 2.0 stripped almost every option away(which was hardcore overkill from a UI perspective and was quite frustrating for users)
On what basis are the above features, that every other desktop has, frustrating to users? Saying this enough times won’t make it come true either.
was that only by doing so was it possible to finally be able have a base desktop which was *largely* bug-free.
The reason why was because Gnome simply didn’t have a common technical base to make all of these features hang together. One Gnome control panel applet always looks slightly different to another, because there is no technical underpinnings binding them together – apart from the HIG. If you strip away the UI and many features, you magically have something that looks somewhat integrated!
I hope KDE4 can do much of the same thing- throw out the absolute overkill configurability – reduce the complexity to a point where every combination of options is testable and then gradually re-add options which can be thoroughly tested.
In what way do you think that what is there already hasn’t been thoroughly tested after many years of use? I’m confused as to why you think this is an issue.
Oh please. You know that’s not true just as much as I do. Just off the top of my head here’s 5 things that I can configure in KDE that I can’t configure in Windows:
– Titlebar button order (I put my minimize in the top left corner for faster access)
– Remove the programs menu from the taskbar (I have no use for it)
– Add shortcuts to the side of the file open/save dialog
– Appearance of the taskbar (button style, transparency)
– What each mouse button does when you click on the taskbar
There’s tons of options that can be configured in KDE over and above those offered by Windows. That’s partially why I like it. Yes, many of them I will never touch, but they also don’t get in my way at all.
Oh please. You know that’s not true just as much as I do. Just off the top of my head here’s 5 things that I can configure in KDE that I can’t configure in Windows:
I’m impressed you actually know about them and use them, because I don’t and I’ve been using it for years – which is kind of the point really. They’ve never got in my way or ‘cluttered’ my interface.
However, given the alternatives, there are things that KDE, Windows and OS X can all do that Gnome just can’t – which is held up as the bastion of ‘simplicity’ by some people and is held up as something the ‘average’ user can use………….where just about all the average users are using Windows and OS X without too many problems. I have difficulty with that logic.
I believe you can do this with the various theme add-ons like WindowBlinds.
You can do this in Windows XP. I think it depends on which version of MS Office is installed, or maybe a PowerToy like TweakUI, but it’s possible to do.
Requires add-ons, but also possible in XP+.
Segendum,
Why oh why are you being so facetious ? You state that KDE does not have more configurability options than Windows of OSX and then when contradicted you state:
Which leads to me conclude that either you are being disingenuous or that you do not know what you are talking about…take your pick.
But they have gotten in my way…many, many times. But again you missed the point of what I was talking about.
My point is this: I have nothing, per se, against a myriad of configuration options, but one must not be a rocket scientist to understand that if each KDE application exposes large amounts of configuration options, each of which are seldomly used, but each of which are effected by other configuration options being selected or de-selected that you end up with a myriad of possible states in which the program can find itself and which is never actually going to be tested by anybody but the poor sod who accidentally triggered this particular combination.
You make it sound as if what I was writing was specifically against KDE configurability. This is where you are wrong. I don’t care about this issue-I care about the issue where applications are not as stable as they should be due to the practical *impossibility*, ie. the implausibility that each of the states which such configurable apps may find themselves in are actually tested. This argument holds equally true for any other possible desktop UI.
You alone are under the delusion that KDE offers *the same* configurability options of Windows or OSX. Everyone else who has used KDE know their is *more* configurability-for some this is a boon, and for others this is a bane.
You also misunderstood my comment about GNOME 2.0 being radically stripped of options. GNOME 2.0 was great from a developers perspective but a horror for many users, because so many configuration options were stripped away that one had to go to great lengths to change simple things that one wanted to change. But yet again why did GNOME do this? They did it to make a clean slate, where they could start offering configuration options in such a way as that they could thoroughly test and debug any new features.
You state:
I take it by the term “common technical base” you are refering to QT. If so this is true: GNOME does not have a corporation writing the libraries which form the “common technical base” (ie. GTK+/Glib/etc) for GNOME. The KDE devs have far less work to do because Trolltech does most of their work for them. I think it wonderful for KDE devs that there are so many pieces of reusable software comming from the fact that KDE uses QT. And I would be a fool not recognized the advantages which the highly modular/reusable nature of KDE code.
But then again I think some of the overkill configurability comes from things as simple as this: as a developer I have all of these wonderful tools (API) at my disposal, in fact I have 10,000 routines which I can reuse anywhere and everywhere, what would happen if use this here…..A lot of KDE applications apparently suffer from bored programmers because the biggest part of the development challenge has already been done for them by QT/KDElibs.
The biggest challenge for KDE is comming up with lean, clean, highly usable interfaces. They have shown us the myriads of ways in which they can reuse their own code, now they need to show us that they can restrain themselves to refine their UI’s so as to make truly wonderful applications. Luckily everything I have read about KDE4 appears to point in the direction already. KDE 4.0 should be much more refined and usable-which is why I hope it takes a good *long* time to get to 4.0- so that when it does come, it will be far for refined and stable than that which I have known and used over the years.
Let put this plain: I can see why the KDE developers laud QT/KDElibs so highly. I am also aware of the relative advantages of QT/KDElibs vs. the larger number of GNOME libraries. Your example refering the gnome-panel applets is totally correct: gnome-panel suffers from: 1) still being based on the deprectated bonobo libraries, which although they enable wonderful functionality have been the source of umpteen unsolvable bugs. and 2) lots of nifty stuff which rightly should be in GTK+ is still hanging around in
libegg(hatching ground so to speak)-so each developer cuts and pastes their bits from libegg to fit their particular needs. Yet GNOME is progressing on these fronts too- dbus is taking over the role that bonobo and dcop once played, and there has been a lot of work to re-organize the GNOME libs and weed out the deprectated libraries. I would even go so far as to say that GNOME developers have as much work to do in library consolidation and clean-up as the KDE developers do in creating highly usable stable applications. The new Gobject language being developer in the GNOME community, vala, promises much of what KDE developers have come to expect from the “common technical base”.
I look forward to improvements from both camps…
Wasn’t this article about KDE 3.5.8? or is about GNOME vs KDE?
im confused.
You’re new, I can tell.
Wasn’t this article about KDE 3.5.8? or is about GNOME vs KDE?
im confused.
You tell me sweetheart. Apparently KDE has way too many features, many of which Windows and OS X have, and it’s not for the ‘average’ user – where ‘average’ is never defined and there is no supporting evidence as to what one is.
You’re confused?
Hey sweetheart, the average user is someone who uses their computer for the basic needs. Dont need to change toolbars or advanced window placement.
Just because it’s got every feature imaginable dont make it better for everyone and more bugs to fix. 3.5.8 says something dont it, more bugs to fix and Konqueror is very complex and i’ve never seen GNOME go to 2.18.8 or something like that, not many bugs to fix when it comes to 2.18.3.
As far as I understand GNOME’s release schedule they do exactly 3 bugfix releases for each minor release. What’s not fixed until then will either be fixed upstream or taken over to the next minor release. I’m also not sure if GNOME ever had to support one minor release for over two years or if they continue supporting a minor release at all after a new one is available. So eight bugfix releases for KDE 3.5 is rather understandable.
Hey sweetheart, the average user is someone who uses their computer for the basic needs. Dont need to change toolbars or advanced window placement.
Can you define this average user for me – AGAIN at the umpteenth time of asking? It isn’t answer. I can change toolbars and goodness knows what around with widgets in Windows and OS X as well. Hell, I have stacks in the new OS X. In terms of window placement, we’ve now got cubes, Expose and elaborate ways of organising them. Average users use Windows and OS X without issue, otherwise we’d have heard about it.
What makes you think not having this stuff makes this any better?
3.5.8 says something dont it, more bugs to fix and Konqueror is very complex and i’ve never seen GNOME go to 2.18.8
Errr, that’s because the release numbers and schedules are not equivalent……….. Duh.
The choice of default desktop(distro): Call me shallow instead of honest, it is the qt license.
Not here to flame, anyone that doesnt care about usability of a desktop can skip this post.
Kde vs Gnome: I have been using kde for about a year and before that I was gnome user. I actually prefer gnome appearance, the streamlined interface, the clean look of it(gnome users know what I’m talking about).
Kde haters have always been saying that kde looks windowish but I just dont see that in anyway. I would never associate gnome with os x either. Kde just looks pragmatic I would say. Sure there are things to be improved. Kde4 will fix 99% of that supposedly ‘cluttered’ interface.
It is ‘cluttered’ simply because it has more features simple as that. I’m a mac user myself sometimes I dont see any difference between os x and kde in terms of options dialog, or even gnome with all those tabs. Wanna see interface gone wrong. Get to a Windows desktop nearby you. Whats wrong with vertical bars?(amarok, digikam, kate)
It serves the purpose of functions needed by certain applications.
After all, it is all about what you need. If the functions and features of gnome applications suit your need. You will continue using it as a happy gnome user.
In my case, guess I’m one of the ‘power’ user then.
I love amarok to dead (better than itunes :p) context browsers(lyrics, wiki), full replaygain support, queue, powerful random play and google like query and the cover manager.
Digikam has ‘real’ RAW support, 16bit color management, tons of plugins that could sometimes outdo iphoto in some areas.
k3b is better than nero for me. It checks system configuration and does aLOT of tasks.
I’m a vi user but Kate’s folding feature is just lovely.
Koffice is getting better and better and surprisingly opendocument displayed nicer in koffice than openoffice for me.
Krita plays well with digikam and it’s in no way less ‘superior’ than gimp.
Konversation is more convenient than xchat when it comes to identity, password saved stuff.
Kopete has webcam support.
Ktorrent gets your torrents to max speed faster than deluge does. and it has featureS.
Smplayer is simply the best video player I have ever used.
Oh wait I forget about kcontrol center amd konqueror… never mind.
what about gnome apps then?
These softwares are simply irreplaceable for its tasks:
Gnome subtitles for adjusting video subtitle
Stardict for all the dictionary needs
Use the one that suits your need and it wouldnt hurt to mix with some ‘alien’ apps with the ‘native’ or holy one either.
You and your stupid desktop ‘war’…
It is time some of the people start focusing on
designing the kdm and forget about copying off
Windows Vista…
Answer this why would I want Linux to emulate
Windows? I run RHEL5 on my workstation in the
office and Fedora Core 7 on my work laptop. I use
the gdm on both because KDE is trying to copy
Windows Vista for some insane reason???
Also, I like all the bells and whistles but KDE has
some serious foundation bugs that need fixing
new releases mean nothing when the underlying
base is cobbled up with segfaults and crashes
of components. I have to say I was a KDE person at
first but switch to Gnome for the simple fact
STABILITY and an app working without crashing,
segfaulting and just hanging.
Regardless of what Novell does I don’t see how they
can be blamed for KDE having faults. Red Hat is the
defacto standard in the server arena and Gnome is
the desktop of choice in Red Hat and a lot of other
distro’s because of the fact it just works. It
may not have the eye candy but it does not have
to be restarted and worked on like a old truck.