The KDE project started an effort to redesign its Kcontrol panel and here is the outcome so far (in CVS). Update: A developer’s article, how to build a KDE plugin structure.
Preliminary Work on a new KControl for KDE
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I am a zealot? I have never seen you say one positive thing in relation to KDE, yet I see you in every KDE thread I have ever read. You constantly bring up GNOME, but it has no place here. This is once again a KDE thread, yet you have chosen to yet again discuss why GNOME is better, or why KDE isn’t better.
Please do not address me in a manor for which you are better suited. I am on a thread that discusses my favorate desktop. I also respect GNOME, and have stated a few positive things about it. I have only stated opinion however, and as I stated, I use GNOME, so I can’t hate it as much as you seem to think.
I stay up on both desktops, not to knock them, but to pay attention to the improvements, or new developements in both camps. If my honest opinion makes me a zealot, then so be it, however I assure you I am not…
I like that feature, someone has already developed a plugin for which you can embed Kopete’s contact list… pretty neat, I hope to see more of such developements… (creatively enough, I think its called EmbeddedKopete, its at KDE-Apps either way though)
As for the Universal menu idea, the right click action of WMaker etc isn’t what you are refering to? You can indeed do this with KDE, right click on desktop, choose preferences, and find the options for clickable actions… you can configure left, middle, and right buttons to do some fairly cool things. The option I am refering to is ‘Application Menu’, which I stated earlier. This is something I truly miss when using any environment that doesn’t have it.
Well since you know that Nautilus is the desktop shell, what in your opinion will be the most logical place to put desktop related configurations?
I would personally consider ‘desktop’ >> ‘gnome’ >> ‘interface’ or ‘background’ a fairly logical choice… anywhere in ‘desktop’ would be more logical then putting it in ‘apps’ though imo…
GNOME feels better. I feel I am in an environment that is more natural to me. It’s kinda hard to explain, though. It’s simple, elegant and looks good, but it’s the whole thing really, it’s more a feeling than a specific feature.
There may not be that many and great desklets yet, but the framework keeps improving and so will the desklets and I still think in my own opinion that kde does not look much better than gnome at all. I love eye-candy and am very satisfied with what gnome offers in this regard.
And even though those applications are not a part of gnome (yet), they certainly feel more at place in gnome than kde imho. They’re also part of any gnome desktop even though not part of the core. And what sucks about the panels? They work just fine here, maybe I don’t have such special needs. Hey, that’s what’s so great, you can choose
From what I’ve seen of the new fileselector, it is a great improvement. It seems very usable as far as a screenshot and a little text can tell me. I won’t give it a final judgement until I have tried it though. The old one do suck bigtime, I use a patched one that comes with dropline which helps a lot.
If someone really feels the need for a qt-gtk qt engine, it may well show up if it is possible. To me there are two qt apps that I like to use, namely k3b and dcgui-qt, and at least k3b has some viable alternatives coming up. It would be really great for both DE’s to have this kind of interoperability. The linux desktop suffers from having two dominating widget toolkits and this would help a lot.
I think this discussion really shows a good point. People have different preferences. I like gnome better and I have my reasons for it. We can both use the environment we like best instead of being locked into whatever the distributor decides. Linux has a few week points, but this is one of it’s really great strengths. Freedom of choice.
Yes, perhaps if you read all my responses without jumping into conclusions or insulting, you’d have spotted an comment where I publicly praised KDE for certain features and rebuked GNOME for absense of some features.
It would also be great if you could point to examples of my zealotry based on all the comments I’ve made on this and existing threads. Show me a place where I state “KDE sucks!” or “KDE users are lemmings they like configurability!”, or “KDE is sponsored by TrollTech who are related to SCO!” etc among many other examples of your offensives GNOME theories.
I can’t count how many times I stated the flaws conspicuous on KDE is common among many other open source applications. Thankfully, both our comments are public, so lets leave the judgement of who is the zealot to the osnews audience.
Like the good old window manager way of showing a menu? I remember this was one of the things I missed the most when going from E to gnome. That, and being able to move my mouse from desktop to desktop.
yay, back to logical debate
There may not be that many and great desklets yet, but the framework keeps improving and so will the desklets and I still think in my own opinion that kde does not look much better than gnome at all. I love eye-candy and am very satisfied with what gnome offers in this regard.
Again, I point you at Karamba, many have accused gDesklets of being a rip of Karamba, while I don’t agree, there is certainly no obvious advantages of using (Super)Karamba over gDesklets or visa versa. I have tried to set up both, and didn’t have much joy with gDesklets. Hopefully this has improved as they now have a tray icon, which I hope will allow you to configure them better. I honestly didn’t get gDesklets working, however have gotten Karamba to work… This would appear to be an advantage to me, however if I would have read more docs I probably would have figured it out. I will not knock gDesklets, I think its nice, I just don’t think its a factor in why GNOME feels better then KDE.
And even though those applications are not a part of gnome (yet), they certainly feel more at place in gnome than kde imho. They’re also part of any gnome desktop even though not part of the core. And what sucks about the panels? They work just fine here, maybe I don’t have such special needs. Hey, that’s what’s so great, you can choose
Firstly, I am very much pro choice. I would have to agree that these apps are currently much better suited to GNOME then KDE also. However, they are not part of GNOME, thus my point is still valid, they are neither plus’ or minus’ to GNOME itself. With the use of QtGTK and GTK-QT, these apps will be just as at home in a KDE environment as a GTK environment. Neither of these projects are currently complete, so any GTK environment has a leg up so to speak, but that factor will vanish if these two tools become popular.
From what I’ve seen of the new fileselector, it is a great improvement. It seems very usable as far as a screenshot and a little text can tell me. I won’t give it a final judgement until I have tried it though. The old one do suck bigtime, I use a patched one that comes with dropline which helps a lot.
I think I worded that horribly wrong. While definatly being an improvement, I just feel that KDE’s equil is better. This can be remidied however with QtGTK, thus you will get a choice one day. I don’t believe that file-selectors are a major factor either, so long as they do what they are told, I could really care less. I was thinking about QtGTK when I made this comment, and like you said, choice is a good thing.
I think this discussion really shows a good point. People have different preferences. I like gnome better and I have my reasons for it. We can both use the environment we like best instead of being locked into whatever the distributor decides. Linux has a few week points, but this is one of it’s really great strengths. Freedom of choice.
I am a good example of why this isn’t true currently. Although it kind of supports another point you make here. I do not like GNOME, but its the best GTK based environment I have used. As I stated, GIMP certainly has no competition, and Kopete currently makes me mad. I feel almost forced to use GNOME because QtGTK and GTK-QT do not currently work for me. I despize inconsistency on my desktop, moreso then I dislike GNOME in general. I use GNOME, but prefer KDE, this is relatively unfair imo. I can’t wait to try compiling GIMP 2.0 using QtGTK, and have GTK-QT continue the consistency of look and feel, but thats not possible right now. KIMP was blocked by the GIMP guys, so there simply is no alternative that can even be descibed as a reasonable challenge. Most other functions I can perform just as well with a KDE application, but GIMP is irreplaceable. Hopefully this is in the process of changing. I can’t stress enough how much I want both QtGTK and GTK-QT to become viable options.
Zealot: A fanatically committed person
This certainly isn’t true of me…
Perhaps you are not a zealot either, I just took offense to your name calling, and I apologize…
Where I have discussed GNOME users, please read “most GNOME users” where this is not already stated. I stated facts, granted perhaps overly dramatized, about my experiences in simular discussions I have encountered. I am sorry you took offense to these comments, or if they came across in a manor in which I did not intend.
There is a reason why KDE ships with 3 editors. Kate is the full-featured Programmers editor, Kedit is the lightweight simple editor. Then what is the purpose of KWrite? Kwrite is the only one of the three that does BiDi-editing (that is, from right to left and left to right). Now, BiDi is being implemented in Kate, and once that’s up & running, Kwrite is dropped.
So your claim that “There is no reason for KDE to ship with three editors” is quite simply false.
You are saying that KDE should lose some of the options. Which ones? the ones that are unimportant to you might be important to someone else. Hell, KDE-folks decided to remove icon for Konsole in default toolbar, and there were lots of people complaining about that! To some icon for Konsole is needed while others do not need it.
I have spent maybe 15-20 minutes tweaking my KDE-desktop. That’s a tiny amount of time all thing considered. Once I have configured it to my liking, I don’t have to touch the settings again. So the multitude of options is not a problem for me.
Yes, I can see the point GNOME-folks are trying to make. But I don’t agree with their point. Personally I don’t like the attitude which says “we know what’s best for you, and you just have to live with it! If you don’t like it, tough!”
I for one LIKE configuring my desktop. It gives me a nice feeling of molding the desktop in to my own image. With KDE, I can change the desktop to fit my preferences and my way of working. With GNOME I would have to change my preferences and way of working to fit the desktop. And I do not want to do that.
It saves you no space whatsoever. It takes space from application windows but sacrificies space on the desktop.
If you were paying attention, you’d notice it does save space. The menubar is on a panel, and that panel can be overlapped. So when you’ve got a full-screen window, you save an amount of save equal to the height of the menubar.
It only serves to confuse most users when they have a multitude of applications open.
I’m really curious how you arrive at that. The menubar is one bar, that’s always there, and always in one place. How is that confusing? And MacOS does it, and their users seem to be able to handle it!
You can have side panels in GNOME and all what not, but again, you’d represent 1% of the users that do that.
You can’t have the panels behave as they do in KDE, though. The only two options in GNOME are autohide, which causes the panel to pop out when you hit the edge, and always-there, where the panel permanently takes up screen space. KDE has another mode that allows windows to overlap panels. However, when you move your mouse to an edge, the panel becomes the top-most window. The nice thing about this is that unlike with autohide, the panel is usually visible. However, when you need the extra space, you can get it. A nice side-effect of this is that you can have large, easy to read panel icons without wasting lots of space. This feature, by the way, is very similar to how NeXT handled panels.
Desktop icons are useful. And add to an object oriented approach to using your desktop. The new spatial nautilus for example is efficiently used when shortcut to most used directories are placed on the desktop. Cluttered desktops however are bad.
The dock-style taskbar wastes screen estate on lower resolution monitors.
No it doesn’t, not if you use the NeXT-style panel management.
You don’t have a choice you say? So it is not your choice to use gnome instead of kde because you don’t like inconsistent appearance on your desktop? You are being forced by some great power to do so?
Ok, enough sarkasm =). I have the same problem in gnome. I use k3b and dcgui-qt and they just look bad on my desktop. dcgui-qt has a terrible gui anyways imho, but it is mighty powerful and the only viable choice to my knowledge. I would love to see something like a gtk engine for qt.
It seems to me you have a problem accepting the fact that someone thinks gnome works/feels better than kde. I really have tried both, I often go into kde just to play around, I even compiled from source to test an early version of 3.2. I haven’t spent nearly as much time there, but there are reasons for that. It’s a great DE, and maybe some time in the future gnome will make some bad decicions and I will be glad kde exists. But as of now, it’s not my choice. Often I even feel gnome is too bloated and miss the simple wm days, but then I remember all the good things it provides and I stay.
The point is you can never “win” this discussion. People have different needs and preferences. Everybody doesn’t want to drive the same car. Gnome is better at some things, kde at others. As a DE I think kde has gotten further than gnome in development, though gnome is moving really fast these days, which is exciting.
I think this discussion has died and it’s time to go compile the new X…
Rayiner Hashem’s response:If you were paying attention, you’d notice it does save space. The menubar is on a panel, and that panel can be overlapped. So when you’ve got a full-screen window, you save an amount of save equal to the height of the menubar.
Except in Mac OS X, all desktop environments I have used allow the panel to be overlapped when a window application is in full screen mode, if the application supports the mode. And when in full screen mode, the application’s menu bar is usually hidden.
Rayiner Hashem’s response:I’m really curious how you arrive at that. The menubar is one bar, that’s always there, and always in one place. How is that confusing? And MacOS does it, and their users seem to be able to handle it!
Many users have been trained to accept each application window should have it’s own menu bar, tool bar, tabs, status bar etc. You introduce an element of surprise to majority of users when you decide to provide a common menu bar panel for all applications on the desktop.
The metaphor is simpler when a user understands that each window is it’s own application with it’s own set of tools, than when each window is it’s own application but shares to properties with a minor set of tools on the destop.
Although, Apple has been doing that for years, the majority of computer users aren’t Mac users.
Rayiner Hashem’s response:You can’t have the panels behave as they do in KDE, though. The only two options in GNOME are autohide, which causes the panel to pop out when you hit the edge, and always-there, where the panel permanently takes up screen space. KDE has another mode that allows windows to overlap panels. However, when you move your mouse to an edge, the panel becomes the top-most window. The nice thing about this is that unlike with autohide, the panel is usually visible. However, when you need the extra space, you can get it. A nice side-effect of this is that you can have large, easy to read panel icons without wasting lots of space. This feature, by the way, is very similar to how NeXT handled panels.
Yes, you are right. GNOME doesn’t have that particular feature you mentioned, but again for valid reasons. The HIG states that it is bad usability to hide the panels when applications are maximized. I think the only time panels should be hidden is in full screen mode, which again the HIG frowns upon.
Rayiner Hashem’s response:No it doesn’t, not if you use the NeXT-style panel management.
Well, I have an iMac running Jaguar. One of my gripes with it is the dock style task bar. Though this is a personal opinion, I do think the dock style task bar consumes a lot more space at least when compared to GNOME’s or Windows’ style panels.
The good thing is that Jaguar provides options to auto hide the dock style bar or to reduce its size among other options.
Except in Mac OS X, all desktop environments I have used allow the panel to be overlapped when a window application is in full screen mode, if the application supports the mode. And when in full screen mode, the application’s menu bar is usually hidden.
Full-screen is different from maximized. Allowing panels to be overlapped saves space when you do something like maximize a browser window.
Many users have been trained to accept each application window should have it’s own menu bar, tool bar, tabs, status bar etc. You introduce an element of surprise to majority of users when you decide to provide a common menu bar panel for all applications on the desktop.
So basically you’re saying make it like Windows or else it will be hopelessly confusing for users? Windows is a terribly UI to copy!
Although, Apple has been doing that for years, the majority of computer users aren’t Mac users.
Apple is also the company that has been at the forefront of HIG research for many years. If Apple is doing it, it suggets an element of merit to the idea.
Yes, you are right. GNOME doesn’t have that particular feature you mentioned, but again for valid reasons. The HIG states that it is bad usability to hide the panels when applications are maximized.
That’s a circuituous argument. What’s the logic of disallowing this? The NeXT system was reknowned for its usability, and it allowed panels to be overlapped. Just because the GNOME HIG says something doesn’t mean its right.
Well, I have an iMac running Jaguar. One of my gripes with it is the dock style task bar. Though this is a personal opinion, I do think the dock style task bar consumes a lot more space at least when compared to GNOME’s or Windows’ style panels.
That’s because Jaguar doesn’t have NeXT-style panel management. With NeXT-style panel management, the panel could be 200 pixels high and yet still not take up too much screenspace.
one thing to note. I have windows overlapping aswell, as in my taskbar get covered when i maximise. Basically whenever i maximise a window it takes the full screen size eg now
http://www.vamegh.co.uk/desktop4.jpg
this has a alot of pluses in that if something needs full attention it always has it.
also to navigate behind the scenes all i do is alt-tab.
This method works especially well if you have more than one display, as the second display is used for normal day to day stuff and first display for what you have to get done.
I’m very split on the issue of a top menubar.
I can see the positives, which are IMO mainly that windows become less cluttered. Menubars are also a problem for very narrow windows (think buddy list) and just redundant when you have lots of little windows (think Gimp).
As for the other advantages, I think they are overrated. Fitt’s law is not always better, because often you have windows somewhere down in the right corner and then moving to the top everytime is not exactly what I’d call ergonomic (yes, I have tried it). The fact that items are infinite in height does not help _that_ much as you still have to aim anyway. It is also indeed confusing because you always have to keep track of which “application” has a focused window and you can’t immediately see and access the menus of unfocused applications.
Don’t forget that the top menubar was introduced by Apple at a time when the OS was single tasked.
Personally, I’d like to see a better alternative to the application menubar, but I’m not sure if the top menubar is really so much better. That space would be better reserved for a general desktop menu IMO.
The problem is that you take a system NEXT, and since it had good usability, you conclude that overlapping panels is a good thing since NEXT did that. NEXT wasn’t perfect, and to me, that is one of the reasons. There is a reason Apple doesn’t allow that now, and OSX derives from NEXT.