[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: Maybe a good idea : Konqi Desktop Buddy
From:       Dave Leigh <dave.leigh () cratchit ! org>
Date:       2001-11-26 17:22:28
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday 26 November 2001 11:00, Beumer wrote:

> But we still want to attract users to the "*NIX/KDE camp", and it's
> commonly known that -in particular people who are not "techies"- are easely
> persuased by giving them some real eyecandy and a userfriendly interface.
> For these people - i repeat: these are the people we want to convince of
> the KDE- eyecandy represents quality, how silly that may be. No eyecandy
> (read: not more than Windows XP), and too many effort for the same results
> as on the Win32 platform, drives most people back to Microsoft.
>
> *NIX and KDE has the desired functionality, agreed. But i still think,
> expecially from this viewpoint, extra eyecandy (as a option) will surely
> attract people to the KDE. And that is what we want, or not?

I think it's necessary to reiterate one point. I have NEVER suggested "no 
eye-candy." Specifically, I suggest, "..it makes sense to separate eye-candy 
from core functionality, and make the eye-candy optional." I stand by that 
statement wholeheartedly. 

Unlike Windows, *nix scales widely from server-side sytems with no UI at all 
to high-end workstations to low-end workstations to handheld devices. It's 
important to maintain that flexibility and scalability in the OS and on the 
desktop. In doing this it's important to maintain interoperability of 
applications, and this means flexibility and scalability of the desktop (i.e. 
KDE). 

To answer your question, if you talk about attracting people only with extra 
eyecandy, then no, that's not what we want (because that only attracts a 
fragment of the potential audience). We want to attract people with a system 
that's better than what they have, with a broad understanding that "better" 
means different things to different people; and therefore means, "flexible."

And frankly, "not more than Windows XP" doesn't work as a definition of "no 
eye-candy" because Windows XP has TOO MUCH. If you disagree, then you prove 
my point. (For that matter, if you agree then you prove my point... different 
strokes for different folks.)

-- 
dave.leigh@cratchit.org
http://www.cratchit.org

Correction does much, but encouragement does more.
		-- Goethe

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]