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

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: Copying the Windows interface
From:       Marko Rosic <roske () mainstream ! co ! yu>
Date:       1999-08-29 22:06:34
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Rik Hemsley wrote:
> Window Maker, E, BlackBox and AfterStep are all window managers. kwm, KDE's
> window manager, is themable, and by default looks more like OS/2 than anything
> else.

In one way it does like 4.0, but he was copying Windows 95 too! OS/2 3.0
on the other hand was more similar to Motif in one way..
Still the best desktop I have ever worked on was Irix, no one tries to
copy it's look & feel :)

> KDE itself looks like an X desktop, due to the Qt widget set emulating Motif.
> You _can_ switch to Windows-alike widgets, but that's your option. Qt + KDE 2
> by default use a MacOS-like look, though added to that is the possibility to
> theme your widgets, so you can make widgets look how you like.

I apritiate an option for widgets to be in motif style... 
When I first tried KDE I was a fraid that such a good desktop envioroment
has to look like windows, until I found that I can change that.
It is realy a good feature :)

> I'm sure you'll agree that it's sensible for us to ship with a fairly 'neutral'
> widget theme. The Platinum (MacOS) style is attractive, simple, and easy on the
> eye. If you want to design a new theme for KDE, using entirely original
> widgets, be our guest !

I agree it has to be a neutral thema, but it would be the best if it would
come with three diferent theme/widget styles: Motif(Irix)/MacOS/Win 
it would be nice but not necesary to have: OS/2 and NeXt, and some other
popular Desktops...

> > Why Kwin, what was wrong with previous name? Kwin is even more widows
> > oriented...
> 
> KWin == Windows oriented ? Huh ? It means 'KDE window manager', just as 'kwm'
> does. It's only got a different name because it's a different implementation.
> No-one will see the name 'kwin' unless they look behind the scenes.

I know what it means :) But also the popular shortcut for Windows is
WIN!!! Then you come with Kwin wich is a bit anoying, for people who
dislike windows, and most of Linux or UNIX users does.
But it is not of great importance, it's important that it looks and woorks
good :))

> If you don't like the
> KDE icons, feel free to draw your own set. If it accomplishes the same goals as
> the set we've been working on the last few months, and looks better, I'm sure
> we'll consider making it the default - at some point ! We can't just change the
> icon set and hope users will understand immediately.

I have no time or knowlege with icon making to do that, even if I would
love to do that, for now I have to finish translation of KDE 2.0 that I
started, and some other stuff concerning KDE Yugoslavia...
Maybe I will when I have some time :)

> > Yes but also I have many other pixmap paths, for eg. I would like to use
> > GNOME's pixmaps, so in this case I woul have to copy all of the icon,
> > instead of making path to the directory, so now I have unnecesary doubled
> > icons.
> 
> That's your problem, I'm afraid. You could simply symlink to the icons, of
> course, but not many people are going to want to do this so we can't support
> the minority case.

Thats where you are wrong. It is not my problem but problem of Linux and
most of it's users.
As you know KDE is not the only desktop, there are an enormus noumber of
Window Managers.
Most of distributions come with few of them, for example RH 6.0 comes with
GNOME and KDE.
So most users have a situation that they have several Window Managers, all
with their own icons and icon paths. In Window Maker you can easily add
another pixmap path to the paths list, and use those icons, you will agree
it is a far easier than making a ton of symlinks, and I would like to use
some of GNOME's icons in KDE...

> It is necessary because some of us have to have control over what our users are
> doing. KDE is probably on more multiple-user setups than single user and having
> a 'personal' menu isn't exactly show-stoppingly difficult for the single user.

I don't see why is necessary to have control over someones meny? It's OK
to have control over instalations premissions and other stuff, but what
one has in it's meny is his personal stuff.
It's normal to have some default meny setting, but later if user whant's
to have just one program in his meny it's his bussines!
All the others WM's don't have that type of problem.
If the sysadmin installs a new program which goes to some certain submeny,
it's more logical to have one System submeny for that purposes, and later
if user whan's to move an app from that one place, he'll do that easily.

|-Default Apps-
|             |-Newly_installed_app_1
|             |-Newly_installed_app_2
|             |-...
|
|-Aplications-
|            |-Web Edit
|            |-Klyx
|-Utillities
|-Folder_that_I_created
|
K

Roske

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