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

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: KDE - The joke's gone on for far too long.
From:       Paul Fredlein <P.Fredlein () uq ! net ! au>
Date:       2001-02-13 0:32:07
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi,

> </myopinion>
> From: Sean Pecor <sean@digitalspinner.com>
> Organization: Digital Spinner, Inc.
> Reply-To: sean@digitalspinner.com
> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:58:25 -0500
> To: kde-look@kde.org, Paul Fredlein <P.Fredlein@uq.net.au>
> Subject: Re: KDE - The joke's gone on for far too long.


> Okay, the facts: Windows is the most popular desktop operating system. More
> people prefer Windows than it's alternatives. It took hold of the market
> early on because Windows made DOS and there were 10 DOS programmers for every
> 1 Unix or Mac programmer.

People do not use Windows because they 'prefer it' people use Windows
because the PC hardware is cheap and there is no alternative as PCs are
bundled with the Microsoft product. Windows took over from DOS because
people wanted a Mac like GUI to run on their existing hardware.

> The conclusion: In order for a competing desktop operating system to be
> viable, it must have the applications to support it. To have viable
> applications, it must have programmers to support their development. To have
> viable programmers, a solid bridge must exist so that talented Windows
> developers can migrate and risk little. To deny this is to doom the new
> initiative to be nothing more than a novelty for a niche audience. KDE and
> Linux go one step further in that they are a cancer for Windows with no
> single source or known cure. There is no cash resource to cut, no single
> competitor to purchase, and no governing body to corrupt.

A 'solid bridge' does NOT mean that the GUI and Desktop needs looks like
Windows, if you have richly developed API's and SDK's then you will attract
developers. Once more and more software becomes available then you attract
users.

> While KDE takes much of what is good from several operating systems, KDE and
> QT together are the bridge from Windows to Linux. Three out of four Windows
> developers will choose KDE during a silent migration that will see Gnome fade
> in significance. If you disagree, look to Corel and their efforts at
> customizing Wordperfect Office 2000 for KDE. Or Borland, for their deployment
> of Kylix. For those who haven't taken a serious look at Kylix yet, it's
> darwinian ladder includes Pascal, Turbo Pascal, Borland Pascal and Borland
> Delphi. It's a serious RAD tool, and millions of developers around the world
> use Delphi every day. I used Delphi extensively in the early nineties and it
> kicked ass.

Once again, it's the API's and SDK's that attract Borland, Corel et al not
the Windows look-a-like GUI and Desktop. They are not programming KDE just
because it looks like Windows they are programming for KDE because they
believe that the API's and SDK's are better than GNOME's and that Linux in
general is a worthwhile investment. You don't have to make the GUI look like
Windows to attract programmers to write software for it - it's the SDK's and
API's that convince the developers to write code.

Look at the KDE desktop - it's just like Windows, it's cluttered with all
kinds of junk and shortcuts and you have still got a "Start" button and a
fat cumbersome task bar which is even uglier than Windows.

People are not going to change to Linux because it looks like Windows,
people will change if it offers something better (which in general it does)
and that it's simple to use. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO LOOK LIKE WINDOWS TO BE
SIMPLE TO USE AND ATTRACT DEVELOPERS AND USERS.

You people need to use your imagination and come up with something original,
look at BeOS, MacOS X - there are much better alternatives to mimick.

Actually I use BlackBox to get to KDE (and GNOME) but I don't use the awful
and amateurish KDE Desktop. The Mac (and MacOS X) is elegant, BeOS is nice,
clean and efficient, Windows is OK for the general consumer but KDE (and
GNOME) is clunky.

In fact, the KDE desktop is just as bad as GNOME's. There is almost no
difference just the icons etc are different. Compare them to the Windows
desktop, again the same - only the icons etc are different.

CHANGE THE KDE DESKTOP IT'S UGLY.

Regards,

Paul

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