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

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: Reply
From:       Mark <mhillary () onetel ! net ! uk>
Date:       2001-02-15 16:57:11
[Download RAW message or body]



Paul Fredlein wrote:

> Hi Rick,
> 
> It's the KDE Desktop (and GNOME's) which I dislike. They both look like a
> poor man's version of Windows with the desktop full of icons, a fat dumb
> task-bar and a "start" button.
> 

A fat task-bar, your having a laugh. Get the Kde2.1beta2 packages and 
change the panel setting to tiny, that is not fat. Its tiny (hence the 
name), and very cool.

> I refer to KDE and GNOME together as far as I, as an end user, is concerned
> there is NO DIFFERENCE in the user experience. I don't care if perhaps KDE's
> SDK's and API's are more advanced than GNOMEs, I don't see the difference on
> the desktop.
> 

I am reasonably new to linux, about 1 1/2 years. There is a huge 
difference to the look and feel of KDE and GNOME.

> Compare this with BlackBox which has only a small bar at the bottom of the
> screen but it actually conveys more information about what workspace is
> current and the apps running within it than does KDE or GNOME and it does it
> in a smaller space, less clutter and is simply ELEGANT. Clicking the
> appropriate mouse button on the desktop lets you choose workspace and/or
> applications. You DON'T NEED A START BITTON.
> 

I also use blackbox, but I also use KDE. I like both desktops because 
they fill different requiments of mine. I use KDE when I am writing 
documents, doing system stuff or anything else that requires a 
intergrated environment (I know that most thing don't require an 
intergrate environment, but it does make life a lot easier). I use 
blackbox for when, I am writing code and compling or anything else that 
is cpu and memory intensive. Why? because it is fast and I don't need 
funoinality, that is its niche. Both desktops sre cool and I think they 
are great, but for different reasons, KDE should not try to copy 
blackbox, that would be wrong, KDE and a great GUI and it does what it 
is deisgned to do very well.

> You can actually launch all of KDE's and GNOME's applications from BlackBox
> without launching their respective desktops.

Yes, you can but then you lose a lot of the added functionality that the 
desktops proved. i.e through the use of inter-application 
communications, blackbox was not deisgned to be an intergrated desktop 
or have loads of functions. You seem to forget that we have different WM 
for different reasons. E for eyecandy, blackbox for speed, and KDE and 
GNOME for an intergated desktop.

> Of course all windows whether they be MacOS, Win, BeOS or KDE must contain
> essential controls such as scroll bars, close, maximise & minimise boxes etc
> so as far as programming is concerned there's not really much difference
> between all the OSes except that a function to initialise a window may have
> a different name and perhaps one or two argument passed to that function may
> differ but it's all essentially the same stuff. So the argument about it
> being easier for a programmer new to KDE to feel at home because it looks
> like Windows is crap.

Making it easy for programers to get around the desktop so that they 
don't have to spend much time learning a new enviroment is very 
important, other wise they could spend ages learning how to get around 
instead of programing and so losing the company that they work for 
money, or just wasting their time. I know how valuable some programmers 
time can be. One programmer I know, the company he works for charge 
£1000/hour for other companies that use his services.

> Also, the argument that it's easier for a Linux newbie to feel at home
> because KDE look like windows is also crap - give linux users credit for
> some intelligence, don't treat them like dummies. Most are probably looking
> for an alternative to Windows so let's give them something that WOWs them.

The idea of KDE and GNOME is to make Linux a viable desktop competior to 
windows. So we are not talking about Linux users here we are taking 
windows users. The kind that can't even add entries to the start bar. 
These people need to feel at home on linux, because if they don't 
understant they won't bother going and finding out, they will just reach 
for their windows cd and reinstall (if they can workout how).

> Have a good look at BeOS, it's also clean, uncluttered and some imagination
> went into producing the look and feel. It's a little strange at first but
> you gradually get to know and like it. Like the MacOS it's the little things
> (that are usually hard to convey to non-users) that make it elegant.

Strange is bad at first for window leaves and linux newbies, it will not 
help them learn the basics of how to use linux and reap its power.

> So, it's not the GUI (although there needs to be some work done on that)
> it's the LACK OF IMAGINATION AND THE UNRIVALLED MEDIOCRITY of the KDE &
> GNOME Desktop that I find unsatisfactory.

I think the GUI is great, though anything thing that can make it more 
configurable and changable is a good thing, as long as it doesn't 
detracked from what is allready there.

> I strongly believe that to succeed you don't copy you innovate, of course
> the risks are greater but the rewards are more satisfying. As far as KDE &
> GNOME - there is no innovation.


> Briefly: KDE and GNOME equals MEDIOCRITY it does NOT equal innovation.

The more I read what you wright the more I belive that you are a troll.

Mark Hillary
Registed Linux User 200755

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