I hope KDE 5.0 is not really a beta
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| BFM Aug 14, 2011 1:56 PM EDT |
KDE 4 was always going to be controversial due to the large changes from 3.x. Then the developers made things much worse by releasing what should have been a beta as 4.0. If they avoid that 5.x should go in more smoothly. If they do another premature release I might have to go back to XfCE. |
| Jeff91 Aug 14, 2011 2:23 PM EDT |
I just hope KDE5 keeps a sane interface and we don't have another touch based UI like Gnome3/Unity. |
| jdixon Aug 14, 2011 4:19 PM EDT |
> Then the developers made things much worse by releasing what should have been a beta as 4.0. KDE 4.0 wasn't beta. It wasn't until at least KDE 4.2 that it reached beta status. |
| Grishnakh Aug 14, 2011 5:43 PM EDT |
Jeff91: I would be rather shocked if KDE5 changed their UI at all. Their whole philosophy since the 1.0 days has been to be a "kitchen sink" DE, with configuration options galore. The only time they fell down was the early 4.0 series, because they hadn't yet re-implemented everything (and released it WAY too early), but it's all there now AFAICT. The Gnome folks have been the ones with the "let's dumb things down for everyone" mindset, ever since they got involved with Sun and their usability studies 10 years ago. A lot of people complained that Gnome2 was dumbed-down from the 1.0 series, but eventually they got used to it, but now that 3.0's out and it's dumbing things down ever more, they're mad again, but what they're missing is that this has been a consistent part of the Gnome team's philosophy for a decade now, and is nothing new. According to the Gnome team, their usability studies show that users prefer a dumbed-down interface with no configuration options, because those are "confusing", so there must be something wrong with you if you disagree or don't like their UI. If Gnome3 doesn't appeal to you, the real truth is that you have a fundamental philosophical disagreement with the Gnome team, and should be looking elsewhere for a DE that suits you. The thing I worry about with KDE5 is that, after the KDE4 debacle, and them putting too much effort into questionable and memory-hogging features like desktop search instead of just getting the basics right first, that they're going to lose too many users and mindshare, and may eventually not be able to continue. It doesn't help that most of the distros are stuck on Gnome and don't seem to be thinking of leaving it, even though the users are revolting. Things are looking very bad for Linux these days. |
| patrokov Aug 14, 2011 5:59 PM EDT |
Hopefully Amarok will actually work consistently now instead of giving database errors every other time you open it. And I'd like to see a migration tool for Kontact. |
| dixiedancer Aug 14, 2011 6:03 PM EDT |
I wish people wouldn't use the term "dumbed down" to describe an interface that is simple and intuitive. Simplicity is nice! Not just for simple kids like me, but for parents and grandparents who have never worked with a computer before. Just because an interface is simple doesn't mean it was made that way to accommodate stupid, unintelligent people and silly little children. Simplicity is equally valuable in advanced systems as in dektops for schoolkids. |
| Grishnakh Aug 14, 2011 6:11 PM EDT |
I wish people wouldn't use the term "dumbed down" to describe an interface that is simple and intuitive. Simplicity is nice! I'm going to continue to use the term "dumbed down", because that's exactly what it is. Simplicity is at odds with usefulness, productivity, and power. If all you want to do is surf on Facebook, then fine, but why should the rest of us who do real work with our computers be stuck with dumbed-down interfaces that keep us from being as productive as we were before this trend? |
| BernardSwiss Aug 14, 2011 7:12 PM EDT |
Simplicity isn't necessarily at odds with usefulness, productivity, and power. It can even -- and usually does -- promote them. But this alleged "simplicity" is actually handicapping more sophisticated use. That's precisely why people are calling it "dumbed down"; It may be slick, and it may be pretty, but it's not "simple", it's just limited -- and limiting. |
| patrokov Aug 15, 2011 12:53 AM EDT |
Simplicity is fine...as long as there is an advanced button that exposes the complexity (preferably logically arranged and well documented)...and as long as it doesn't impair configurability. |
| Fettoosh Aug 15, 2011 11:16 AM EDT |
One Keep It Short and Simple cronym KISS - Keep It Simple Silly! |
| gus3 Aug 15, 2011 11:27 AM EDT |
Right, the more controls we remove from the user, the less there is to break. Try that in the Indy Racing League, and you'll be properly laughed out of the garage. |
| Fettoosh Aug 15, 2011 4:02 PM EDT |
Quoting:Right, the more controls we remove from the user, the less there is to break. I believe you are confusing Simplicity=effectiveness and reduction=weakness. I would leave complexity=complication=boat anchor alone for now. At the Indy Racing, It is a league by itself. Their motto is "AFS, Anything for Speed", [Not Andrew File System]. :-) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!