Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

The critics are wrong: KDE 4 doesn't need a fork

Filed under
KDE

After the recent release KDE 4.1 beta 2 and openSUSE 11 with KDE 4.0.4, some critics have been especially vocal in expressing their displeasure with the KDE 4 user interface paradigms. The debate has grown increasingly caustic as critics and supporters engage in a war of words over the technology. The controversy has escalated to the point where some users are now advocating a fork in order to move forward the old KDE 3.5 UI paradigms. As an observer who has closely studied each new release of KDE 4, I'm convinced that the fork rhetoric is an absurdly unproductive direction for this debate.

As KDE 4 begins to replace the stable 3.5.x series as the default KDE environment in major distributions, users who are now migrating to the new version are being exposed to a lot of the rough edges. This has ignited a new wave of complaints.

Steven singles out KDE 4.1's desktop folder view plasmoid for criticism, but I regard it as one of the most promising features in KDE 4.1. In fact, I think the new desktop folder view offers some of the first truly compelling evidence that Plasma can deliver on its potential and provide more than just a conventional widget layer. I think it's innovative and it increases the efficiency of my workflow.

The value of conventional desktop icons is that they allow users to organize their files into spatially relevant groupings. But most users just treat the desktop as a dumping ground for temporary content because moving things to and from the desktop requires more interaction and isn't always feasible if you need your project to have a consistent path.

More Here




Too soon to tell.

I used to dislike it, even hate it, but since I installed openSUSE 11, I have decided that it's awful, terrible, just a train wreck, but when I think something is terrible, I usually turn out to be wrong. That's just my track record. I could point to my infamous anti-ubuntu rants from not too long ago. I like Ubuntu fine now.

People who like it probably get it, and I don't get it. I've spent a lot of time running it now, several different versions. People talk about how KDE4 simplifies the desktop, and I am astounded at that. "Simple" is the last word I would ever use to describe KDE4. What do they see that I can't? All I see is an incomprehensible mess. This is why I don't submit bug reports. I don't feel like I understand it enough to be sure that when my YAST repeatedly crashed, it wasn't my fault. (Although it stopped crashing when I installed KDE 3.5.)

If this turns out to be the odd time that I'm right, KDE will be forked, because there will be a need. No need to debate it in blogs, it'll just happen, because it will be necessary. In the past there hasn't really been a need, which is why previous attempts to fork KDE failed. And since I'm usually wrong, this is probably what's going to happen this time.

Anyway, it's too soon to tell if we need a fork, and too soon to tell if we don't need a fork. That's the long and the short of it. We don't have the actual finished desktop, so what we have is a lot of speculation, and it all sounds canned and forced, bloggers trying to stir up controversy and other bloggers trying to squelch controversy. None of it is based on the finished software. That doesn't exist.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

UbuCon Paris Party Starts Today In Celebration of the Ubuntu 16.04 LTS Release

Yesterday we reported on the fact that even if Canonical unveiled the Ubuntu 16.04 LTS (Xenial Xerus) operating system last month, on April 21, several LoCos are still organizing release parties. Read more

Why I won’t use Dropbox’s Project Infinite if it’s not open source

Why not Dropbox? Because the open source community can’t see the Dropbox source code, there is no way to know what Dropbox does to my stuff. Experts should be able to audit Dropbox source code to ensure there are no security vulnerabilities, that there are no back doors. Beyond that, I am not comfortable with making any company a co-owner of my files. I don’t want to be at the mercy of a company that can revoke access to my data for whatever reason. I am not comfortable with the idea that my data could be subject to scanning and privacy-invading laws that otherwise don’t apply to my local data. Read more

Open-source vs. Proprietary – Keeping Ideology Out of the Equation

Open-source really means no more and no less than making the source code readily available to anyone. Thus, open-source makes no statement as to the licensing conditions for using the software, whether there are charges for using the software, whether the software is supported, or actively developed, or any good, and so on. Closed-source means that source code is not readily available, but makes no comment on issues like licensing, costs, support, and quality. Read more

NetOS Enterprise Linux 8 Promises to Be a Worthy Alternative to Chrome OS

Black Lab Software CEO Roberto J. Dohnert informs Softpedia today about the general availability of the NetOS Enterprise Developer Preview 8 operating system. Designed as a replacement for the Linux kernel-based Chrome OS or Chromium OS operating systems, Black Lab Software's upcoming NetOS distribution is using the same technologies that have been implemented in the Enterprise Edition of the Black Lab Linux OS. Read more