Brandybuck wrote:It's too late for most of those terms. The damage has been done. But containment is new. There may still be time to squash it before it gains acceptance.

I think you are exaggerating the problem though. Yes, the desktop and the panel(s) are technically containments but that's really only something those developing KDE (or those interested in computer technology for its own sake) need to worry about. The end-user does not need to know the term.

For example, if you right-click on the desktop it says "Desktop settings" and not "Containment settings". The window in question (if you want to change from the default to say folderview) doesn't say containment either. It says Desktop activity type. If you want another panel, the user interface says "Add panel" and not "Add containment". And so on. In fact, I haven't seen it referred to as containment anywhere in the user-interface.

It's only used in some bits of the KDE 4.2 UI: "Desktop" has a description "the default desktop containment".

Hans wrote:There is a reason, and it's called "doesn't make any sense".

And yet I'd argue that the lack of "Create New..." doesn't make any sense. In the context of creating a new Shortcut, it doesn't even occur to an average user that they are creating a file.

I don't like this argument. I think things should be logical and consistent

So do I. And this new behavior is not logical or consistent to someone who's not an insider to the KDE4 development process.

I think a "Shortcut" or "Link" widget would be quite helpful.

I do, as well, and am rather confused as to why one was removed and why the reaction to suggesting it be re-added is so hostile. Had I found a 'Shortcut' widget in the Add Widgets dialog we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Then you'll have to make your own containment (the desktop activity type). As I said before, such an action in the default context menu doesn't make any sense. Why favor that particular widget?

As I've pointed out before, Konsole is the first option in the context menu. Why favor a terminal application? Gnome doesn't (which is one of the things I always disliked about it, that it hides the terminal by default behind several layers of menus), KDE does. Having the option to create shortcuts available in the default context menu is much more common than having a terminal there.

If you want icons on your desktop, you should use the Folder View containment anyway.

Which isn't an option in Fedora Core 9, apparently. Apparently it will be an option in KDE 4.2 (which I'm guessing will be in Core 11 at this rate). But this shouldn't be necessary. The default containment already allows for desktop icons, it just obfuscates the process for creating them.

cbimerrow wrote:

I think a "Shortcut" or "Link" widget would be quite helpful.

I do, as well, and am rather confused as to why one was removed and why the reaction to suggesting it be re-added is so hostile. Had I found a 'Shortcut' widget in the Add Widgets dialog we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Great, then we agree. A 'Shortcut' widget makes perfect sense in my opinion, and where would you find it if not in the Add Widgets Dialog?

As I've pointed out before, Konsole is the first option in the context menu.

That's strange, I don't see any applications in my menu at all. Are we talking about the same right-click menu? Maybe it's a Fedora thing.

If you want icons on your desktop, you should use the Folder View containment anyway.

Which isn't an option in Fedora Core 9, apparently. Apparently it will be an option in KDE 4.2 (which I'm guessing will be in Core 11 at this rate). But this shouldn't be necessary. The default containment already allows for desktop icons, it just obfuscates the process for creating them.

Sorry, my bad. The feature has been in trunk for a long time, and since I saw it in other distros (apparently backported) I assumed that it was present in KDE 4.1.

The default containment doesn't allow icons, it allows icon widgets. Which means you can rotate and resize each individual icon, but not e.g. sort them or set your desktop to show ~/Desktop. That's what Folderview is for.

Janne wrote:It's not "arbitary".

Yes it is.

And besides, something it is required to let go of old things. If developers could not never remove old stuff, things simply would not work.

Except that Konsole is still the first option in the default context menu. The ability to create shortcuts via the default context menu in no way prevents new work from going forward.

And at one point they expected computers to function by typing commends in to them.

And they still do, which is why Konsole is still the first option in the default context menu.

I really love how people try to use the lack of a CLI to justify this change when the CLI is staring them right in the face...

Things change. Adjusting to this change takes few minutes, and after that, it's a non-issue.

Adjusting to this change requires an unnecessary google search (or hand-holding from a more experienced user) and does not become a non-issue, as every time you go through the steps of accomplishing what you want to be done you're left wondering why this is so much more complicated than it used to be.

You need to just remember to drag and drop... Or you need to remember to use a folderview.

Neither of which are in any way logically connected to the old, expected behavior.

Yet you are utterly incapable of getting your head around something as simple as this?

Yes, I am utterly incapable of getting my head around the REASONS being given for the change. In my initial post I clearly explained I accomplished what I was trying to do, but was incredibly frustrated by the entire process. I came here looking for an explanation as to why this arbitrary change was made and to try and come up with some reasonable solution.

He's more than welcome to do that. Besides, you can have the fun ctionality you wish in 4.2. So what exactly is the problem here?

The problem is the arbitrary, exasperating nature of the change and the attitude of those defending it.

I am happy to hear 4.2 is returning some sanity to things, it's just unfortunate that it's so far off.

In other words: they were complaininh because it was quite hard to make KDE4 look, work and behave like KDE3 does? Couldn that be becuse KDE4 is not KDE3? If you want something that is exactly like KDE3, then use KDE3.

No, they were complaining because something that's been easy to do for thirteen years across half a dozen desktop environments and literally dozens of revisions of said environments, something considered as elementary an operation as "Copy and Paste," suddenly was hidden behind extra, unnecessary gunk.

You are blowing this way out of proportion.

If "Copy and Paste" or "Drag and Drop" were suddenly changed so that they required extra steps to accomplish, would we be blowing it out of proportion for being a bit furious over having to do a Google Search to figure out how to get it done?

You DO have the functionality that you want, and in 4.2 it will even work exactly like you want it to work. So what exactly is your point here?

No, we don't have the functionality we want. The fact that it will be in 4.2 is encouraging, but that's still a ways off, unfortunately. All we can do is wait in the meantime.

My point was that this change was unnecessary and the response to questioning about it was a bit ridiculous. Based on what I'm seeing for 4.2, apparently someone agreed with me on the first point.

IIf you right.click in the folderview, you get exactly that. What's wring with folderview?

What's wrong with it is the logical disconnect. Why does the menu behave the way I want in the black box but not outside the black box? Also, folderview's (in 4.1.1) context menu LACKS options found in the desktop context menu, as well as the fact that it doesn't allow arranging items, doesn't display full names, etc...

And in 4.2 you can have the traditional desktop-behavior, so excuse me if I fail to see the problem here.

Great! Sanity returns. Now we just have to wait for it.

Yes, KDE4 requires the user to do some things in a different way. Things change, get used to it. Had change not been allowed, we would still be running TWM.

Requiring a user to change their habits is fine... when it makes sense.

n 4.2 you can use folderview as a containment. What does that means? It means that the desktop will behave just like "traditional" desktop behaves.

Great. Here's to 4.2. Looking forward to it.

Folderview IS about 20 times better than the old kludge of having icons on the desktop.

Except it's not.

I quite clearly listed possible reasons why the feautre is not there. You even commented on them!

No, you didn't. I've yet to see one good explanation as to why 'Create New...' isn't in the default context menu. The closest I've seen is an explanation that depends on knowledge of how the Desktop works below the hood, i.e.: more knowledge than the average user should be expected to have.

But it is KDE's job to make your work as pleasant as possible.

Pulling my hair out in frustration is not pleasant. I get enough of that from my own software. [hr]

Hans wrote:That's strange, I don't see any applications in my menu at all. Are we talking about the same right-click menu? Maybe it's a Fedora thing.

Maybe it is a Fedora thing... But it's been in every KDE install I've used in the past (Knoppix, Fedora, Gentoo, SuSE...) so I dunno.

Sorry, my bad. The feature has been in trunk for a long time, and since I saw it in other distros (apparently backported) I assumed that it was present in KDE 4.1.

No problem. Fedora is pretty slow about adopting some stuff, from what I've seen. Since Core 10 should be rolling out sometime in the next month, I imagine 4.2 will be available in Core 11 sometime next Spring.

The default containment doesn't allow icons, it allows icon widgets.

Icons vs "icon widgets"? To paraphrase an old coworker... "Will anyone outside of this lab (forum) be able to tell the difference?"

cbimerrow wrote:

The default containment doesn't allow icons, it allows icon widgets.

Icons vs "icon widgets"? To paraphrase an old coworker... "Will anyone outside of this lab (forum) be able to tell the difference?"

Yep, other KDE users. Folderview provides things that you can't do with icon widgets, such as

• Sorting
• Align to grid
• Easily change icon size
• File preview

And some users might want their downloaded file etc. to pop up on the desktop.

Summary: If you want a tradition desktop with icons, Folderview is for you. However, if you only need a few icons and don't mind them behaving as widgets, feel free to use the icon widget.

cbimerrow wrote:Except that Konsole is still the first option in the default context menu. The ability to create shortcuts via the default context menu in no way prevents new work from going forward.

Could you stop repeating that and post a screenshot instead? I'm using KDE from trunk now a relative long period -- before 4.1 -- and I have no clue what you are talking about. If this turns out to be a distribution issue ***** about that on their board.

He's more than welcome to do that. Besides, you can have the functionality you wish in 4.2. So what exactly is the problem here?

The problem is the arbitrary, exasperating nature of the change and the attitude of those defending it.

I am happy to hear 4.2 is returning some sanity to things, it's just unfortunate that it's so far off.

You really don't get it right?! KDE 4 was and is a rewrite of certain main components -- not going to elaborate the reasons, enough on the internet about it. It simply takes time to have the same or close functionality! It has nothing to do with sanity but your incapability to understand that a rewrite takes time and that there still is 3.5.X available.

So don't make it look like that "they" wanted to take "your" Desktop away.

The default containment doesn't allow icons, it allows icon widgets.

Icons vs "icon widgets"? To paraphrase an old coworker... "Will anyone outside of this lab (forum) be able to tell the difference?"

Try it and know it. Ups, no trying, but ******** instead? In 4.0 it was that way: not funny. (time, you know)
You'd have no functionality that way, deleting that "file" on the desktop would only delete the icon, there was no sorting, no grid or whatsoever ...
Most functionalty that a traditional desktop provides you with just entered KDE 4 with the folderview plasmoid and as a direct result of that with the folderview containement.
And before you post the same thing again folderview was in fact not perfect the moment it was introduced, neither is it now.

Update: I finally built all of trunk on a separate partition, and tried it out. It does crash every five minutes, but it also has the new folderview. Many of my issues have been solved. It still feels like it was written by people who hate icons, but at least it's semi-usable.

I do hate icons
but I have 3 folderviews on my box,
one pointig to ~/Downloads, other pointing to ~/Desktop and other to ~/Todo.
3 zonnes of icons with a shine name on the top explaining what it is.
I assume if the distributions come with an open folderview on the desktop pointing it to ~/Desktop more than half of your problems were solved in the first place.

mat69 wrote:Could you stop repeating that and post a screenshot instead? I'm using KDE from trunk now a relative long period -- before 4.1 -- and I have no clue what you are talking about. If this turns out to be a distribution issue ***** about that on their board.

Unfortunately, no, I can't post a screenshot currently. Honestly I'm surprised I can get to this forum from work, considering the draconian firewall I'm behind... You'll just have to trust me that Konsole is the first option in the context menu. But I'm not complaining about it, I'm happy about it. It may be unique to Fedora... But it was also like that for me on SuSE, Gentoo, etc...

You really don't get it right?! KDE 4 was and is a rewrite of certain main components -- not going to elaborate the reasons, enough on the internet about it.

I'm well aware of that. I even support that.

It simply takes time to have the same or close functionality! It has nothing to do with sanity but your incapability to understand that a rewrite takes time and that there still is 3.5.X available.

Except that this wasn't originally put forth as a "we'll get to it eventually" issue, it was put forth as "Your old BAD way of doing things is no longer allowed. You will use the new GOOD way and LIKE it, because we said so" issue. That was the response people like myself received (even from one of the primary devs!) when inquiring about it, and so we responded in kind. It's now being fixed in 4.2, and I'm happy for that.

So don't make it look like that "they" wanted to take "your" Desktop away.

Except that's exactly what we were told.

Try it and know it. Ups, no trying, but ******** instead?

Wow, that was uncalled for.

Funnily enough, I did try it. I configured four "icon widgets" on the desktop of the machine at the site I was setting things up at and I was able to tell the user "Click on icon A, icon B, and icon C... Then when done click icon D." and they had no problems understanding what I meant. They didn't come back and tell me "Hey those aren't icons, they're widgets!" and everything worked as expected!

In 4.0 it was that way: not funny. (time, you know)


You'd have no functionality that way, deleting that "file" on the desktop would only delete the icon, there was no sorting, no grid or whatsoever ...

Which has nothing to do with my initial complaint. I'm talking about application shortcuts, not icons representing some file in some folder. No, they're not the same thing. I'd be rather upset if deleting a Shortcut deleted my file.

Most functionalty that a traditional desktop provides you with just entered KDE 4 with the folderview plasmoid and as a direct result of that with the folderview containement.
And before you post the same thing again folderview was in fact not perfect the moment it was introduced, neither is it now.

And no one has claimed it is perfect. Many people have claimed, however, that it's BETTER than our old way of doing things and we should just use it instead and stop complaining, which was ridiculous.[hr]

Tomaz wrote:I assume if the distributions come with an open folderview on the desktop pointing it to ~/Desktop more than half of your problems were solved in the first place.

Not really, no, since what I wanted was an icon (or in this case, 4 icons) on the desktop to allow a non-technical user at a remote site to start up a display cluster and it's associated software with mouse clicks instead of terminal interaction. When the system started up, I just wanted them to see plainly labeled icons: "Start Displays", "Start Host", "Start Controller", "Kill Displays" and nothing else. The folderview plasmoid pointing to ~/Desktop was not helpful in this regard.

cbimerrow wrote:The folderview plasmoid pointing to ~/Desktop was not helpful in this regard.

I don't understand why you still insist that Folderview wouldn't be helpful.



As far as I know, you can do this much in KDE 4.1 (except the custom label). No?

Hans wrote:

cbimerrow wrote:The folderview plasmoid pointing to ~/Desktop was not helpful in this regard.

I don't understand why you still insist that Folderview wouldn't be helpful.



As far as I know, you can do this much in KDE 4.1 (except the custom label). No?

it is exactly what you get in 4.1, exactly the same as in kde 3.5 only with a plasmoid frame around it.

Reading through all the posts in this thread was quite a marathon effort! I've been using Mandriva 2008.0 since December last year and have been resisting KDE4. After installing 2009.0 on a separate partition last night I was able to create desktop icons by dragging them from Dolphin. This will have to do until February, but it is going to be more annoying since I don't like folder view containments one bit.

The problem with folder view is that it's not easy to line up icons around the edges of one's screen like I have done for over a decade. Until February I'll just drag icons there myself and manually position them (since even KDE 3.5.x doesn't allow icons to snap to a grid, I'm used to manually lining them up).

Another thing wrong with folder view (and plasmoids in general, IMHO) is that you have to minimise everything (or click the show desktop button) just to see them. I'm quite OK with switching between running programs in the taskbar and don't particularly enjoy having to change between having all my apps open, then minimising them all (so I can't see them), just to interact with a plasmoid. As far as I'm concerned, if something can't fit into a window that can be treated like any other window, I'm not interested (apart from desktop icons, of course).

The plasmoids I've seen so far aren't particularly useful, anyway. They tend to remind me of programs like kscd -i.e., far too big and ugly and not particularly good from a human-computer interaction point of view. I don't see why kscd isn't something nice and streamlined the size of an xmms window using ordinary QT widgets. When a program or widget seems to have had more time spent on **** the interface, you're almost always guaranteed something pointless, and that's what most plasmoids are.

So, bring on Feb 2009 and we can put this whole containment/folder-view mis-step behind us and those developers that think they're a good idea can keep on using them, and the rest of us can have our desktops back

Amazing. Okay, as for having to minimize all your windows, that is completely unnecessary as there is a Plasma Dashboard which allows you to temporarily bring your widgets over your applications. The is a widget you can put on your taskbar for this, and a keyboard shortcut.

I believe that snapping plasmoids is a planned feature, but I'm not sure when this will be available. This would make your launcher widgets act just like launchers on a normal desktop.

The usefulness of folder view is for showing files, not particularly launchers. For files it is highly useful, especially with many activities (widget sets, which are contained as a "Desktop", this is why they're called "containments"), where you can easily switch what folders are showing depending on what you're doing. It can also filter your folder to only show the files you want it to.

Dragging and dropping, the most common method for putting shortcuts (launchers) on the desktop, is still available.

From the beginning, it was fully the intention that any plasmoid could be your desktop. However, this was probably considered too complicated, so you were restricted to a standard desktop containment. This, unfortunately, removed having a folder view desktop, which is what it seems some people want. This option (for folder view) is being re-added in the next release.

The problem with minimal text in folder view has been fixed in the 4.1 release.

KDE 4.0 was a developer release. KDE 4.1 was a usable release. KDE 4.2 is supposed a mostly feature complete release (though a few things aren't making it)

The idea of having file management features inside a box and not outside is so you can have multiple file areas, or no file areas at all, if you so desired.

I, personally, prefer Plasma to the traditional desktop.

I do agree that the launcher (icon) widget should be at the top of the "Add Widget" Dialogue.

Developers make mistakes. A lot. It's a fact of life. Thats why you can hold out on upgrading until your needs are met. I'm waiting for the KWin in 4.2 before making the switch from Gnome w/ Compiz.

Edit: What I don't understand is why, when you found it difficult to figure out how to create a new shortcut in the context menu, you didn't immediately resort to dragging and dropping. I understand that, in principle, the feature you want should be there, but why didn't you just try dragging and dropping? It would have saved a lot of stress and frustration, and then this thread would have been more constructive in nature. It also happens to be one of the most base-level intuitive features to exist in a UI. Though maybe not the most efficient, its easy to understand. You should be able to do something the way you want to, but, when that seems difficult, its often easier on yourself just to try a different approach and figure out why your method didn't work later.

mfearby wrote:I'm quite OK with switching between running programs in the taskbar and don't particularly enjoy having to change between having all my apps open, then minimising them all (so I can't see them), just to interact with a plasmoid. As far as I'm concerned, if something can't fit into a window that can be treated like any other window, I'm not interested (apart from desktop icons, of course).

I just wonder why desktop icons are supposedly different? Whether it's a desktop icon, a folder-view, a calculator, or an activity bar (4.2 only) you need to either minimize everything or hit ctrl-f12 to bring forth the dashboard.

mfearby wrote:So, bring on Feb 2009 and we can put this whole containment/folder-view mis-step behind us and those developers that think they're a good idea can keep on using them, and the rest of us can have our desktops back

Which of course means you haven't left it behind you...you're still using the folderview even if it's as your desktop. Personally I use both...folderview as my default desktop (configured to show only .desktop, .odt, .pdf, and .doc. Which means that even if something else ends up there by mistake it won't clutter the desktop with useless ****) and one extra for WIP stuff.