blackbelt_jones wrote:Desktop Linux is not dying. Windows needs to dominate the market to stay alive. Linux clearly doesn't. Whatever share of the maket we got, it's thriving. Desktop development is happening so fast that (e.g.in the case of KDE4) it's **** people off.

I think we do have our Steve Jobs. His name is Mark Shuttleworth. Ubuntu doesn't have the hardware edge that apple has, but he's done some awesome stuff toward making Linux usable. The new version of Ubuntu adds flashplayer at the point of installing, another big problem solved. It's been eight years for me, and I remember how much it used to be a struggle to burn a CD before K3B came along.

I'm affraid Shuttleworth is losing his path: he's forgotten that his brilliant Ubuntu comes from opensource and collaborative work and he is starting way too many different projects on his own.

Let's hope I'm wrong

Damnshock wrote:

blackbelt_jones wrote:Desktop Linux is not dying. Windows needs to dominate the market to stay alive. Linux clearly doesn't. Whatever share of the maket we got, it's thriving. Desktop development is happening so fast that (e.g.in the case of KDE4) it's **** people off.

I think we do have our Steve Jobs. His name is Mark Shuttleworth. Ubuntu doesn't have the hardware edge that apple has, but he's done some awesome stuff toward making Linux usable. The new version of Ubuntu adds flashplayer at the point of installing, another big problem solved. It's been eight years for me, and I remember how much it used to be a struggle to burn a CD before K3B came along.

I'm affraid Shuttleworth is losing his path: he's forgotten that his brilliant Ubuntu comes from opensource and collaborative work and he is starting way too many different projects on his own.

Let's hope I'm wrong

I disagree with that viewpoint - his vision hasn't really changed all that much since he started Ubuntu. His vision has been to make an easy-to-use Linux distribution for the masses. He started by leveraging existing tools and software. Now he's reached the edge of where those tools can take him and is now pushing forward with his own projects.

I would also like to mention that KDE has Aaron Seigo, who has demonstrated similarly great vision and leadership ability.

The new version of Ubuntu adds flashplayer at the point of installing, another big problem solved.

Isn't Flash installed by default in OpenSUSE for ages? Also you are comparing Shuttleworth with Jobs but you know, Jobs did just opposite: he banned Flash from Mac OS X.

Anyway I would not call just making some proprietary stuff such as Flash and Nvidia drivers available by default a "great work".

His vision has been to make an easy-to-use Linux distribution for the masses.

How it is easy to use for massers you can conclude from the fact that Ubuntu permanently has broken layout switcher. And that users of Ubuntu could not connect Internet via PPTP out of the box up to 10.04 release, so they had top go to the friends with Windows to download the necessary packaged. The bugreport was ignored during 7 consequtive releases although there were hondreeds of interested people on Launchpad and the Ubuntu team could easily fix it: all necessary packages were already in the repo.

blackbelt_jones wrote:Desktop Linux is not dying. Windows needs to dominate the market to stay alive. Linux clearly doesn't. Whatever share of the maket we got, it's thriving. Desktop development is happening so fast that (e.g.in the case of KDE4) it's **** people off.

If Linux had at least 10% of desktop users (I even do not say about greater percentage), the changes like KDE4 and Gnome3 would be completely impossible. The fact that a handful of developers impose their fantasies on other users just shows that Linux still did not pass the stage of a hobby OS. Or the devs in question still did not realize that Linux is not their hobby OS.

Anixx wrote:

blackbelt_jones wrote:Desktop Linux is not dying. Windows needs to dominate the market to stay alive. Linux clearly doesn't. Whatever share of the maket we got, it's thriving. Desktop development is happening so fast that (e.g.in the case of KDE4) it's **** people off.

If Linux had at least 10% of desktop users (I even do not say about greater percentage), the changes like KDE4 and Gnome3 would be completely impossible. The fact that a handful of developers impose their fantasies on other users just shows that Linux still did not pass the stage of a hobby OS. Or the devs in question still did not realize that Linux is not their hobby OS.

Linux has tens of millions of users. People do take note when there are major changes and there has been major backlash to those changes. I don't think the developers make the changes that they do thinking "oh, this is just a hobby OS, so I will add this experimental hobby feature because I like it", there has been a lot of research and usability study that has gone into KDE4, Gnome Shell and Unity. They expect that these new ways of interacting with the desktop will be used by everyday desktop users of a mainstream OS, and their goals are to improve on the desktop experience (though they provide widely divergent experiences - but choice is good) for everyday desktop users.
Do you think that people still wanted the windows XP experience on Windows 7? No, they want a new and improved experience. That is what these new desktops are striving to deliver.

There has been a lot of research and usability study that has gone into KDE4, Gnome Shell and Unity

Can you please point to a single study that shows that users want exactly those changes?

So far on any forum any voting what people prefer - Gnome Panel or Gnome Shell for example ended up in the majority of votes for Gnome Panel. Dispite heavy advertising.
Just one example: http://forum.ubuntu.ru/index.php?topic= ... iewResults

The people asked will they use Unity or not, the majority is against unity but among those who voted for many argue that they will be forced on Unity because of unusable Gnome Shell.

though they provide widely divergent experiences - but choice is good

Unquestionable. But why the users do not have a choice in favor of just normal desktop?

Do you think that people still wanted the windows XP experience on Windows 7? No, they want a new and improved experience.

Of course people want improved experience. Improved, not demolished. Any version of Windows is a variation of previous one. Unlike KDE4 or Gnome3.

Mac OS 9 to OS X was such a major change that OS 9 was included in the PPC version of OS X.
The majority of Windows users are still using XP, a 10 year-old OS, despite Vista and 7 being available.

KDE 4 isn't very different from the end user's perspective than KDE 3 - no more so than the difference between XP and Vista. Both Gnome 3 and Unity offer a choice to use the standard Gnome desktop

That said, no one is forcing you to use the latest version of anything. Learn something from the Windows folks. If you don't like KDE 4, use KDE 3; if you don't like Gnome 3, use Gnome 2 or any other DEs out there. Quite frankly, I'm getting sick of you coming here and **** about everything you hate instead of just making a feature request or bug report and then shutting the hell up.

Please allow me to jump in...

CraigPaleo wrote:That said, no one is forcing you to use the latest version of anything. Learn something from the Windows folks. If you don't like KDE 4, use KDE 3; if you don't like Gnome 3, use Gnome 2 or any other DEs out there. Quite frankly, I'm getting sick of you coming here and **** about everything you hate instead of just making a feature request or bug report and then shutting the hell up.

True, no-one is forcing him (or anyone for that matter) to use KDE 4 when he prefers KDE 3. The practical issue, however, is that most distributions don't seem to support KDE 3 anymore. Staying with an old version of Linux, you may risk not getting the proper software update for too long, if at all. Also, you may not be able to use other, non-KDE software that requires relatively new versions of the core libraries.

For instance, I was using CentOS 4 w/ KDE 3.5.10 at work until a few days ago. It was a stable distribution. It will be supported through 2012. However, it is so old, neither Firefox 3 nor Chrome will run on it. Not being able to use a newer version of browser was a big setback to me as I used Google Docs pretty heavily. (Firefox 2 doesn't support Google Docs.)

You may say it's no different than XP. To me, the difference is that most software vendors keep supporting XP as many people still use it. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about KDE 3. As far as I know, only Trinity combines KDE 3 with one of the latest Linux distributions. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I've been using KDE 4 for the last several days. To my own surprise, I am getting quite fond of it. OTOH, I can see others wanting to stick to KDE 3.

daihard wrote:... As far as I know, only Trinity combines KDE 3 with one of the latest Linux distributions. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Trinity is actually a fork starting from the KDE 3.5.10 code (with intentions to enable an upgrade from QT3 to QT4 without changing the desktop itself). There are packages available for Debian, Ubuntu and Slackware.

CraigPaleo wrote:KDE 4 isn't very different from the end user's perspective than KDE 3 - no more so than the difference between XP and Vista.

I disagree. Any Windows version starting from W95 offers the same interface and API. Even more: the Windows native, Qt, GTK, .NET, Tcl/Tk applications look similar under Windows, unlike Linux.

That said, no one is forcing you to use the latest version of anything. Learn something from the Windows folks. If you don't like KDE 4, use KDE 3

Yes, I use it. But by advertising KDE4 as "continuation of KDE" the KDE4 devs made the developers of software to move to KDE4, so the new versions of programs are not available for KDE3 any longer. That means people are forced to abandon KDE3 (not necessarily to KDE4 though).

a feature request or bug report and then shutting the hell up.

KDE4 is not KDE in the meaning of KDE1-2-3. It is a completely different desktop. Can you make KDE out of Gnome by requesting features?

Do you think a feature request for a feature which was intentionally removed by the developers will work?

To me, the difference is that most software vendors keep supporting XP as many people still use it.

No this is because the Win32 API did not change for a long time and newer version did not break compatibility.

As far as I know, only Trinity combines KDE 3 with one of the latest Linux distributions. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Trinity is not a distribution, it is a fork of KDE3.It can be included or installed in different distributions. For example, there are unofficial repositories for Ubuntu and Debian, ports to other distributions such as Arch, Pardus are under way. It is also included in the development repository of Alt Linux and will be included in the future releases (currently they have KDE3 along KDE4).

Aside Trinity you can use just conventional KDE3.5.10 under OpenSUSE from KDE:KDE3 repository. This repo has much more packages than Trinity, so I would recommend using it if you want KDE3.

Anixx wrote:
KDE4 is not KDE in the meaning of KDE1-2-3. It is a completely different desktop. Can you make KDE out of Gnome by requesting features?

Apple made OS X out of Nextstep.

Yes, I use it. But by advertising KDE4 as "continuation of KDE" the KDE4 devs made the developers of software to move to KDE4, so the new versions of programs are not available for KDE3 any longer. That means people are forced to abandon KDE3 (not necessarily to KDE4 though).

If you have the proper libraries installed, you can run KDE 4 apps under KDE 3 and vice versa.

Apple made OS X out of Nextstep.

Yes. KDE4 to KDE is what OS X to Mac OS.

If you have the proper libraries installed, you can run KDE 4 apps under KDE 3 and vice versa.

Sure. But their look will be different. In the recent KDE4 version they even broke the compatibility with KDE3 tray. And I will have no desktop integration. That's why I prefere GTK apps because gtk-qt-engine makes them look similar to Qt3 ones, although still no desktop integration as well (different icons, different desktop folder path, different file associatons).

Anixx wrote:

Apple made OS X out of Nextstep.

Yes. KDE4 to KDE is what OS X to Mac OS.

Which actually counters your point. Apple developers (largely dictated by Steve) decided to change and improve the look-and-feel of the OS. Very few are those who would take the look-and-feel of previous versions of Mac OS or Nextstep over the current OS X. Also, there is very little different between the amount of research, usability study, design and development that went into OS X as went into KDE 4, Gnome Shell, Unity or Windows 7 (relative to time frame, development resources, etc of each undertaking).
Also, OS X point releases are very similar to KDE 4 point releases in that they generally contain numerous new features on top of bug fixes, optimizations, etc.

One could regress and start complaining about why we even have these new-fangled graphical desktop thingies anyway. I can get everything done that I need to with just a window manager, or even just the command line. I don't need any "help" from graphical applications, so if you'll excuse me I have to go compile my kernel and play some nethack.
We have desktop environments because they help us use our computers. They are easier (to learn) to use than basic window managers or a raw command line. Before graphical desktops most people wouldn't have thought twice about using the command line - that's all there was. We have graphical desktops because people figured out that a visual presentation is easier to use than memorizing commands. We have desktop environments with all of the nice integration and features they do because people figured out that the integration and features improve people's efficiency and ability to get things done. We have KDE4 because people saw novel ways to interact with computers and to organize applications and data. KDE4 is designed to be melded for optimal organization of the tasks that you perform.
In all of these cases where a new interface was introduced people had to learn the new interface which seemed very alien at first. However, people learned to use them and adapted new workflow habits to make better use of the new tools.

If you don't want to use these new desktop designs, that's your prerogative, but honestly you are missing out on the opportunity to learn new ways to make your own workflow more efficient.

OS X is a completely different operating system. It was not a new version of Mac OS. Apple was in a very difficult situation: their OS was quickly becoming outdated. It did not support the new network, web, document formats. Most importantly, Microsoft canceled their shipment of MS Office and IE for Mac OS, which meant definite death of the OS (no browser, no office suite). In this situation Apple decided to employ the already existing open-source operating system on their hardware with its modern network stack, libraries and applications.