KDE4... The real question is not "did it work" but "who did it work for".

I don't think most people realize the underlying difference between the; "for KDE4", "against KDE4" and "indifferent to KDE4 vs KDE3" users.

They all are users. But... what they use it for is different--more importantly what they "expect" is different.

I'm generalizing here, but thats what you have to to when you categorize and organize things. I see three major categories of users as related to KDE4 vs KDE3:

For KDE4 - The computer is used as a creativity tool and as an entertainment tool. This group enjoys and is rewarded by creatively improving the appearance and to some extent the "functionality" of the desktop and creating something that is different and is uniquely their own. They also use the communication aspects; web surfing, email, word-processing, audio & video, and some other programs related to their hobby or personal life. They are more interested in appearance and the ability to tweak things and are not bothered much by how long (or how many mouse clicks) it takes to activate a command or program since they have no need to hurry. For the same reason they are not very irritated by crashes, freezes or other problems that can be solved by simply restarting the program or computer.

Indifferent to KDE4 vs KDE3 - They mostly use the communication/entertainment aspects of the computer. They are concerned with "what" the computer can do as it relates to what they want to do. They are not bothered much by what they have to go through to do what they want to do--as long as they get what they want done--and the time to do it and the time dealing with "problems" is not excessive.

Against KDE4 - They are trying to get something done. They have time pressures and deadlines. They have no interested in "prettifying" or customizing unless it increases productivity. They consider a computer as only a tool. The consider "retraining" an expense. They mostly use the communication, business and programming related programs and they use far more of the features in those programs than the other groups do--which means they are exposed to more possible failure points. Anything that slows down or complicates the work-flow really, really irritates them. Any upgrade that makes an existing and heavily used feature slower or harder to use has them raging and bouncing off the ceiling against the software and its new and "improved" feature. But what really sets them off is when after years of using a feature and integrating it into their business and work-flow, that feature is either dropped, modified to where no longer provides a needed capability or is too buggy to use for serious work. Regex searches in Kate in KDE 4.5 being an example.

Perhaps it would be better if the distros explicitly stated which group they develop for and cater to so that the people in the other group would not expect them to provide what they wanted and would "quietly" go elsewhere to get what they want.

In the early days of computers the "Against KDE4" type of user was the group that most software development time was spent trying to satisfy. They were the largest group--and since you had to buy ALL software back then--they were the biggest market, had the most money and were willing to spend it. Since then things have changed a lot. OSS arrived and the majority of users are now in the "for" or "indifferent" category. Since no one is paying for a specific type of software, the development bias has shifted to the interest and desires of the largest group of users. I don't see this ever changing in the OSS environment.

Outside of KDE:

Where the idea came from that people shouldn't get paid for their work and how it ever became so wide spread I have no idea. Even the communist at least paid their workers in food and goods. Because of this I don't see OSS as a grass root basis for creating new wealth and improving quality of life as related to the material aspect of society. I'm not saying OSS is bad or harms a society--just that its bias is not toward commerce, increasing production or developing new material goods. Many people (not me) think that the fact that we HAVE moved almost all physical production factories from the USA (and other "currently" rich countries) to China is workable because it is possible to continue to create wealth by selling "intellectual properties". If we give all those "intellectual properties" away for free... exactly what are we going to live on once our "accumulated" wealth is gone?

The current shift away from satisfying the "against KDE4" type of user is NOT going to encourage businesses to switch to Linux. Microsoft will ALWAYS try to provide software needed by people willing to pay for it. Business will ALWAYS use and PAY for the tools that save or make them the most money.

Thankfully there seems to be a new trend starting. The Linux version of UltraEdit is one example. It is a commercial programmer/general purpose editor that is currently better than Kate in KDE4 (mostly because of bugs in Kate) but not as good as Kate in KDE3... yet. Give them another 6 months to a year and I think they might be better than Kate, at which point I will buy it. There are other distro independent "work oriented" commercial software startups as well. This trend might keep Linux in the business environment and prevent Microsoft from taking over the commercial sector of the society. Otherwise I see most businesses either staying with KDE3 as is, or using the Trinity project version of KDE3 (assuming KDE3 still solves their business problems) or going back to Windows.

There IS a commercial market for non-free Linux software--if it solves a problem that cost or could make people money (and is cheaper than other solutions--not hard to do when you are competing with Microsoft...).

This post is meant to encourage thinking about KDE, not to make people angry. But if it does so be it.

I don't feel KDE4 has been great for me. I've tried to stick it out with 3.5 for as long as possible. I guess I could stay with 3.5 for a year or so yet, but have moved to GNOME and Ubuntu in the last few weeks.

I remain a big fan of KDE and hope to see my way back at some point! Right now it's not for me. But GNOME with bits of KDE seems to be doing the job.

I'm sure it's been done to death here, but the death of konqueror did it for me. KDE4 konq is not fit for purpose, and seems to have no place in KDE4.

konqueror was the app that got me in to KDE and Linux in the first place.


I did try Trinity project on Ubuntu, but I see it as a dead end.

kwd wrote:I don't think most people realize the underlying difference between the; "for KDE4", "against KDE4" and "indifferent to KDE4 vs KDE3" users.

Well, there ar obviously differences, otherwise there wouldn't be more than one opinion on this.
However, your definition of each group seems to be missing, instead you are discribing three unrelated user profiles. Alsmost like thinking that there would be a one-to-one mapping.

For example your definition of people in favor and indifferent about KDE4 seems to miss the people who use KDE as their workstation software provider, e.g. used on office computers, all contributors to KDE, etc.

kwd wrote:In the early days of computers the "Against KDE4" type of user was the group that most software development time was spent trying to satisfy.

I find that hard to believe. In the early days of computing there was no KDE4 so how could they have been against KDE4?

kwd wrote:Since no one is paying for a specific type of software, the development bias has shifted to the interest and desires of the largest group of users. I don't see this ever changing in the OSS environment.

I don't get this one. Do you mean as opposed to non-OSS environments which do not seek to cater to the largest group of users/customers but only to a minority? Any example for that?

kwd wrote:Where the idea came from that people shouldn't get paid for their work and how it ever became so wide spread I have no idea.

This comes from the mass consumption society we currently live in. Big "faceless" corporations produce everything in huge quantities, so individuals also producing things are required to keep their prices at the expected level or even below.

Fortunately, the FOSS movement and similar movements in other areas has demonstrated that individuals or small groups can also create high quality goods and services and people start to value tailored products or products which they can influence or even contribute to.

kwd wrote:Many people (not me) think that the fact that we HAVE moved almost all physical production factories from the USA (and other "currently" rich countries) to China is workable because it is possible to continue to create wealth by selling "intellectual properties".

I agree with you to disagree with this idea. This move has only served a few which became richer by maximizing short term gains and will fall back on all of us at some point.

kwd wrote:If we give all those "intellectual properties" away for free... exactly what are we going to live on once our "accumulated" wealth is gone?

Well, I don't think the plan is to give your last valuables away for free, but even then this faulty concept will be doomed once others start generating intellectual property themselves.

kwd wrote:The current shift away from satisfying the "against KDE4" type of user is NOT going to encourage businesses to switch to Linux.

I am afraid I don't get this one either. Are business not usually also more concerned with keeping their customers happy and as an additional thing trying to gain more? Wouldn't they see the same thing happening elsewhere as something they can relate to?

kwd wrote:Microsoft will ALWAYS try to provide software needed by people willing to pay for it. Business will ALWAYS use and PAY for the tools that save or make them the most money.

Of course, but that doesn't make your previous point any clearer. Or do you imply that once they got the money they no longer have to be concerned about those they have sold to and can therefore concentrate on those they haven't?
Because my impression of most businesses is the other way around, i.e. investing more in recurring customer than in totally new ones.

kwd wrote:There IS a commercial market for non-free Linux software--if it solves a problem that cost or could make people money (and is cheaper than other solutions--not hard to do when you are competing with Microsoft...).

Of course, Linux as a platform is no different than any other in this regard. Some people like Microsoft partners sometimes try to claim that there isn't any such market, but of course there is and less already divided up between huge companies, so some place new companies can gain easy access to.

Cheers,
_

kwd wrote:Where the idea came from that people shouldn't get paid for their work and how it ever became so wide spread I have no idea. Even the communist at least paid their workers in food and goods. Because of this I don't see OSS as a grass root basis for creating new wealth and improving quality of life as related to the material aspect of society. I'm not saying OSS is bad or harms a society--just that its bias is not toward commerce, increasing production or developing new material goods. Many people (not me) think that the fact that we HAVE moved almost all physical production factories from the USA (and other "currently" rich countries) to China is workable because it is possible to continue to create wealth by selling "intellectual properties". If we give all those "intellectual properties" away for free... exactly what are we going to live on once our "accumulated" wealth is gone?

I'm sorry, but you really do have some crazy ideas that don't come anywhere near to reality. People DO get paid for free software development all the time, and no one believes that this shouldn't happen. However, under free software, no one is prevented from doing work because the owner of the code isn't willing to invest in the work. Under the proprietary system, money is required for anything to ever get done. Under free software, money can be a spur to getting a problem solved, but lack of money is never a straightjacket against a problem being solved

The primary wealth that free software generates is the software itself, and that benefits everyone. I believe that it even benefits proprietary software developers and users. This is the only way a competitor to Windows could ever get anywhere. Linux is not a business, therefore it can't be put out of business. What if Windows didn't have Linux as competition for the PC market? What incentive would they have to continue developing? What oppressive actions could they take against their users with utter impunity? FOSS isn't going to solve all our economic problems, but it has made life materially better. It also has the potential to make large segments of the economy more efficient. For a business, requiring the payment of a licensing fee to create each new workstation is like a tax on hiring new employees. And free software is like a tax cut.

And who is to say that one day, the Chinese won't own Microsoft? All they have to do is lobby the US government to let them buy enough stock. No one is ever going to control GNU/Linux in that way, and I believe that gives us a measure of security.

I notice that I don't fit any of your classifications. At this point I consider myself to be pro-KDE3 and pro-KDE4. I've gotten used to KDE4, and let me assure everyone that KDE goes way beyond eye candy in broadening the ways of using the Desktop. But there are places where KDE3 is better suited. If Slax switches to KDE4, it appears that this will force the developers to make vanilla Slax larger than its current 200 MB. That would mean more limited customization. I made my own Slax based Live CD, Kiara, which has been downloaded about 250 times. I added 500 mbs of additional files to Slax, and if Slax goes to KDE4, I may have to take some of those out.

Actually, according to my taste, give me KDE4 with Debian and Ubuntu, and KDE3.5 with Slackware. On one of my computers, I'm using the Vector Linux 6 classic KDE release, and I love it

jackson82 wrote:

I did try Trinity project on Ubuntu, but I see it as a dead end.

I wish you would explain why you see it that way. Personally, I was never a fan of KDE3 as it existed in Kubuntu. I had a big problem with the fact that the "GO" button was removed from Konqueror, and the trinity relase follows that puzzling pattern. But Tim Pearson has been doing fine work with Trinity for all this time, while everyone else has been griping. I'm currently adding his Slackware biniaries to Kiara.

What does the Trinity Desktop environment look like? It looks like KDE3. I believe that the Trinity project will succeed because Tim Pearson has been disciplined and respectful of the community as a whole, and also because his objectives are pretty modest:

"This project aims to keep the KDE3.5 computing style alive, as well as polish off any rough edges that were present as of KDE 3.5.10."

Some KDE3 fans appear to be unsatisfied with simply keeping KDE3 alive and polished. If you want to hold on to what you have, that's pretty reasonable. If you want a lot of development to continue on KDE3, i.e., if you want to stand still and move forward at the same time, I think you may be asking too much.

kwd wrote:Where the idea came from that people shouldn't get paid for their work and how it ever became so wide spread I have no idea. Even the communist at least paid their workers in food and goods. Because of this I don't see OSS as a grass root basis for creating new wealth and improving quality of life as related to the material aspect of society. I'm not saying OSS is bad or harms a society--just that its bias is not toward commerce, increasing production or developing new material goods. Many people (not me) think that the fact that we HAVE moved almost all physical production factories from the USA (and other "currently" rich countries) to China is workable because it is possible to continue to create wealth by selling "intellectual properties". If we give all those "intellectual properties" away for free... exactly what are we going to live on once our "accumulated" wealth is gone?

This is completely wrong. You need to research more about patents and what they're really designed to do. Perpetuating the monopolistic control of a market was not the original intention of IP and patents.

If it was true that companies didnt benefit from FOSS then you wouldnt see RedHat, OpenSUSE, Nokia, Ubuntu, Google, and many others investing so much into something that they gave away for free. Business models can be designed around providing technical support and writing drivers for custom hardware or providing a platform to attract users. Google uses it to customize linux and promote its products to make ad revenue, and Ubuntu has gotten revenue simply by making google the homepage by default in Firefox. Not to mention individual or company donations made by grateful users.

Linux is centered around developers wanting to create something for themselves to use. They may not make any money doing it, but they're also not being told what to work on and how to do it. Why should they not then share they're work with others and contribute to something greater than what they could have created on their own.

You say that Linux isnt tailored towards commerce and increasing production, and yet that's exactly what it does. It provides a cost free platform that is stable and highly customizable that saves many companies thousands or more of dollars in licensing costs for a product like windows that may or may not be what they want/need. Helping put companies on an equal footing, FOSS promotes competition and will help to abolish the monopolization and lock in of specific companies who's main goal is to get your money and not to provide the best product possible. I personally welcome anything that will promote competition and give users more freedom to do what they want and how they want to do it.

What a bizarre post. Almost every single sentence is utter nonsense.

Is this an attempt at viral marketing for ultraedit?

spoovy wrote:What a bizarre post. Almost every single sentence is utter nonsense.

I agree. Unless there's an actual study compiling the psychological profiles of people who like and don't like KDE4, which I doubt, all that stuff was made up... but I don't want to get too much on the OP's case. The transition to KDE4 drove me to similar extremes, and not that long ago.

The question that needs to be asked is "why doesn't KDE4 work for some people?" Having been a hater and now a lover of KDE4, and (yet, I'm still a supporter of KDE3), I feel qualified to offer a hypothesis or two.

Someone actually posted in here that he was switching to Gnome because he doesn't like the cashew. Now, that's dumb. For one reason, I'm told that the cashew can be eliminated. But really, what's the big deal? As driven as I have been in the past by obsessive hatred of KDE4, cashewphobia has always eluded me. Likewise, I don't why some people dislike the kicker menu style so much, but at least that's actually got to do with something practical.

Now, by any objective standard, KDE4 is awesome. For a long time, I bitterly resented it and yet I knew that it was putting so much power in the hands of the user that I could not object.

It's not always easy to comprehend. Trust me, people who talk about KDE4 as "eye-candy" don't understand what it can do. What matters most to me is that it's going to allow for single-tasking, and the creation of the "dedicated desktop". With recent research indicating that multitasking is inefficient, and maybe even counter to good brain development in children, KDE has given us the possibility of building an immersive Desktop around a single task. This may well lead to greater focus and productivity. Eye candy? Try "Brain Food"! The whole widget thing makes a lot more sense when you consider it in the context of this.

So even if there are individual users who can't use KDE4, and even if one of those users is me (turns out, it's not), there's no doubt in my mind that world needs this, and in the spirit of community, if we as individuals have to take a hit for the team, we ought to do it cheerfully.

But it also remains that (in my view) very few KDE users would have to take a hit. KDE4 can be run a lot more like KDE3 than the default would suggest... and why is that? Some distributions, e.g. Aptosid (formerly Sidux), Mepis, and PCLinuxOS, waited until using the more familiar folderview activity could be run as the default, and it was when I started using Sidux that KDE4 started to make sense to me, and I stated to discover the advantages, working outward from the familiar.

But with the "Desktop" activity as the usual default, KDE4 fanboys who angrily decry those who don't understand how KDE4 can be made to run a lot like KDE3 are being naive, in my opinion. It's like dropping people off in unfamiliar terrain and expecting them to find their way home. They'll probably get there, but it's going to be a long frustrating journey, and don't expect them to be grateful when they finally arrive.

I've said this before: The story of KDE4 is the story of great software and bad public relations. KDE4 was oversold, pushed out way too early, and made unnecessarily unfamiliar and forbidding by default. In the end, the software is what is going to matter, not the PR blunders. But I hope someone is going to think about how things could have been done better next time something truly big and important happens. I also hope nothing big and important is going to happen again anytime soon.

blackbelt_jones - a very thoughtful post. Thank you! I write as a former KDE diehard who switched his main work station to Gnome during 2010, but is still keeping a sympathetic eye on the development of KDE.

They have no interested in "prettifying" or customizing unless it increases productivity.

Completely untrue. I am against KDE4 because it does not allow me to customize appearance.

This group enjoys and is rewarded by creatively improving the appearance and to some extent the "functionality" of the desktop and creating something that is different and is uniquely their own.

Your line of thinking presumes that KDE4 has better appearance than KDE3. This is a dead end line of thinking. It does not encourage the KDE4 team to re-think their mistakes, it just labels all people who do not like KDE4 as retarded nerds or something.

In what aspects does KDE 4 not allow you to customise it's appearance?

bcooksley wrote:In what aspects does KDE 4 not allow you to customise it's appearance?

- No good Qt4 themes
- No good icon themes
- No possibility to make plasma to have the same style as Qt4 controls
- No possibility to remove cashew
- No possibility to have "storage media" icon on desktop.
- Huge visual artifacts

Visual artifacts such as tearing, corrupt images, etc are usually the fault of the graphics stack, rather than KDE itself. Your graphics driver is causing this.

The theming issue is not a lack of customisation, but simply a lack of pre-build customisations which suit your taste.

There are options out there in the form of 3rd party applets as previously stated which handle the Cashew issue. If you ignore them then you are ignoring the customisation options provided to you.

Anixx wrote:

bcooksley wrote:In what aspects does KDE 4 not allow you to customise it's appearance?

- No good Qt4 themes
- No good icon themes
- No possibility to make plasma to have the same style as Qt4 controls
- No possibility to remove cashew
- No possibility to have "storage media" icon on desktop.
- Huge visual artifacts

These specific complaints may be valid, or maybe they aren't (I'm pretty sure there's a storage media widget, and there's something called a "stealth cashew" you might want to look into) but they don't add up to "cannot customize appearance", a far more general complaint.

Your line of thinking presumes that KDE4 has better appearance than KDE3. This is a dead end line of thinking. It does not encourage the KDE4 team to re-think their mistakes, it just labels all people who do not like KDE4 as retarded nerds or something.

I think you're reading a little too much into it. No one thinks you're a nerd.

blackbelt_jones wrote:

I wish you would explain why you see it that way. Personally, I was never a fan of KDE3 as it existed in Kubuntu. I had a big problem with the fact that the "GO" button was removed from Konqueror, and the trinity relase follows that puzzling pattern. But Tim Pearson has been doing fine work with Trinity for all this time, while everyone else has been griping. I'm currently adding his Slackware biniaries to Kiara.

There is a "go" button. It looks like an enter key but I imagine it would be easy enough to change.



I wish I had known about Trinity sooner. When I first came to linux, I decided to go with KDE after some research. I was disappointed in 4.2 so I thought Gnome was my only alternative for a modern DE. I had been using that until 4.4. when I decided to give KDE 4 another try. I've been using it ever since with no issues.

Anixx wrote:

bcooksley wrote:In what aspects does KDE 4 not allow you to customise it's appearance?

- No good Qt4 themes
- No good icon themes
- No possibility to make plasma to have the same style as Qt4 controls
- No possibility to remove cashew
- No possibility to have "storage media" icon on desktop.
- Huge visual artifacts

Sure you're talking about KDE 4.0.0.0.0.0 and you haven't certainly not used some latest Kde distribution more than five minutes



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_en8ZEKoD1wo/T ... 00/sz6.jpg