OSNews

Are you saying that Firefox will do that in KDE? Epiphany is Gnome's browser. I use Epiphany and it works just fine with any site that works with Firefox. Gmail... Google Apps... My online banking.

Konqueror is a no go with all three of those... and more. I'd rather have the sites work than the custom keyboard shortcuts, any day. But with Epiphany, I have both. :-)

Are you saying that Firefox will do that in KDE? Epiphany is Gnome's browser. I use Epiphany and it works just fine with any site that works with Firefox. Gmail... Google Apps... My online banking.

Konqueror is a no go with all three of those... and more. I'd rather have the sites work than the custom keyboard shortcuts, any day. But with Epiphany, I have both. :-) "

And when Epiphany moves to webkit, watch that disappear...

Epiphany won't move to Webkit, it will add Webkit backend. Gecko one isn't going anywhere and, for example, Ubuntu just renamed epiphany-browser package to epiphany-gecko.

What you call needless cruft, I call useful features... But to each his own.



That is strange, as in general every KDE application is completely network transparent, which means you don't need a local copy for most things.

There lies the problem, the features are useful to you, but clutter to others. So the interface is logical to you but full of noise for other people.

Gnome, Firefox and many other programs have a simple solution: plugins.

Now you can hand pick what features are available and not be bothered by features cluttering up the interface that only a few people use, sometimes.

No, GNOME just removes features that idiot users wouldn't use and leaves the power users in the dust. This is not a solution. Yes, KDE 3.5 could have been a little bit cleaner with the menus, but at the end of the day, I can actually get work done in KDE and make efficient use of my desktop. The learning curve may be a little steeper (but for Windows users, KDE is actually more familiar than GNOME), but it's worth it. Also, with KDE, I don't feel like I'm using an 800x600 monitor because all GNOME apps make horrible use of screen real estate. KDE apps rarely have this problem and scale nicely to the resolution of my screen.

Because all Gnome users are idiots/can't get any work done. This is the same bullshit argument used by Vi and Emacs fanboys to convince people who use "lesser" editors to switch.

But why would I switch when the editor of my choice does the job perfectly with minimal fuss?

I guess that's the difference between KDE and Gnome.

Also, with KDE, I don't feel like I'm using an 800x600 monitor because all GNOME apps make horrible use of screen real estate. KDE apps rarely have this problem and scale nicely to the resolution of my screen.

I didn't notice any difference. Sure, KDE and GNOME apps looks different but atleast on my screen they all scale just fine.

No, GNOME just removes features that idiot users wouldn't use and leaves the power users in the dust. This is not a solution.

That is basically calling all GNOME users idiots -.- I am a power-user myself too, still, an interface with dozens of needless menus, buttons and all that distracts me and hinders my productivity, not boost it. I could also say that stuffing every possible feature in an app is not a solution..but that is an opinion, not a fact.

I found KDE useable, it has some good apps and many interesting features. One example of an app that I find a lot more useable than any GNOME alternatives is Kopete. But as I said, I find myself much more comfortable in a more polished environment. And the thing that many of those apps I tried needing a local copy of a file wouldn't be an issue on a faster connection but on this laptop is started to bother me real fast. Oh, and for some reason AmaroK doesn't allow me to add files to the library unless they are local (or atleast mounted on the local filesystem) which I found annoying. I have all my music on the file server just so that all machines can access it at all times without needing duplicate copies.

Firefox has this solution, there I agree with you. Gnome does not. Since when do many Gnome applications have plugins? Can I add plugins to give me a global menu bar? Can I add a plugin to give me a better file dialog? Can I add a plugin to integrate all apps with a global spell checker? Gnome has a set of features and for the most part they can't be modified much. There certainly is nothing like the extension system that Firefox has.



And 99% (PFTA statistic) of users will never be aware of what the software is capable of and not be able to take advantage of it. It's one solution, but it also has its downsides.

Sure not all of Gnome have plugins, but more and more programs do. You can add functionality to Gedit, Totem and Rhythembox through plugins, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more programs adopt this.

And besides that many applications DO have an integrated spell checker.

And what's wrong with the file dialog?

no, he's right, afaik the KIO systen in KDE 3 needs a local copy. Fixed in KDE 4 of course ;-)

Yes, this is really annoying. It breaks the natural workflow. Draging things from one point to another fits well in the Desktop metaphore, while linking and copying stretches the concept a bit. The menu that pops up have four items:

"Move Here"
"Copy Here"
"Link Here"
"Cancel"

Now consider this:

On most computer systems I have worked with, the number of links usually is around 1/1000 of all files in the system, and most of them are created by scripts.

Now ow many times do we actually want to cancel a drag operation when it have gon as far as we hold the file(s) over the drop target?

This means that two of the four menu items will be used very or even extremely seldom, while of the remaining two one ("Move Here"I most likely will dominate. E.g. consider sorting files from a digital camera into different folders depending on subject.

In other words every time we move a file we are asked what we want to do even though some of the alternatives are so much more probable than others.

Another thing, if you actually want to make a link, the "Link Here" behavior is completely hidden, i.e. the only way to find out that the functionality is there is to drag and drop a file. How would a blind person find this out, as the easiest way for him to move or copy files would be to use copy and paste from the ordinary konquere window menus.

The only environment that does this good is actually windows, here simple drags and drops can be performed with the left menu buttons, but if you hold down the right menu button and drag a file, you get a menu similar to that in KDE. Not to mention that in windows the the "Link Here" behavior is not hidden

It is also something that makes it stand out against most other desktop environments available, making a transition from e.g. windows to KDE harder.

This shoudl really be configurable in KDE, they can hardly argue that this would have resulted in too many optioions, as there are allready so many options for things that are far less groundbreaking differences in beheavior.

Not being able to configure this in konqueroer or dolphin is also inconsistent with KDE itself, as a similar menu exists in Kmail, where you actually can configure if you want the menu or not.

Even worse the problem remains in KDE4 and dolphin. In fact the problem gets worse. If you drag a file from a Konquerer or Dolphin window to the desktop a plasmoid is created on the desktop without any menu popping up as it do if you drag it to another konqeror or dolphin window.

The following is unfortunately all in the realm of "anecdotes and personal preferences" (as a previous poster put it), but as I can only speak for myself I don't know what else I could do.

In other words every time we move a file we are asked what we want to do even though some of the alternatives are so much more probable than others.

I use "link here" all the time. I can also be a spaz and realize I've dragged something over the wrong directory (never mind when I didn't actually mean to drag something in the first place). Being able to cancel is welcome.

Now from what I read about dragging with the middle mouse button in Gnome, they have a nice solution for that (one I didn't realize until now, despite using Gnome for a few months now). I'd be satisfied with that for linking, though I'm left with the question of visibility, given that I had no idea that option was there.

Even worse the problem remains in KDE4 and dolphin. In fact the problem gets worse. If you drag a file from a Konquerer or Dolphin window to the desktop a plasmoid is created on the desktop

The desktop in Plasma is broken (see my initial disclaimer).

Edited 2008-03-22 21:19 UTC

I totally agree! This is just as bad as the hidden "link here" menu item in KDE, in fact its even worse as it is assigned to the middle button, and many people doesnt have three button mice.

However the idea of just getting the menu, when you actually need it (just like in windows) is good.

What GNOME and KDE should do is to make it possible to create links from the application menu. E.g. they could introduce a "Paste Link" menu item in the edit menu so that people could use "Copy" and "Paste Link" actions to create links.

Naturally, Gnome could keep the current middle button drag menu as an extra short cut for powerusers with thre button mice. It is a very nice short cut for those who know about it.

"In GNOME it defaults to moving the file and copying it if the those two locations aren't under the same mount point."

Guess what... that is exactly one of the things that annoy me in GNOME. I prefer to be asked what I want to do whit that file.

Then middle click + drag and stop whining. You'll get the same menu as KDE gives you by default, but only when you want it, not every time you attempt to copy a file.

The great myth perpetuated by you and others is that GNOME isn't configurable. The truth of the matter is that sane defaults are used and prominent, whilst geeky or rarely used functionality is left to the geek to track down. Power users and desktop tweakers will possess the knowledge (and let's face it, time) to hunt down the proper settings (typically in GConf).

I'm not in any particular "camp" regarding the Desktop Jihad, but uninformed arguments like yours do nothing to further the development of either platform. GNOME's file drag 'n' drop behavior is an excellent example of UI design for both geeks and mortals. If this is the great flaw of GNOME, we need more failures like it. If this is your argument in favor of KDE, I'll stick with WMII, thank you very much.

Middle-clicking onto a file is unintuitive to anyone who uses the middle mouse button to paste something. It would feel subconsciously like "overwrite the file with whatever is currently in the buffer".
I know this is illogical, but to me it feels like that.
In Windows I often move stuff when I wanted to copy it, but I admit that the popup menu of KDE can be annoying.

For the dumbed-down configuration dialog and the gconf editor:

It is unproductive.
Why?
Because configuring Gnome to my liking takes approximately 3 times longer than configuring KDE to my liking.
In KDE I can walk through the whole configuration dialogue within approximately two hours. I will find every thing I want to configure on this walktrough.
In Gnome it is a 5 minute walk through the dialogue, then a 3 hour search for other dialogues or hidden configuration options, only to find out that there are none. Then it is a horrible search through the gconf editor guessing which keyword does what, trying to change, see if the right keyword was changed, finding out that it was not the right keyword, try others which might be the right ones, and after 5 minutes we have the first of 20 necessary changes.

KDE shows that it need not be like that.
For Gnome maybe one simple button labeled "Expose all options" and a config tree similar in size as KDE's appears, would solve this issue.

I can accept simple and clean interfaces for the applications themselves, I agree that for applications less is more, as long as whatever is left is enough, and possibilities to add what is missing are available.
But for configuration dialogues more is more, because people should not spend time learning how to correctly set things up in gconf. A configuration dialogue is rarely opened, usually once or twice. For rarely used stuff the "no learning required" paradigm of graphical user interfaces have their biggest advantage over the "it's fast when you already know what to do" paradigm of a command line interface.
I think the Gnome usability guys were wrong when they decided to make Gnome configuration complicated.

Want my advice? Well, I'll give it anyway. Normal users are going to be pretty happy with the defaults. So we're talking about using Gnome like a geek, here.[1] So I'll give you the straightforward geek advice. Run through the config process once, and for each change you make, add a gconftool-2 line to a script and save the script in a safe place. Next time you need to configure Gnome, just run the script. You'll be able to tweak Gnome to exactly the way you like it in five or ten seconds.

Out of curiosity, does KDE have such a facility?

---
[1] Why regular users are capable of getting real work done with the defaults, while geeks insist that they are unable to do so without tweaking the hell out of their desktops, I've never understood. To me, it suggests a certain rigidness of mind, an unwillingness to learn new procedures, and a penchant for painting the bicycle shed.

Except I can't middle click drag on my laptop. Same goes for resizing windows. I think Gnome requires me to hold alt + middle button and drag to resize a window, which is impossible with a trackpad.

LOL... You've got to hand it to you gnome fanboys. You can turn any missing function into a "usability" advantage and actually believe it.
Worse, when KDE has a feature that gnome lacks like global spellchecking, well we'll just call that clutter.
You are totally owned.
Drag and drop functionality in gnome is just deranged.
How is a user to know how it works? What if you don't have a middle mouse button like 90% of laptops?
Gnome is an abomination.

Just like on MSWindows, you can use the standard keyboard modifiers. Start a drag-n-drop and press shift to move, ctrl to copy, or alt to open a context menu.

Concur with this. For usability, each has advantages & quirks.

In the future, once KDE 4 matures a bit, KDE will have the far more solid framework. KDE also has no mono dependencies, and KDE is licensed as GPL v3, so it has far less patent risk than GNOME.

For me, this means that KDE is the way to go of the future, without doubt.

Now if we could only convince Mozilla & Sun of that truth, so that Firefox & OpenOffice both gained better integration with the KDE desktop.

Except Gnome doesn't have Mono dependencies.

Stop spreading the FUD.

Edited 2008-03-22 02:24 UTC

Except Gnome doesn't have Mono dependencies.

Stop spreading the FUD. "

A number of the desktop utilities that "go with GNOME" have mono dependencies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#Software_developed_with_Mono

Beagle, Banshee/Muine, FSpot & Tomboy notes are the main offenders.

Here is another good site to monitor for applications to avoid:
http://www.mono-project.com/Software

Beagle in particular will give a lot of GNOME-based desktops a dependency on mono.

Going with strigi (as used in KDE 4) would be a far better and safer choice.

Beagle in particular will give a lot of GNOME-based desktops a dependency on mono.

GNOME does support tracker also, it is not dependant on Beagle. It's just merely the fact that distro providers usually choose Beagle for one or another reason. Blame the packagers instead

GNOME desktop itself isn't dependant on Mono (thank God), and removing Mono doesn't remove any major functionality either. There's alternatives to all those Mono apps, like f.ex. I always use Rhythmbox, not going to touch Banshee/Muine.

But I'm perfectly happy with Mono based software.

Having Mono around is a good thing because it means programs get developed quicker, and that there are more programs to choose from.

Sure, one day Microsoft might kick up a stink, but what does it matter when it's only non-trivial programs that are written using Mono? And besides, when Vala is ready you'll be able to port Mono programs to Gnome without having to worry about this.

Agree about KDE4's framework.

Disagree about the v3 thing, this has been beaten into the ground too many times. v2 and v3 have the same patent provisions, the only difference is that v3 uses about 10,000 extra words to clarify them in no uncertain terms.

And neither Gnome or KDE have mono dependencies, but they both have C# interfaces.

I prefer KDE too, but let's keep the arguments away from cliches and FUD... We can simply bask in the fact it's a better performing, superior framework with multi-platform capability...



That, I can't argue with...



Firefox's integration with Gnome is weak at best, it uses it's own toolkit framework just as OOo does. And convincing Sun, who have their own vision of what a multi-platform application framework should be, to endorse Qt, which has an alternate vision for what a multi-platform application framework should be, won't happen any time too soon...

Agree about KDE4's framework.

Disagree about the v3 thing, this has been beaten into the ground too many times. v2 and v3 have the same patent provisions, the only difference is that v3 uses about 10,000 extra words to clarify them in no uncertain terms. "

The main difference is in Microsoft's apparent attitude to GPL software ... Microsoft seem to believe they can FUD about GPL v2 and they also believe they have found a "wedge" within v2 they can use to split up the FOSS community.



Strictly, this is correct. However, on a KDE default install you could quite likely find no mono libraries at all, but on a GNOME desktop you would "take out" a number of desktop utilities if you removed mono libraries.



I however think it is valid enough to warn people that going with a GNOME desktop is more likely to see them end up in mono-derived hot water.



That, I can't argue with...



Firefox's integration with Gnome is weak at best, it uses it's own toolkit framework just as OOo does. And convincing Sun, who have their own vision of what a multi-platform application framework should be, to endorse Qt, which has an alternate vision for what a multi-platform application framework should be, won't happen any time too soon... "

Herein lies a problem, then.

Would it be ethical and advantageous perhaps for KOffice 2 to fork some of the legacy input filters for MS Office from the OpenOffice codebase?

It's a natural question, and it's come up in the past. Certainly it would be advantageous and would be within licensing guidelines. Ethical? I'll let the philosophers argue that point, other than to say I don't think it would be unethical.

But from what I gather, the devs have run into two core problems with the OOo2 source; first, it's somewhat of a spaghetti mess of code that is difficult to work with, some of it dating back a decade or more, and second, that the nature of the way OOo2 manages document formats is structurally different from KOffice, and would require a major refactoring (basically a re-write) in order to adopt the MSO compatibility. So they've looked at it, but determined it's not feasible.

This does suck, because I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. I vastly prefer KOffice to OOo2 because I find it much "lighter" and far better integrated with KDE, but yet the minimal MSO compatibility is a deal-breaker since I have no choice but to deal with MSO files at work. Yet OOo2 I find to be a very clunky and somewhat dated app to use, though with more useful functionality than KOffice. The worst part is that neither works well enough for what I need, so I'm stuck with VirtualBox and Office2003. Would that it was otherwise...

If anybody actually bothers to read the article, they will notice that Robin Miller's biggest issues were not kde-specific, but distribution specific.

Haha, another one of those 'he was using the wrong' distro arguments. IMHO, if the type of distro you're using can determine whether or not you can use the GUI to properly configure your network options, there is a fundemental problem somewhere. And even if he switches to Mandriva (or whatever) and this stuff works, there's probably gonna be other stuff that doesn't work.

As for desktop environments..
I can see how global hotkeys might change between desktop environments, but I would think that once you set things like your networking options and default mail program, that stuff ought to just work no matter what desktop environment you're using.

Edited 2008-03-22 00:05 UTC

This is why KDE users should give up and stop whining about Kubuntu and use Mandrake or SUSE.

I've never seen a GNOME user complaining about the shitty suppor of Mandrake towards GNOME.

Unfortunately kubuntu is one of the few high quality deb based KDE distros around (I should give sidux a go tho). I kinda dislike rpms but I hate openSUSEs packaging system everytime I try it I have to add external repos just to get things like non crippled ktorrent.

Inevitably the sheer amount of external repos leads to loads of packaging conficts. The dialog box that pop's up is just plain hideous. Not to mention zypper and yast are damn slow.

With mandriva I couldn't find 64 bit downloads without getting the dvd image...sigh...

Other than that I would say that SUSE and Mandriva are more polished than Kubuntu, but the packaging issue is a deal breaker for me.

FWIW, you actually have another *buntu option. Install regular Ubuntu. And then instead of installing Kubuntu-desktop, install kde-base instead. (Or is it KDE desktop? Well, it's some kde metapackage that isn't kubuntu-desktop.) I know that some people prefer that. Last I tested, there was a *dramatic* difference in memory consumption and performance on lower memory machines. And, like I say, some people simply prefer it to going the Kubuntu route. I'm writing this from my Fedora 8 Gnome desktop. But I don't blame you for wanting to stick with apt. Package management under Fedora is excellent. But it's really hard to beat the polish of apt.

Sheer amount? There's one external repo now, since the previous two merged into one as of 10.3. Anything else you could want is likely available in the build-service, which compiles packages against the various core versions of openSUSE, and automatically recompiles when a dependent package changes, specifically to bypass potential dependency issues. It is, frankly, a superior way of managing packages that the other distros are only starting to implement themselves. The only way to run into dependency issues is by mixing repos from different versions of openSUSE (which, sadly, people do), and the same thing will happen on any distro, dep or rpm. If you do happen to run into a dependency issue, it's a bug with the packaging that should be reported to the developers, as with any distro, deb or rpm.

If you want to complain about the the performance of Yast/zypper, that's fair enough, since even the devs have acknowledged it and reworked the backend for 11.0 specifically for (significant) performance improvements, but is it possible to have a discussion about deb vs rpm without falling into the long-extinct "dependency hell" issues? If you run into dependency issues on a modern system, it's a packaging error, and it's not like Ubuntu hasn't had similar issues with their hastily repackaged Debian debs in the past.

This just isn't true. In the combined ubuntu distros I actually have almost every library I need.

In the suse distros there's at least a half dozen missing. I'll even list them since you seem to be interested in fixing it.
bdb c++ bindings and headers for the version required by Ice
zeroc's Ice (all the bindings)
player/stage/gazebo
lame (yes that lame)

Actually, if opensuse had all those. I'd be using opensuse instead of shoddy kubuntu right now. Seriously. Ice has been sitting on the wanted list forever now though, and there's even a srpm available from them. Yet no one has bothered to modify it and fix it for opensuse. I would personally if I had the time and knowledge of rpm spec files (which seem pretty aweful).

Fix it please. And fix the crappy media playback situation as well. And the super long install times. And the zypper "I don't know what to do now" issues where it asks me, and I have no clue of course.

I have never mixed different versions of repos. Nor would I call it dependency hell. Its just damn unfriendly, I can usually resolve these issued when that idiot box full of red and yellow highlights full of garbage text (incidentally zypper does the same but without the pretty colours) pops up telling me that there a conflict in packages that have been supplied by another repo. Its also fairly annoying that all the yast programs are separate.

Maybe I just like synaptic or adept and their speed too much. Searching for packages in adept is even faster than synaptic.

On the whole I would describe the apt system and the gui related tools in (k)ubuntu as being much more streamlined and more importantly easy for new users.

I will be watching for improvements in the future

I never saw Mandrake pledge support for GNOME, and promise to make it a "first-class citizen", as Shuttleworth did for KDE. But of course that move followed the debacle over Novell maybe-or-maybe-not dropping KDE, and since they did an about face on that, he simply forgot about it. It's all about the marketing and generating blog points.

But I do agree with your point. Use the distro that has the best-implementation of the desktop you prefer. Riddell is an extremely talented and high-profile KDE dev, but there's only so much he can do for Ubuntu as a one-man team. If Ubuntu won't invest in KDE, then people should just move on, or make the effort to contribute themselves. Same holds true for distros that may not focus on Gnome, many other alternatives exist. Choice is a wonderful thing.

Yup kubuntu is second class in the ubuntu world. I wish it were different, but what is interesting is that some estimates point at 30% of *ubuntu users are kubuntu users, which is a larger userbase than many kde dedicated distros.

There are alternatives that are better out of the box like Mandriva and openSUSE but we still stick with kubuntu even whilst we're abused by lack of support.

I wonder what makes us stick to kubuntu? is it cos of the ubuntu kool-aid? or is it because kde users generally are more advanced, hence more able fix problems?

For me personally, is that I guess I like debian but can't be bothered with it (bad I know) and ubuntu tweaked kernels usually work better for me. Another part I guess is a similar familiarity that keeps driving me back even when differences in distro workflow are negligible.

Would canonical bother if all kubuntu users mass migrated to other distributions?

What I don't get is how come the KDE guys don't seem to offer more help with Kubuntu. I know back in the day and maybe even now that SuSE or FreeBSD were the reference Distro's for KDE. But I'm sure if they put a bit more support for the integration of KDE with Ubuntu then there would be a bit more positive feed back. It should be noted it is often cited that Kubuntu is not a well supported project.

I did. The winners are K3B and gthumb. And Firefox and OpenOffice.



And the winner is... no DE.

>think someone should try the KDE and Gnome equivalent applications and find which ones he likes best.
e.g. K3B vs Gnome Baker...

i have done it and the winner was... no one!

For me CD/DVD burning apps are one of the big mistakes in the software world!

At the time the first CD recorder came up people started to ask "how do i use it" and the first reaction was "write a application". But in my eye this was a mistake. We don't have a special app to write to a floppy, we don't have a spcial app to write to a memory-stick, we don't have a special app to write to a memory-card, etc. So why should we have a special app to write to a CD/DVD?

Writing to a CD/DVD should be as normal as writing to any other storage. This means: burn files to a CD/DVD? Use the filemanager. Burn a Audio-CD? User your Jukebox. Burn a Video? Use your Video app. etc.

GNOME is going this way: You can burn your data right from nautilus without open an extra app and you can burn your music directly from rhythmbox without open an extra app.

Sure the current GNOME solution is far away from beeing complete and perfect. But i'm sure that's the right way to go. An extra app to burn CD/DVD is a basic design error. This should happen where the data are like for any other stoarge medium too.

Edited 2008-03-22 14:31 UTC

You might want to look at these links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Rainier_(packet_writing)
http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Packet_Writing_on_CD-RW http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Packet_Writing_on_CD-RW_Media

and apply/adapt them to your system.

Edited 2008-03-22 17:09 UTC