Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 23:22:01 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is KDE4 usable on FreeBSD? Message-ID: <20081102052201.GE2112@kokopelli.hydra> In-Reply-To: <490C955C.2010201@rawbw.com> References: <490C0159.3000908@rawbw.com> <20081101163322.B10508@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20081101160415.GB14218@rebelion.Sisis.de> <20081101174556.L11029@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <490C955C.2010201@rawbw.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--+SfteS7bOf3dGlBC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 10:43:56AM -0700, Yuri wrote:
> Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >
> >it's SLOW and resource hungry - giving nothing else than a good look.=20
> >that's why i compare it to windoze.
> >
> >and why you need "desktop" (whatever it means) at all?
>=20
> You need desktop for Unix (Linux) to be adopted by simple users.
> Also GUI makes life much easier even for advanced users.
> I don't want to deal command lines/config files for mundane
> things like finding and setting up wireless networks, playing
> CDs/DVDs, etc. GUI integrated with desktop would make this
> much less time consuming.
A couple of things:
1. It's true -- many users require a gentler transition than simply
giving up the "richness" of MS Windows and moving to some spare,
productivity-enhancing user environment like some of those available on
Unix systems. Luckily, Unix can accomodate many different approaches
to a GUI environment, so all can be happy with what they have. That's
one of the benefits of a Unix architecture, as opposed to one where the
underlying OS is wedded to its "desktop metaphor" implementation.
2. One doesn't need a "Desktop Environment" to have a GUI -- a point I
think you glossed over or even missed entirely. One doesn't even need
the DE for GUI-based configuration.
3. The command line is not more time consuming than the GUI for most
purposes. It is, in fact, *less* time consuming, as well as being more
powerful and flexible, for most purposes. There are some tasks for
which a GUI approach is the most effective, and there are many more for
which a TUI is better. What makes the GUI "easier" for many people is
that it doesn't tend to have as high an initial learning curve. Once
you get past the initial learning curve, though, the CLI is far more
productive and efficient than a GUI in most cases, at least in my
experience. It's all a bit like the relative learning curves of
various editing environment:
http://unix.rulez.org/~calver/pictures/curves.jpg
> >
> >just window manager is enough, try fvwm2 maybe icewm maybe other etc.
> >
> not really enough.
>=20
> Unfortunately open source is pretty much a failure when it comes to GUI a=
nd
> desktop. Any kind of GUI, look at ddd for example. Untested=20
> development-stage
> software (like kde4) is being released to the public for some reason.
No, it isn't a failure. It's a raging success in many ways. Its only
failures are in marketing, for the most part. KDE4 is buggy as hell in
my experience, but it's no worse than the GUI environment for Millenium
Edition. In addition to that, we in the open source world still have
significant advances over the bells-and-whistles aesthetic of MS Windows,
in more ways than one:
1. We have better bells and whistles. Compiz Fusion comes to mind.
2. We have better interface design. Even though Compiz Fusion is a
steaming pile of unnecessary crap in my personal opinion (where UI
design is concerned), it's still leagues ahead of Aero Glass for
purposes of productivity enhancement (or at least refraining from
getting in the way of productivity), and both GNOME and KDE<4 are
better than XP's UI in that regard.
3. A bunch of other GUI environments are far, far better than the
typical DEs of the OSS world in terms of productivity enhancing UI
design; they stay the hell out of the way while providing functionality
that improves user task completion efficiency.
The ddd example is kind of unfair, by the way. That's a common GNU
problem, not a broader open source problem. It's my experience that the
GNU project is full of people who have absolutely no idea how to design a
decent interface. The GNU project is so influential, though, that once
they come up with something that fits within a specific niche, the rest
of the open source world seems reluctant to do anything to reach into the
same niche and replace the GNU train-wreck of UI with a better UI.
I mean, come on -- just look at Info Pages. What a disaster area.
--=20
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
Quoth Georg Hackl: "American beer is the first successful attempt at
diluting water."
--+SfteS7bOf3dGlBC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAkkNOPkACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKWV3wCg5E84NB4gh4NJB4c/8y+DXgS1
DkwAoJBSaafoHHCpu4ixqH7MlfIFdzlG
=hNk/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--+SfteS7bOf3dGlBC--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081102052201.GE2112>