Ok, this thread will probably be more of a rant. There are basically some things in KDE and Kubuntu that I don't understand but want to understand. Some are questions about design decisions. Some are probably better asked to devs. But seeing that there's actually little way to ask these to KDE/Kubuntu devs directly (that and most of these questions might be too newbish for them to waste their time on), I just thought I'd post them here, hoping that someone might have an answer/idea. (Note: Though it's more of ranting, it's inquisitive ranting. I'm not sure if this should be in the Off-topic, because I'm almost ranting, or in the Everything Else, because these are almost uncategorizable questions about Kubuntu/KDE. But I'm posting it in the off-topic anyway)
BIG WARNING: There are some things here that might be a bit sensitive, as it will/might touch on some KDE-GNOME comparisons. Let me just make it clear that I have absolutely no intention whatsoever to criticize GNOME, but in fact, ask these questions in order to deepen my understanding about the similarities and differences between the two.
Without further ado:
1. Kubuntu: Adept. For one, I wonder why Adept is separated into two parts in Breezy, and now in 3 parts in Dapper: Adept Package Manager, Adept Updater, and Adept Installer. I see the similarities of the Adept Installer to the GNOME Add/Remove Applications. I just wonder why they made it so. I'm not even sure if a separate Add/Remove Application makes things much easier. What's the difference between a Synaptic/Adept and Add Remove Applications/Adept Installer?
2. Kubuntu: Adept (again): It's one of Kubuntu's claims that Adept is "user-friendly". But I don't find it so. And, judging by the unfortunate experiences of others, it has a long way to go in the fields of usability. First of all, the interface is a bit of a nightmare. Although I find that searching through the Quick Filter is a bit easier than searching in Synaptic, that is the only other easy thing I find in Adept (The other easy thing is customizable toolbars). The Tags concept are barely understandable. And the latest version of Adept in Dapper adds to the already confusing interface. Add that to the fact that you have 3 Adepts to use, when actually they could all be done in one (I don't know about Adept Installer though. Someone give me a quick lecture on GNOME's Add/Remove Applications). Rather than being "easy to use", I find Adept to be something that only experts would learn to love.
3. Kubuntu: System Settings: for reasons I've stated in my other thread, I have expected Kubuntu devs to have done better with this, even if they only made it look a bit better. Of course, the fact that it doesn't look like XP's control panel (or does it?) is a plus. But it looks to plain, that even KControl's tree-view looks more exciting to me.
3. KDE: Desktop Integration: KDE and KDE apps have been said to be too integrated. GNOME is said to be more modular (does this mean, not too integrated?) Yet in some ways, Nautilus is "integrated" into the desktop to the point that it "draws" the desktop. Microsoft is also said to have integrated Internet Explorer into the desktop, so much that it compromises security. But Konqueror seemingly is integrated into the desktop, too. Also, both Internet/Windows Explorer and Konqueror act as both file manager and web browser. So is Konqueror guilty of the same sins of Internet Explorer (at least when it comes to being integrated?). What do you mean by "desktop integration" anyway? It seems that KDE and GNOME (and MS) interpret and implement it quite differently. Is KDE really not modular? Are KDE apps really integrated too much?
Here's my take on KDE's integration. This is the view point of a 4-month old Kubuntu user. As such, I don't know if it is valid or true. Anyway, I don't see KDE as too integrated, nor do I see Konqueror as actually integrated into the desktop. I think that the integration in KDE comes not from the apps but from a deeper level. specifically from 3 KDE components: KParts, kioslaves, and dcop, probably KParts most important of all. It allows Konqueror to do almost anything (is this a good thing actually?). It also allows KDE apps to have access to functions of other apps. But I think (again, not from a dev/programmer point of view) that you when Konqueror uses the Kate KPart, it doesn't actually call Kate. So there's actually no integration between Konqueror and Kate, except when Konqueror really calls and opens up Kate. So it seems that KDE integration comes from KParts (and the other 2 components), which is layered above the kernel but below the apps. I doubt that Konqueror can function well as either browser (it uses the KHTML Kpart) or file manager if KParts were removed.
But does this make KDE non-modular? What does modularity mean in desktop environments, and why is it that people say that GNOME is more modular? And how is GNOME implementing desktop integration?
4. KDE: "Drawing" the desktop: This is one of the strangest things I've encountered with GNOME. But one of the reasons that was presented to me was actually a bit logical. Here's the thread that has a discussion/argument about this and about question number 3 (Destkop integration). I guess it's common knowledge that when GNOME loads, it also loads it's file manager Nautilus. And if Nautilus crashes, it takes down the whole desktop (I've heard). When I asked GNOME users why Nautilus is loaded on startup, they said it's because Nautilus "draws" the desktop (they really should get a better term). When I asked what that means, it became apparent that Nautilus is responsible for actually managing the desktop, and the icons on the desktop. (No wonder the option to change resolutions is not actually on the desktop options). So meaning, no nautilus at startup, no desktop icons, too. Now I asked again why was Nautilus handling the desktop and it's settings, I was told that it's because the desktop is just one folder in the file system, and that you could think of the desktop as one large Nautilus window displaying the desktop folder. Actually, it sounds logical doesn't it? Now, I was left wondering why KDE didn't do it like this, too.
5. KDE: Networking/Internet/DSL: (Note: I have very little, if almost none, knowledge about networking and stuff, so my views might be incorrect or incomplete). I have an ADSL connection with a modem/router (if that's what you call the box that's connected to the PC through the ethernet card). I forgot where I got the advice, but I read that I needed to type "sudo pppoeconf" and to choose the to get the DSL running. Well, it did, and because it worked well, I didn't bother learning about stuff like networking, eth0, DHCP, wireless, wifi, etc. But I noticed that people who have ADSL connectionsand routers/modems ask questions, and rarely, almost never, do I see someone say to do sudo pppoeconf. But this led me to wonder about how KDE (and maybe GNOME, too) handles networks and internet connections. Forgive me if I compare things to Windows a bit, but I don't think that anyone can deny that it's a breeze to setup an internet connection in XP.
One thing I'm wondering is why KDE doesn't have a GUI for PPPoE setup? There's KPPP for dial-up. There's something like this in Knoppix, but I'm not sure what the name of the app is. Also, why does KDE handle eth0 in a weird way? I have an active internet connection, but my eth0 is disabled. And this is one of the things that baffles new comers. No matter how much they try to enable eth0, it always reverts to disabled status. Is this a bug? or is this how KDE really behaves? Is there also no way to activate the DSL connection in KDE except through the pppoeconf command? (There might be a way I don't know. I've never asked because my internet worked perfectly, and I guess it also helped that my eth0 was also detected perfectly).
Off-topic: can anyone point me to an easy-to-understand article/tutorial/guide networking/internet, ADSL, and Linux networking/internet? One thing that baffles me about my DSL is that it's not static (We're not given specific IP Addresses), but not DHCP either (if DHCP is chosen in my /etc/network/interfaces, it takes almost half a minute trying to detect the connecction). So I set it to manual. I don't understand it, though, since most network options either have DHCP or Static.
6. KDE: Theme Manager: why is the theme manager implemented in such a way that you need to have the necessary icons/windecos/styles installed for it to work? Is it not possible to implement it in such a way that a .kth would come with the icons/windeco/style included? Of course, presuming that you have the proper windeco engine (dekorator, crystal, icewm) installed. One of the criticisms of KDE is that it's hard to customize the Look and Feel. Taking each separate Appearance and Theme module, it's not really hard. But when you take them all together, it's quite cumbersome. And Theme Manager doesn't really help that much.
7. KDE/Kubuntu: Is there a place where we can post questions like this and have a probability of someone involved in KDE/Kubuntu development answer? How do we send suggestions or complaints about certain apps? Of course, devs are busy and would probably want to spend more of their time developing rather than answering questions. But maybe someone else from the dev team, or someone close enough to know it?
I guess that's all I have for now (I forgot some other things.
). And this is more than enough to ignite a flame war (which is not my intention). That's why I posted this here, and not on the other side. I think I already got GNOME's side. (I think I've actually had enough "discussions" with a certain someone over there to last me a whole month ). Now I want to hear the KDE story. What are your thoughts?
BIG WARNING: There are some things here that might be a bit sensitive, as it will/might touch on some KDE-GNOME comparisons. Let me just make it clear that I have absolutely no intention whatsoever to criticize GNOME, but in fact, ask these questions in order to deepen my understanding about the similarities and differences between the two.
Without further ado:
1. Kubuntu: Adept. For one, I wonder why Adept is separated into two parts in Breezy, and now in 3 parts in Dapper: Adept Package Manager, Adept Updater, and Adept Installer. I see the similarities of the Adept Installer to the GNOME Add/Remove Applications. I just wonder why they made it so. I'm not even sure if a separate Add/Remove Application makes things much easier. What's the difference between a Synaptic/Adept and Add Remove Applications/Adept Installer?
2. Kubuntu: Adept (again): It's one of Kubuntu's claims that Adept is "user-friendly". But I don't find it so. And, judging by the unfortunate experiences of others, it has a long way to go in the fields of usability. First of all, the interface is a bit of a nightmare. Although I find that searching through the Quick Filter is a bit easier than searching in Synaptic, that is the only other easy thing I find in Adept (The other easy thing is customizable toolbars). The Tags concept are barely understandable. And the latest version of Adept in Dapper adds to the already confusing interface. Add that to the fact that you have 3 Adepts to use, when actually they could all be done in one (I don't know about Adept Installer though. Someone give me a quick lecture on GNOME's Add/Remove Applications). Rather than being "easy to use", I find Adept to be something that only experts would learn to love.
3. Kubuntu: System Settings: for reasons I've stated in my other thread, I have expected Kubuntu devs to have done better with this, even if they only made it look a bit better. Of course, the fact that it doesn't look like XP's control panel (or does it?) is a plus. But it looks to plain, that even KControl's tree-view looks more exciting to me.
3. KDE: Desktop Integration: KDE and KDE apps have been said to be too integrated. GNOME is said to be more modular (does this mean, not too integrated?) Yet in some ways, Nautilus is "integrated" into the desktop to the point that it "draws" the desktop. Microsoft is also said to have integrated Internet Explorer into the desktop, so much that it compromises security. But Konqueror seemingly is integrated into the desktop, too. Also, both Internet/Windows Explorer and Konqueror act as both file manager and web browser. So is Konqueror guilty of the same sins of Internet Explorer (at least when it comes to being integrated?). What do you mean by "desktop integration" anyway? It seems that KDE and GNOME (and MS) interpret and implement it quite differently. Is KDE really not modular? Are KDE apps really integrated too much?
Here's my take on KDE's integration. This is the view point of a 4-month old Kubuntu user. As such, I don't know if it is valid or true. Anyway, I don't see KDE as too integrated, nor do I see Konqueror as actually integrated into the desktop. I think that the integration in KDE comes not from the apps but from a deeper level. specifically from 3 KDE components: KParts, kioslaves, and dcop, probably KParts most important of all. It allows Konqueror to do almost anything (is this a good thing actually?). It also allows KDE apps to have access to functions of other apps. But I think (again, not from a dev/programmer point of view) that you when Konqueror uses the Kate KPart, it doesn't actually call Kate. So there's actually no integration between Konqueror and Kate, except when Konqueror really calls and opens up Kate. So it seems that KDE integration comes from KParts (and the other 2 components), which is layered above the kernel but below the apps. I doubt that Konqueror can function well as either browser (it uses the KHTML Kpart) or file manager if KParts were removed.
But does this make KDE non-modular? What does modularity mean in desktop environments, and why is it that people say that GNOME is more modular? And how is GNOME implementing desktop integration?
4. KDE: "Drawing" the desktop: This is one of the strangest things I've encountered with GNOME. But one of the reasons that was presented to me was actually a bit logical. Here's the thread that has a discussion/argument about this and about question number 3 (Destkop integration). I guess it's common knowledge that when GNOME loads, it also loads it's file manager Nautilus. And if Nautilus crashes, it takes down the whole desktop (I've heard). When I asked GNOME users why Nautilus is loaded on startup, they said it's because Nautilus "draws" the desktop (they really should get a better term). When I asked what that means, it became apparent that Nautilus is responsible for actually managing the desktop, and the icons on the desktop. (No wonder the option to change resolutions is not actually on the desktop options). So meaning, no nautilus at startup, no desktop icons, too. Now I asked again why was Nautilus handling the desktop and it's settings, I was told that it's because the desktop is just one folder in the file system, and that you could think of the desktop as one large Nautilus window displaying the desktop folder. Actually, it sounds logical doesn't it? Now, I was left wondering why KDE didn't do it like this, too.
5. KDE: Networking/Internet/DSL: (Note: I have very little, if almost none, knowledge about networking and stuff, so my views might be incorrect or incomplete). I have an ADSL connection with a modem/router (if that's what you call the box that's connected to the PC through the ethernet card). I forgot where I got the advice, but I read that I needed to type "sudo pppoeconf" and to choose the to get the DSL running. Well, it did, and because it worked well, I didn't bother learning about stuff like networking, eth0, DHCP, wireless, wifi, etc. But I noticed that people who have ADSL connectionsand routers/modems ask questions, and rarely, almost never, do I see someone say to do sudo pppoeconf. But this led me to wonder about how KDE (and maybe GNOME, too) handles networks and internet connections. Forgive me if I compare things to Windows a bit, but I don't think that anyone can deny that it's a breeze to setup an internet connection in XP.
One thing I'm wondering is why KDE doesn't have a GUI for PPPoE setup? There's KPPP for dial-up. There's something like this in Knoppix, but I'm not sure what the name of the app is. Also, why does KDE handle eth0 in a weird way? I have an active internet connection, but my eth0 is disabled. And this is one of the things that baffles new comers. No matter how much they try to enable eth0, it always reverts to disabled status. Is this a bug? or is this how KDE really behaves? Is there also no way to activate the DSL connection in KDE except through the pppoeconf command? (There might be a way I don't know. I've never asked because my internet worked perfectly, and I guess it also helped that my eth0 was also detected perfectly).
Off-topic: can anyone point me to an easy-to-understand article/tutorial/guide networking/internet, ADSL, and Linux networking/internet? One thing that baffles me about my DSL is that it's not static (We're not given specific IP Addresses), but not DHCP either (if DHCP is chosen in my /etc/network/interfaces, it takes almost half a minute trying to detect the connecction). So I set it to manual. I don't understand it, though, since most network options either have DHCP or Static.
6. KDE: Theme Manager: why is the theme manager implemented in such a way that you need to have the necessary icons/windecos/styles installed for it to work? Is it not possible to implement it in such a way that a .kth would come with the icons/windeco/style included? Of course, presuming that you have the proper windeco engine (dekorator, crystal, icewm) installed. One of the criticisms of KDE is that it's hard to customize the Look and Feel. Taking each separate Appearance and Theme module, it's not really hard. But when you take them all together, it's quite cumbersome. And Theme Manager doesn't really help that much.
7. KDE/Kubuntu: Is there a place where we can post questions like this and have a probability of someone involved in KDE/Kubuntu development answer? How do we send suggestions or complaints about certain apps? Of course, devs are busy and would probably want to spend more of their time developing rather than answering questions. But maybe someone else from the dev team, or someone close enough to know it?
I guess that's all I have for now (I forgot some other things.
). And this is more than enough to ignite a flame war (which is not my intention). That's why I posted this here, and not on the other side. I think I already got GNOME's side. (I think I've actually had enough "discussions" with a certain someone over there to last me a whole month ). Now I want to hear the KDE story. What are your thoughts?
Comment