| 1 |
On Thursday 28 August 2008 19:29:28 Philip Webb wrote: |
| 2 |
> > Reading all those KDE4 reviews I really can not understand |
| 3 |
> > why KDE4 may be more useful for me rather KDE3. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> My estimate (also based on reading & screenshots) is |
| 6 |
> that it is 60 % eye candy, 30 % hype & 10 % useful improvements: |
| 7 |
> the basic motivation is to make it work well with Qt 4 . |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
To be fair to the KDE devs, KDE4 is not meant to be a replacement for KDE3, or |
| 10 |
even a natural evolution of it. It's a break with the past and a trip down a |
| 11 |
new road in interface design. The code that has been put there forms a |
| 12 |
framework to make new stuff possible in the future, and that new stuff is |
| 13 |
intended to be very different from the usual computer desktop that is pretty |
| 14 |
much unchained since Xerox designed it 30 odd years ago. The eye-candy IS eye- |
| 15 |
candy, but it's eye-candy with a purpose and has not been done for the sake of |
| 16 |
mere bling and keeping up with the Joneses using compiz. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
But these new cool changes have not been written yet. Only the framework that |
| 19 |
will make them possible has been written. The apps that have been ported are |
| 20 |
by and large the existing 3.5 apps and work pretty much the same way, just as |
| 21 |
a start to get KDE4 into use. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
So KDE4 falls very short of being a fully usable desktop, so much so that if |
| 24 |
anyone wants the functionality of KDE-3.5, then they should stick with that |
| 25 |
branch. As traditional desktops go, there's nothing wrong with it, and it is |
| 26 |
still actively maintained. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives