5 ms·

KDE 4.1 delivers the next-gen desktop experience

8 points by azharcs 18y ago

ars 18y ago
I wonder if debian will unfreeze in order to get this in. I really hope so. I even think it's worth delaying the release for a month in order to do so.
pavelludiq 18y ago
I just upgraded. Its pretty cool. I've been a KDE fan since i started using Linux and KDE 3.5 was really cool, but this is even better.
- tx 18y ago
  How do Gnome Apps look like on KDE 4.x? I really dig their improvements, but nearly all applications I use are GTK-based [Firefox, gVim, SqlBrowser]. Do they get the same window look/feel? Font settings? How well are they integrated into KDE desktop overall?
  - jrockway 18y ago
    How well are they integrated into KDE desktop overall? Not well. It's sort of like using X11 apps on OS X. Alone, they look great. When inside OS X, they look terrible. Gnome is like that on KDE.
    - tx 18y ago
      So... what's the point of KDE then? I don't think I've ever seen KDE ports of vim or emacs (only GTK), and FireFox is also GTK... Then there is Gimp, how can you do without it... The only KDE app that is worth using compared to GTK counterparts that comes to mind is probably Amarok [and I still prefer Rythmobx]. Am I missing something here?
      - jrockway 18y ago
        emacs and vim are so different from "desktop apps" that you won't notice the difference. For everything else, most people use the KDE version of whatever app they are looking for. I haven't used any applications other than emacs, urxvt, firefox, and amarok for years, so I can't really tell you what those are. Edit: actually, I can tell you some things. There are themes that make Firefox look like a KDE app, and of course there is Konqueror (I tried 4.0 for a while, it was much nicer than FF2.) There is also a GIMP equivalent for KDE, but the name escapes me. My advice is to install a KDE 4.1 version of Kubuntu, and click stuff in the menus.
        tx 18y ago
        emacs and vim are so different from "desktop apps" that you won't notice the difference. Well... gVim is pretty nicely integrated into Gnome, picks up theme/colors/icons, etc. I like it a lot. Thank you for replying BTW: I will definitely install 4.1 myself. If FF and Gimp experience won't suffer, I may actually consider switching.
      - kbrust 18y ago
        There was Kvim for KDE3, now there is a vim-like editor called Yzis which integrates pretty well with the environment. You might also want to take a look at "gtk-qt-engine". In my experience GTK apps look and work a lot better in the KDE environment then the other way around.
- unalone 18y ago
  Yeah. KDE has a fairly unique approach in the Linux community, and I've liked what I've seen from them quite a lot.
elai 18y ago
KDE 4.1 is pretty awesome, but there's just some nagging lack of refinements that bug me at parts. I've been spoiled by apple, even though i don't that they're that amazing interface looks wise.
- jrockway 18y ago
  I don't think OS X is any more polished than anything else. It looks polished because Apple users constantly tell themselves that it is perfect. When you tell yourself something all the time, it's easy to believe it's a fact. But anyway, I gave up the whole desktop thing a year or so ago. Xmonad is the way to go. No stupidity to get in the way of work.
  - unalone 18y ago
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG. I think a lot of people who comment like this make such comments because they've never used Macs for any real period of time. Three off the top of my head: the contrast of dark grey for focused apps to light grey for unfocused ones means that you can see what's focused instantly. This is useful because Apple encourages opening multiple things at once: the green button for maximize sizes most apps so they fit whatever's being displayed and nothing more. There's no unused pixel. KDE 4.1 shown here has large blocks of matter at the edges of their windows. OS X does not. Likewise, that little grey button on the top right, the one that minimizes bars that you don't need, allows for much more efficient screen economy. No, you don't care, because you like looking down your lengthy xmonad nose at us common serfs, but a lot of us LIKE doing a lot of different things with our computer, and Apple doesn't compromise: we get an efficient system AND one that, you know, does stuff. Not to reel off Apple's most recent ads, but Stacks mean you can access a lot of information without cluttering your screen, and you can still keep it all organized. Making Downloads into a stack means that suddenly your desktop is blank except for things you drag off from other apps and screenshots you take. It compartmentizes your computer into Downloads, which are things that take a little while to get, Desktop, which are things that you grab quickly, and Documents, where things are organized. Three given as impulse. I could literally spend hours going into fine detail about the small little bits of polish that Apple has applied to their operating system. You can say a lot about OS X. You could argue that it's not "efficient," though by some definitions of efficiency it outstrips Linux and Windows by far. But you can not argue for its not being polished. Apple is the industry MASTER of user interface, they have perfected the art of polish, and if you say otherwise you are a stupid, ignorant fuck. I say that with all due respect; I'm sure I'm overthinking your little flippant remark. I upvoted you because your comment leads to a venus of discussion - but you're about as wrong as a nerd arguing operating system on a Y Combinator site could possibly get.

8 points by azharcs 18y ago

ars 18y ago

I wonder if debian will unfreeze in order to get this in. I really hope so. I even think it's worth delaying the release for a month in order to do so.

pavelludiq 18y ago

I just upgraded. Its pretty cool. I've been a KDE fan since i started using Linux and KDE 3.5 was really cool, but this is even better.

tx 18y ago
How do Gnome Apps look like on KDE 4.x? I really dig their improvements, but nearly all applications I use are GTK-based [Firefox, gVim, SqlBrowser]. Do they get the same window look/feel? Font settings? How well are they integrated into KDE desktop overall?
- jrockway 18y ago
  How well are they integrated into KDE desktop overall? Not well. It's sort of like using X11 apps on OS X. Alone, they look great. When inside OS X, they look terrible. Gnome is like that on KDE.
  - tx 18y ago
    So... what's the point of KDE then? I don't think I've ever seen KDE ports of vim or emacs (only GTK), and FireFox is also GTK... Then there is Gimp, how can you do without it... The only KDE app that is worth using compared to GTK counterparts that comes to mind is probably Amarok [and I still prefer Rythmobx]. Am I missing something here?
    - jrockway 18y ago
      emacs and vim are so different from "desktop apps" that you won't notice the difference. For everything else, most people use the KDE version of whatever app they are looking for. I haven't used any applications other than emacs, urxvt, firefox, and amarok for years, so I can't really tell you what those are. Edit: actually, I can tell you some things. There are themes that make Firefox look like a KDE app, and of course there is Konqueror (I tried 4.0 for a while, it was much nicer than FF2.) There is also a GIMP equivalent for KDE, but the name escapes me. My advice is to install a KDE 4.1 version of Kubuntu, and click stuff in the menus.
      - tx 18y ago
        emacs and vim are so different from "desktop apps" that you won't notice the difference. Well... gVim is pretty nicely integrated into Gnome, picks up theme/colors/icons, etc. I like it a lot. Thank you for replying BTW: I will definitely install 4.1 myself. If FF and Gimp experience won't suffer, I may actually consider switching.
    - kbrust 18y ago
      There was Kvim for KDE3, now there is a vim-like editor called Yzis which integrates pretty well with the environment. You might also want to take a look at "gtk-qt-engine". In my experience GTK apps look and work a lot better in the KDE environment then the other way around.
unalone 18y ago
Yeah. KDE has a fairly unique approach in the Linux community, and I've liked what I've seen from them quite a lot.

elai 18y ago

KDE 4.1 is pretty awesome, but there's just some nagging lack of refinements that bug me at parts. I've been spoiled by apple, even though i don't that they're that amazing interface looks wise.

jrockway 18y ago
I don't think OS X is any more polished than anything else. It looks polished because Apple users constantly tell themselves that it is perfect. When you tell yourself something all the time, it's easy to believe it's a fact. But anyway, I gave up the whole desktop thing a year or so ago. Xmonad is the way to go. No stupidity to get in the way of work.
- unalone 18y ago
  Wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG. I think a lot of people who comment like this make such comments because they've never used Macs for any real period of time. Three off the top of my head: the contrast of dark grey for focused apps to light grey for unfocused ones means that you can see what's focused instantly. This is useful because Apple encourages opening multiple things at once: the green button for maximize sizes most apps so they fit whatever's being displayed and nothing more. There's no unused pixel. KDE 4.1 shown here has large blocks of matter at the edges of their windows. OS X does not. Likewise, that little grey button on the top right, the one that minimizes bars that you don't need, allows for much more efficient screen economy. No, you don't care, because you like looking down your lengthy xmonad nose at us common serfs, but a lot of us LIKE doing a lot of different things with our computer, and Apple doesn't compromise: we get an efficient system AND one that, you know, does stuff. Not to reel off Apple's most recent ads, but Stacks mean you can access a lot of information without cluttering your screen, and you can still keep it all organized. Making Downloads into a stack means that suddenly your desktop is blank except for things you drag off from other apps and screenshots you take. It compartmentizes your computer into Downloads, which are things that take a little while to get, Desktop, which are things that you grab quickly, and Documents, where things are organized. Three given as impulse. I could literally spend hours going into fine detail about the small little bits of polish that Apple has applied to their operating system. You can say a lot about OS X. You could argue that it's not "efficient," though by some definitions of efficiency it outstrips Linux and Windows by far. But you can not argue for its not being polished. Apple is the industry MASTER of user interface, they have perfected the art of polish, and if you say otherwise you are a stupid, ignorant fuck. I say that with all due respect; I'm sure I'm overthinking your little flippant remark. I upvoted you because your comment leads to a venus of discussion - but you're about as wrong as a nerd arguing operating system on a Y Combinator site could possibly get.