After moving to KDE three weeks ago now, I am staying. At least for now. If I had to pick on something, my main point for feedback would be that the graphical user interface feels crowded, and its usage metaphors, albeit consistent, are rather complicated.
In KDE, configuration options are scattered all around the place. KDE is a great platform for the power user, familiar with tweaking and working with plenty of configuration options, but for the rest of us who just want to get on using the applications and not waste our time fighting with configuration options, a simpler paradigm for desktop and programs alike would be more useful. That simplicity is one of the design goals of Gnome: sane defaults, clean UI and few configuration options. Unfortunately Gnome has gone too far, and makes it sometimes either impossible or very hard for the power user to configure the desktop or an application to its own liking. While preserving for KDE’s power users the current ability to configure practically anything, the majority of users would however benefit from a cleaner and more modern user interface metaphor.
4 Comments
Hmmm. You really think that Gnome is going too far? Maybe it’s the difference in end goals of the potential users of the desktop environment? After all, some may say that it’s better to use which ever suits a person’s preference.
Anyhow, just curious: For a new user, which would you recommend as a desktop environment or window manager?
Addressing the second question first, sadly Gnome does not offer yet the stability and reliability one would expect from a 1st grade desktop, so if you are a Windows power user moving to a Linux desktop, use KDE, otherwise go to Gnome.
Some Gnome configuration options are only available through gconf-editor, which is like playing with the Windows Registry: definitely not a user friendly option. Some more advanced options are completely removed in Gnome, for example file system options. KDE is just the opposite. I would love to see something in the middle ground: by convention as simple as Gnome, but also as configurable as KDE when needed. Don’t remove the freedom from me, like Gnome does, but also don’t overwhelm me with options, like KDE does.
Yes, I believe there can be a desktop-size that fits all. That’s actually what OS X gained when it embraced BSD.
Done Thanks for this opportunity, here are my suginstgoes:1. LogsI mean, if Choqok download the new tweets from internet to show us, well why not archive this tweets into a file, for exampletweets.log or something. Or It would be great if Choqok will store the tweets, replies and more like Pidgin does, in. Html files,sorted by date, contact, or something.Why do this?- It will allow to read old tweets without being connected to the internet or without consuming bandwidth.- If Choqok download the tweets from internet, keep on your computer is not unreasonable – Would give us (who do not have internet at home) the possibility of read the tweets we downloaded during the day and perhaps, some donot read carefully.2. Tray IconThe possibility of change the tray icon of Choqok.3. Support for accounts of goo.gl (Google)Able to use my Google account to goo.gl service, this would allow to shorten URLs using Choqok stay on my goo.gl history.Thank you very much if you take into consideration this suginstgoes, if not, well thanks anyway for the excellent software that you have done
BrettI tried Unity for a month, before swtnchiig back to ordinary Gnome (although planning to install Martin Owen’s Netbook Launcher packages for Natty, because I really like that interface). Just tried Gnome Shell (via Fedora live CD) and it’s very nice and easy. I hope Ubuntu will have easy Gnome-Shell installation options in future.