Il 24/11/2015 16:11, Reindl Harald ha scritto:
why can the kde-developers not just stop to ruin working things all
they fail to grasp that the computer Desktop was originally intended as
a metaphor for the top of the desk you're sitting at. That is an empty
workspace, which each user populates according its needs and its taste,
with the documents he needs at the moment, and the applications he uses
The best way to implement it is just a folder, as it used to be in the
good old times. Anything more is a source of instabilities, headaches
For stable, consistent and useful usage, nothing should be "integrated"
into the desktop, because each user has different needs and they may
change day by day. Either you integrate into the Desktop everything
conceivable, and build up an unmanageable monster, or you pick up what
you deem necessary, and it turns out that it's completely useless for
all the rest of the users.
In a physical desk, only a fool would stack only documents with the same
look, using the same font style and font size, the same colours, etc.
One puts on his desk the documents he needs, and the more they look
different, the easier to tell them apart. But desktop designers believe
that uniform look should be a value, and they concentrate their efforts
to make everything look alike, instead of concentrating on usability,
stability, and consistent behaviour between releases.
Then they conceived that foolish thing that is the Plasma environment,
which is nothing but a bloated systray taking all the screen, populated
by Plasmoids, which are nothing but bloated (and usually buggy, because
none is using them) applets, which steal a lot of screen space, instead
of being a few small Icons on the system tray.
They try to index your files when you don't need it, and in this way
they slow down your workflow; in order to keep track of a handful of
passwords, in place of a simple encrypted list they use a mysql
database, which subtracts resources to your useful activities, and gets
into the way if you're using mysql for some other useful purpose, etc. etc.
Moreover they failed from the beginning to follow sound design rules.
They're rightfully using the Qt widgetset which is good, and provides
the pleasant look which is the reason to select KDE, but they failed to
take into account that Qt evolves.
The only reasonable way to deal with an evolving widgetset is to provide
an abstraction layer, isolating the Desktop applications from the WS.
The abstraction layer should provide a number of stable API's related to
the functions required by the desktop applications, and implements them
in the current Qt context. That way changing from let's say Qt4 to Qt5
is just a matter of rewriting the abstraction layer, leaving all the
applications unchanged, and keeping all the previous features. Then,
with time, new features can be added to take advantage of what the new
But they didn't do it that way. It would appear that they always restart
KDE1 already had all that's required from a desktop. But it took until
KDE 2.3 to get the same features. Then it took until KDE 3.5 to get all
the features of KDE 1.
I'm currently using KDE 4.3.4 (CentOs 6), and I still find it a
significant regression with respect to KDE 3.5.
The newer versions I've tested seemed to have added new bugs instead of
eliminating the old ones.
The only thing one can say in favour of kde developers is that Gnome
developers aren't better in any way, and they manage to provide an
uglier, even more confusing and less stable Desktop.
It would be a pity to leave KDE forever, but if the kde developers
continue on their way, I'm afraid that I'll be forced to take a
different road, to lightweight Desktops, less ambitious but much more