About three years ago when I was a student I downloaded PC-BSD. I loved the operating system, the applications and used it for six months, barely ever booting into windows. PC-BSD was running KDE 3.5.x. This version of KDE was the best desktop experience I have ever had. Everything felt so well integrated and useful.
I could link IM accounts in kopete with my address book which then linked to KMail and konqueror. It was great fun and really pleasant. I liked everything about it.
Enter KDE4
Unlike the disappointed masses of KDE users my outlook on KDE 4 was... KDE 4.5 should be great! After all I used KDE 3.5
Some of the arguments raised against the KDE4 design were
- Developers shouldn't design programs for end users, they don't know what end users want
- Icons on your desktop is the best way
- We don't need eye candy... we need functionality
This is all a load of shit. Why? Let me explain.
The initial developer of an open source program is usually the user of the program. This means that developers are developing for an end user, mainly themselves. Ease of use is important because your writing the program for yourself. You don't want to fish in menus and struggle to operate your own program. More importantly if you release it to the public you want it to be easy to use and intuitive so that more people will use it and less people will request support. I agree that some developers cannot design interfaces. That is true, but it is not a personal quality of all developers.
I am guilty. I used icons on my desktop extensively. The problem is that they are really part of a problem paradigm. I have files and launchers on my desktop, 2 things that are not related. It's easy to park things on your desktop. You will work faster if you right click and create a new file right there. You will however ultimately end up with a shit load of unused and unorganized crap. This is not a problem of power users. End users suffer the most. They don't clean the crap up and instead leave everything there to rot.
We are not robots. We fall in love with people who we think are pretty. We decorate our homes with art and colours. Now you seriously want to come and tell me you want a shitty 90s looking desktop, as long as everything works. Offices suck because of the boring colours and fluorescent lighting. We are more productive when we are stimulated by beauty. Smooth animation and subtle design beauty will make us more productive than crude looking unnatural interfaces.
If you spend some time on the web reading comments and blogs on various web sites you realize how everyone on the internet knows better than everyone else. In the case of KDE4 vs KDE 3.5, every second idiot had to come out and spew crap out of their mouths because all the clever people making KDE were dumb according to them.
All of this because the .0 release wasn't on par with KDE 3.5 functionality. It seems more and more like the internet is overrun with the same ignorant fickle people that hate everything new and contradictory to their ideas.
I could link IM accounts in kopete with my address book which then linked to KMail and konqueror. It was great fun and really pleasant. I liked everything about it.
Enter KDE4
Unlike the disappointed masses of KDE users my outlook on KDE 4 was... KDE 4.5 should be great! After all I used KDE 3.5
Some of the arguments raised against the KDE4 design were
- Developers shouldn't design programs for end users, they don't know what end users want
- Icons on your desktop is the best way
- We don't need eye candy... we need functionality
This is all a load of shit. Why? Let me explain.
Developers can't design programs/interfaces etc
The initial developer of an open source program is usually the user of the program. This means that developers are developing for an end user, mainly themselves. Ease of use is important because your writing the program for yourself. You don't want to fish in menus and struggle to operate your own program. More importantly if you release it to the public you want it to be easy to use and intuitive so that more people will use it and less people will request support. I agree that some developers cannot design interfaces. That is true, but it is not a personal quality of all developers.
Icons on your desktop
I am guilty. I used icons on my desktop extensively. The problem is that they are really part of a problem paradigm. I have files and launchers on my desktop, 2 things that are not related. It's easy to park things on your desktop. You will work faster if you right click and create a new file right there. You will however ultimately end up with a shit load of unused and unorganized crap. This is not a problem of power users. End users suffer the most. They don't clean the crap up and instead leave everything there to rot.
We don't need no eye candy
We are not robots. We fall in love with people who we think are pretty. We decorate our homes with art and colours. Now you seriously want to come and tell me you want a shitty 90s looking desktop, as long as everything works. Offices suck because of the boring colours and fluorescent lighting. We are more productive when we are stimulated by beauty. Smooth animation and subtle design beauty will make us more productive than crude looking unnatural interfaces.
The high horse
If you spend some time on the web reading comments and blogs on various web sites you realize how everyone on the internet knows better than everyone else. In the case of KDE4 vs KDE 3.5, every second idiot had to come out and spew crap out of their mouths because all the clever people making KDE were dumb according to them.
All of this because the .0 release wasn't on par with KDE 3.5 functionality. It seems more and more like the internet is overrun with the same ignorant fickle people that hate everything new and contradictory to their ideas.
Comments