Posted by: Anonymous
on September 04, 2008 03:55 AM
Less resources? OK, then why did I have to wait 20 - 30 seconds everytime I changed the widget look, while KDE was 'updating configuration' or whatever.
KDE was immensely bloated to begin with, so saying it's using less doens't mean much really. Compare it with every other DE available (aside from GNOME) and it still comes out very heavy. The system requirements are still much higher than what would be reasonable for a Linux DE and not swift on hardware which should otherwise be perfectly capable of running Linux. Not everyone uses the machine the way you and I do, and nor should they. However, it doesn't serve to write a product FOR THE PURPOSES OF WINING PEOPLE OVER. Microsoft add razzle and dazzle, NOT to convert people from other OS's, but to convert them from previous versions of their own software. Microsoft want windows users to upgrade to another windows, so they CAN'T offer a different computing environment. All they can do is offer fluff. Linux is different, because we can offer to the world what MS cant, namely, a totally different way of doing things. Do we want to "defeat MS". I don't. It would be like the pope holding satanic rituals to win over satanists to Christianity. You dont 'convert' people over to your side, by moving to them and becoming that which you sought to move people away from.
I keep in mind why I, and many others I know moved to Linux in the first place. It was NOT extra controls on icons, or plasmoids, or other effects. It was the absence of such stuff. It was the freedom to use your own computing resources for your own purposes. If Linux developers want to win over simple minded Windows users who just want gloss and novelty and everything done the windows way, then I may as well use Windows.
The desperate attempt to get the MASSSES of windows users will kill OSS. The more you emulate what MS or Apple does, the LESS likely people will want Linux. Why buy a toyota that looks like an Audi and costs as much as an Audi, when you can get a real Audi instead? I couldn't care if MS remains more popular than Linux, I'd prefer it that way, because it would mean that Linux remains the BETTER OS. Linux users might always be a minory, but thats a GOOD thing because we can use a GOOD OS and not have to adapt the way we prefer to use our computers just to get 'more bums on seats'.
My point is this, there is a difference between a fringe OS, and a recognised alternative (but not dominant), like Apple. Linux should always be an alternative, and not just a clone with a different engine. You want to attract people to it for the right reasons. Linux needs to edge out a niche, not try to occupy another existing one. Apple does this well because it offers a unique, "apple" way of doing things that is familiar to its user base. It does not try to become windows for the sake of taking over.
Likewise, anyone that develops software like KDE, or GLIBC, or GNOME or distro management tools, should do so with the understanding that their work is going to define Linux, not the Linux kernel itself or other lesser known projects, like Window Maker or gtktalog.
KDE 4 just sends the wrong message. It says that looks overrule function, that marketability overrules functionalist. It says to the user "you will provide what system resources I need". Linux users are Linux users precisely because they don't want to be at the 'mercy' of others, regardless of whether those others are in a corporation or home FOSS developers. It makes not difference to most users. If they want freedom, they want freedom to do things THEIR way, which is usually the way they know, with the resources they have.
This means you dont decide to change the way the start menu works because you deem it as such. You dont put unnecessary resource consuming effects because you think the user needs to see them. You dont dictate to the user what system you think they should own (they decide that based on the apps, and a DE is NOT an application, its an app enabler).
There should be ONE system which gives this freedom, which allows people to not have to upgrade their machines all the time, when all they do is surf the net and write e-mails (do you really need 1GHz for the net?) To not have to relearn things, or have someone else decide what their computing environment should change to.
A lot of experienced computer users want this. MS doesn't provide this at all, you have to constantly work just ot maintain the OS and use it. There should be an alternative.