On Tuesday 21 October 2008 21:19, BRUCE STANLEY wrote: > --- On Tue, 10/21/08, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It could be argued that files and icons do not belong on > > the desktop, but > > rather in home directory. It could also be argued that one > > should use a file > > manager rather then desktop manager to manipulate files, > > while the desktop > > manager should be better suited to manipulate the desktop. > > It could further > > be argued that files and icons were already present on the > > desktop up to KDE > > 3.5 and that this was demonstrated to be a Bad Habbit, > > since the desktop > > usually becomes cluttered beyond any usability after some > > time. Finally, it > > could be argued that using plasmoids on the desktop rather > > than keeping icons > > on it enhances its usability. > > It could also be argued that this philosophy of yours is in direct > conflict with the whole spirit and intent of the Linux environment > in the first place. For start, it isn't my philosophy. It is the KDE team philosophy, and I seem to remember someone pointing out that this is not even unique to them, but is actually a whole new "3D Desktop" approach that is under investigation by virtually all desktop environment teams out there (other operating systems included, not only Linux world). You know, the some-serious-psyhologists/engineers/scientists-investigating-the-best-way-of-interaction-between-a-human-and-a-machine stuff... People who elevated this interaction from the cli to gui in the first place, people who "invented" the concepts of windows, screens, pointers, mice, clicking, drag&drop, etc... It seems that *they* are pushing further, and it seems that *they* find the idea of icons on the desktop to be a drawback rather than a feature. We are all witnessing the KDE gui evolving to something new, and I think it is just a matter of time before Gnome, XFCE, MacOSX, even Windows, start doing the same. And I don't see how any of this has to do with spirit and intent of Linux environment. That Linux spirit is usually translated as the ability to make choices and customize things to your preference. The KDE4 environment sure gives you such ability. I see no problem there. > Linux and it's environments were created to give users the freedom > to use and configure their desktops any way they like. True. And, for the sake of the argument, say I want to have some icons displayed on the desktop, but say both from the Desktop folder and from the Music folder. In KDE 4 this is done by having two folder view plasmoids on the desktop. In KDE 3 this is downright impossible. I see only KDE 3 restricting my freedom to configure the desktop here, not KDE 4. Version 4 is --- simply put --- a rewrite of the codebase with a goal to provide flexibility that was pretty impossible to have the old way. Of course, it is a work in progress, and some features are missing for the time being, but the more I play with the new desktop, the more usability I find that wasn't available in version 3. And this is a Good Thing, in general. > To tell me that I should not lose abilities that I once had and > used for the sake of some new dogma that someone else believes in > is like chalk scrapping against a blackboard. Remember that once in the past the gui itself was "some new dogma" and there were people who disliked it and preferred the good-old-prompt. We are in a similar situation now. The prompt had its advantages, and it still does. The icons on the desktop had some advantages, and one can argue they still do. But there is also some *new*, upgraded functionality, and it is wiser to exploit it than bitch about the old-was-better. > If I want to clutter my desktop with files and folders, > that is my business not some developers. Go ahead, nobody is stopping you. You can even do that in a more complicated and intricate way than you could with KDE 3... ;-) But really, all I see in KDE 4 is a new way of thinking about the desktop, and it seems to be more flexible than the old way (aside from some features yet to find their way back). I mean, given a brand-new Ferrari car, you can sure tie it to two horses and use it as a wagon, the Old Way... But once you instead try driving it as intended, I guess you will feel the benefit of the New Way. The Old Way is still possible, but not recommended, for obvious reasons. You are free to do it, but don't bitch to developers who say that it would be better to change your habbits and ditch the horse drive. To me it seems they have a point... ;-) Of course, this first version of the Ferrari seems to have a flat tyre, but that is a technical problem, not a conceptual one. Be patient, and the developers will fix all the glitches. But they will not revert to horse drive --- it is not considered a feature worth implementing. Ok, I got carried away in analogies a bit... Yet again... ;-) Best, :-) Marko -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
