On Sunday 03 July 2005 14:23, Tim München wrote:
> I for myself wouldn't want a OSX-Style menubar, because I have a kicker
> child panel (or how is it called?) on top of the screen with the clock,
> ksysguard graphs and ca. two dozens "quicklaunch"-Icons, because I like the
> main kicker bar unclustered (it only contains the K menu, virtual desktop
> chooser, taskbar and system tray).
My "universal menubar" has system tray, Kmenu, three quick-launch buttons and
a clock in it. They can co-exists with the menubar just fine.
> Since everything (well... nearly) in KDE is configurable, it is in fact
> quite umimportant what the default settings are.
No. Default-settings are VERY important. We can't cobble up some kind of UI,
and then just tell the user to "tweak it". Many users do not want to do that.
Many don't know how to do it. And fact remains that even if they were capable
and willing to do it, it's still an extra hassle.
> But, as some ppl before me
> suggested, more users are likely to switch from Windows to Unix/KDE than
> from Mac/OSX to KDE, so the default setting should reflect that and stay by
> app-seperate menubars.
So KDE should look and feel like a Windows-clone? Whatever happened to
creating a KDE-look 'n feel? And since when was KDE's goal to provide a
comfortable UI for Windows-refugees? Since when was KDE's goal to "defeat"
Windows? I thought KDE's goal was to provide a kick-ass desktop for UNIX and
UNIX-like OS'es? I couldn't care less what Microsoft does with Windows.
___________________________________________________
.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
