On Monday 04 July 2005 19:05, Merton Campbell Crockett wrote:
> You're assuming that people look at the desktop when they are working. If
> this is, indeed, the case; there is merit to your argument as the menu
> would always be in the same place.
>
> However, if you assume that people concentrate on the window in which they
> are working, your argument falls apart. The menu is changing position as
> the user moves from window to window.
How exactly does it "fall apart"? I mean, the menus would not take advantage
of screen-borders. Accessing the menus with the mouse would still require
precise mouse-movement. Even though the actual distance might be shorter, the
time it takes to access the menus is longer since you have to be more careful
in accessing the menu's.
> There is a "marketing" issue involved in this discussion. If one wants to
> promote Linux as an alternative desktop/laptop system to Windows, it would
> be desirable to limit the paradigm shifts. By default, KDE provides an
> environment that is reasonably similar to Windows. This makes it easier
> for a Windows-user to switch to Linux.
I find it pretty interesting to watch as some trolls keep on telling how KDE
is a "Windows-clone", and how pro-KDE-folks tell them that it's not. And now
you are suggesting that KDE must be as similar to Windows as possible? So KDE
really is a clone of Windows?
Why do we have to tether ourselves to Windows? Why do we have to look to
Windows as an example on how to do things? Why wont we simply try to create
the kick-assest desktop there is, instead of trying to create the kick-asses
Windows-clone there is?
To me, KDE is not about "defeating" Windows. It's about creating a great
desktop. Doing some thing in certain way just because "Windows does it like
this" is not IMO the right thing to do.
___________________________________________________
.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
