[bigtomrodney]

Originally Posted by masinick

I was not used to the new style of the KDE Start Menu.

That's the only thing I won't hold my tongue on. There seems to be some crazy idea floating around that less clicks is better, so somehow that translated to it being okay to make a user hover their cursor.

Can anyone explain to me how this is different to clicking? At least with clicking it's instantaneous. I really don't like the kickoff menu. Raptor maybe...classic definitely. Kickoff, never. The best menu system for me is the Apps/Places/Desktop menu layout in Gnome. Quick, logical and simple.

The Create, Communicate,Configure in this KDE4 mockup would have worked great for me too....

Kde4 Mockup KDE-Look.org

[ozar]

Here's more about the ongoing KDE4.x debacle for anyone wanting to keep up with it:

KDE 4.1 Beta 2: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

[gruven]

I say fork it, but it really doesn't matter as I am trying to switch over to Gnome because I really do not like the look of kde4 or the direction it is taking. I am actually starting to like the features of gnome over kde3, but I don't know if that is because I know kde3 will be discontinued or that I really like gnome better now. Time will tell.

Really, it looks as if they are just trying to keep up with Windows when they really should be doing their own thing. I used kde3 for years, and got very accustomed to it, but have always had a soft spot for Gnome.

I think the Gnome devs are watching closely at what is happening, and will not make the same mistake when going to Gnome3, but that is to be seen.

I will say though, kde4 would have been a LOT better if they wouldn't have released it until kde4.1 was ready. The beta has killed them.

Ok, enough rambling from me.

[danbuter]

I notice that the devs could give 2 craps about what users want.

[gruven]

Originally Posted by danbuter

I notice that the devs could give 2 craps about what users want.

After watching the arguments on the blogs and all the talk of forking, I have come to the same conclusion.

Not very reassuring for me. If I were to learn and want to help out on something, I certainly would not want to help out on something that didn't care for the users. If there were a product that had no users, what is the point? I understand that it is free software, but users are the people that actually USE the software.

[bigtomrodney]

As someone who is responsible for developing processes relating to information quality and transfers I can say that almost every change I have ever introduced has been met with scepticism and resistance.

I design processes that are more flexible, more accurate and require less human intervention yet every time I get told that it will never work. The thing is everything I've implemented, once past development and testing has been an enormous success with full acceptance and the thoughts of going back to the old processes aren't even considered.

I think change is something that scares people. I really think the only sin committed here was the release being too early.

[fingal]

Perhaps - given the controversy over KDE 4 - one of us could test it out and write some sort of review. Moe seems quite objective about these things (I don't have the disk space myself).

Having read that last article I don't feel optimistic, but we shouldn't be frightened of design changes. I happen to like KDE 3.5, and I don't need to see any fundamental alterations, but then again... I'm just an end user.

[techieMoe]

Originally Posted by bigtomrodney

As someone who is responsible for developing processes relating to information quality and transfers I can say that almost every change I have ever introduced has been met with scepticism and resistance.

...

I think change is something that scares people. I really think the only sin committed here was the release being too early.

I respectfully disagree. There are those who want to dismiss the people who object to KDE 4 as simply emotional reactionaries, and that's simply not true. I can't speak for everyone, but my objections to KDE 4 have nothing at all to do with the choice to change things. I actually agree that KDE was in need of an overhaul. What I disagree with is the changes the developers made in response.

Yes, KDE needed to be rewritten. However did it *need* Plasma? Did it *need* widgets? Did it *need* to make simple, everyday tasks more difficult for the users? No.

As someone who does this kind of work you will understand when I say the most well-thought-out designs can absolutely flop when given to real-world people. Human factors are very important when considering a sweeping change in the way a product operates. The developers of KDE 4 completely disregarded this, and have paid the price in bad press and user protests.

[carlosponti]

Being that I totally dislike KDE and use gnome and rather like it I will say that instead of forking the project maybe KDE developers would just see their way to create two versions a KDE and KDE lite for the people who like the 3.5 versions. if managed correctly it could be done efficiently. Both sides of the argument may have their points but it might just be time for a compromise.

[kveldulf980]

Originally Posted by carlosponti

Being that I totally dislike KDE and use gnome and rather like it I will say that instead of forking the project maybe KDE developers would just see their way to create two versions a KDE and KDE lite for the people who like the 3.5 versions. if managed correctly it could be done efficiently. Both sides of the argument may have their points but it might just be time for a compromise.

That's potentially a very good idea. It would be nice to see a "Lite" version where a lot of the default eye candy and other extras are all disabled. Of course the argument would be that one could simply do that themselves. Still, I think people would download and install it if someone packaged it up.