Why do so many people hate kde4?

[GeekGirl1]

I've been using OS's for a long time. Due to partition problems, I just installed kubuntu 9.04 using wubi, which means I also use Win XP.

Aside from opinions about the business side, one of the things that Microsoft does well is understand GUI design (recent versions of Office are another matter...). I have no problem using any version of a Microsoft OS.

I have no problem with any flavor of UNIX, like Sun Solaris or HPUX. Personally, I think Sun Solaris and HPUX have better GUIs than Win XP.

However, when I fired up KDE 4, I was lost. I think the problem is that the icons don't match up with my idea of where the applications lie.

For example:
Why is a backwards arrow used to indicate a program list ("task button" on the bottom left)? A "star" or "Start" type of button would be more intuitive.

In the applications list, why is there a "Settings" menu which should obviously be part of the "System" menu?

Why is there a "System Settings" menu under "Computer"? This should also be part of the "System" menu.

I was looking for a "minimize desktop" icon. I clicked on the black square at the bottom right of the menu bar by accident. No clue otherwise as to what it was supposed to do.

As for configuration of the windows look-and-feel, why don't the themes cover the entire desktop? I'm not going to load a theme for the window, then one for the wallpaper. It has to be totally integrated.

I love ubuntu and I'm glad that XFCE and LXDE are included in the packages. I'm dumping KDE as soon as I can.

Update: I click on "Show Plasma Dashboard" and the taskbar disappears. I click on that Nautilus looking thing in the top right corner that says "Hide Plasma Dashboard" and the taskbar comes back. The problem is not that it's a new design, it's that it's a very poor design. I may as well try to memorize random shapes and guess what they do. No.

[samjh]

Why is a backwards arrow used to indicate a program list ("task button" on the bottom left)? A "star" or "Start" type of button would be more intuitive.

There is no "backwards arrow". Are you talking about the KDE icon? Windows Vista uses the Windows icon.

In the applications list, why is there a "Settings" menu which should obviously be part of the "System" menu?

I've wondered about this myself, although I have to say this is actually a subjective desire, not "bad design".

Why is there a "System Settings" menu under "Computer"? This should also be part of the "System" menu.

Again, I agree with the system menu part, but it should also be under Computer.

I was looking for a "minimize desktop" icon. I clicked on the black square at the bottom right of the menu bar by accident. No clue otherwise as to what it was supposed to do.

I don't know which button you are talking about. I'm looking at KDE right now as I type, but see no "black square at the bottom right of the menu bar".

Update: I click on "Show Plasma Dashboard" and the taskbar disappears. I click on that Nautilus looking thing in the top right corner that says "Hide Plasma Dashboard" and the taskbar comes back.

Yes, this is quite annoying. I was befuddled by the plasma thing too.

The problem is not that it's a new design, it's that it's a very poor design. I may as well try to memorize random shapes and guess what they do. No.

I can't agree that this is the case. It's just that we have been conditioned to look at particular icon contexts by our use of Windows (or whatever other OS we are used to using). KDE maintains most of these contexts, but breaks a few as well (eg. the Plasma icon). For instance, I find it perfectly logical that KDE uses the KDE icon in place of the so-called "start" menu in Windows XP. In fact, Vista uses the Windows Vista icon, which is just as uninformative as the KDE icon. Having said that, I would have preferred the KDE icon with something like "MENU" written alongside it, merged to form one rectangular icon. KDE's choice of icon for the plasma desktop is just bizarre.

It's important when critiquing a GUI that you differentiate between what you as an individual want, and what is actually good design. KDE's design isn't outright bad, even if they have made some strange decisions. It breaks some conventions because there are architectural features in KDE which are not present in other GUIs (Plasma desktop being a particularly unique feature), so users do have to learn to think differently from before. This is not objectively bad, but subjectively perceived as bad because users aren't familiar with it yet. You said it yourself that recent designs of MS Office is "another matter", just after you praised Microsoft's UI designs. Microsoft implemented an unconventional UI feature with MS Office 2007, so resistance from users are inevitable. KDE has implemented some unconventional UI features, so users' reactions are bad too. When Windows 95 was released with its "start menu" and "task bar", I recall the IT world being in uproar because of "poor" design, which we have now come to accept as "standard".

By the way, Sun Solaris uses a customised version of Gnome. Ubuntu uses Gnome by default.

[toejamfootball]

I don't hate it at all. I actually really like how it looks when people config it really nice. I just found it ran extremely slow on my old PC. Xfce4 runs super quick, but I like Gnome. I sacrifice a little speed to use Gnome.

[wamukota]

I've been using KDE ever since.

I try every new release of KDE4 and still have problems coming to grips with it. I simply have to unlearn my years and years of KDE3 habits. Then I must figure out how to do some things the KDE4 way.

A simple feature like making a transparent panel (in KDE3, right-click and customize the whole panel) is now done using a global theme. But the theme you have to apply - Glassified - is nowhere a standard theme, so you must get it from the net. Once you know, it seems logical.

Then you have the idea of folders and widgets on your desktop, which are covered as soon as you open your first application.
I still don't get the idea behind cluttering your desktop, but maybe a large group of desktop users just want the devs to allow them to use the desktop space for useful stuff. So for some it is overkill, for others it will be a reason to move to KDE4

Do I like it? No
Do I dislike it? No

After all it is simple a tool to get your job done, and with GNU/Linux you are free to use whatever tool you want to get your job done.

When KDE 3.5 will be phased out at the end of the year, - all new releases from KDE-based distro's are rolling out KDE4 now - KDE4 will be near version 4.4. And I am quite sure that by then most problems will have been solved, as long as those who dislike KDE4 have the honesty to let the devs know where it goes wrong or what they do not like. Only then will the devs be aware of the problem and can a solution be implemented.

[NightwishFan]

KDE4 was such a complete rewrite, which is why is steps all over the perfection of KDE3.5. When I say steps on I mean how it was received. I know quite well how difficult it was to get it all going. I feel bad for all the poor publicity it got.

Please note that KDE3.5 was built largely from the 2nd series as well. It has years and years to gain maturity, with relatively less breakage or rabid changes.

I personally like how KDE is still usable without compositing. Currently one of my only issues is I cannot figure out how to get the oxygen panel to be black on not that blue color. I think it would be better off using psuedo-transparency without kwin enabled, yet it does not.

[samjh]

Currently one of my only issues is I cannot figure out how to get the oxygen panel to be black on not that blue color. I think it would be better off using psuedo-transparency without kwin enabled, yet it does not.

The panel colour is influenced by the colour of your wallpaper. I discovered this while wondering the same thing. When I changed my wallpaper to a photo with lots of greenery, the panel changed green!

[NightwishFan]

I know, when I have compositing and then disable it, it remains the color of my wallpaper, though not always, it normally reverts to blue. On Kubuntu and Fedora it does this. It remains light blue always unless I enable compositing, which I normally do not do. I got AYA to follow my Qt Color scheme, that is it though.

• First boot, panel is blue like Air wallpaper.
• If I change to a red wallpaper, panel remains blue.
• If I enable compositing, panel turns transparent.
• If I disable compositing, 9 out of10 times panel reverts to being blue.

I will try OpenSUSE 11.1 KDE4.2 remix today, and see how that goes.

[oack]

Putting all aesthetics aside (easily changed) I am very happy with the direction kde4 is going with the likes of under the bonnet integration and the general philosophy behind kde.

[GeekGirl1]

There is no "backwards arrow". Are you talking about the KDE icon?

It's the Kickoff Application Launcher, in the bottom left of the task bar. There's no Gear as in the KDE icon. Looks more like a "back" button in an MP3 player application.

I was looking for a "minimize desktop" icon. I clicked on the black square at the bottom right of the menu bar by accident. No clue otherwise as to what it was supposed to do.

I don't know which button you are talking about. I'm looking at KDE right now as I type, but see no "black square at the bottom right of the menu bar".

It was the desktop switcher. I was confused.

It's important when critiquing a GUI that you differentiate between what you as an individual want, and what is actually good design...KDE has implemented some unconventional UI features, so users' reactions are bad too. When Windows 95 was released with its "start menu" and "task bar", I recall the IT world being in uproar because of "poor" design, which we have now come to accept as "standard".

By the way, Sun Solaris uses a customised version of Gnome. Ubuntu uses Gnome by default.

OK, good point. If they can organize the menus better, that would help. I was using KDE 3.5 and didn't have any problems. I think the problem is that the GUI has too much extensibility enabled by default. If you disable those desktop objects that take up display real estate (Plasma and widgets that are on the right-top), then I would be happier. Anything that can be activated on the desktop that isn't an icon is very distracting. Maybe that's what I meant. I'll wait and see.

Update: I just switched to Gnome. I'm much happier- everything is where it should be. I found 3 files on my desktop that were hidden by KDE 4. The folder menu showed them, but they were not visible on the desktop (I checked both of them). More bugs. I'll try KDE 4 again when they update the release and have a better stability.

[Tipped OuT]

GNOME POWER!!

Ugly my ***