KDE Gets Unity Like Interface In HomeRun Launcher

[NormanFLinux]

This is NOT about another operating system. It seems KDE developers have liked what they've seen in Ubuntu's Unity so much - well we can say flattery or should that be necessity? is the mother of invention:

http://www.iloveubuntu.net/kde-developers-launch-homerun-unity-interface

Here is a mockup of what it might look like in the proposed HomeRunLauncher UI:

http://iloveubuntu.net/pictures_me/homerun%20unity%20like%20interface%20123.png

Looks like a Unity-like clone may be soon be coming to KDE!

[BarfBag]

Just as KDE was beginning to win me back...

[nerdopolis]

KDE Plasma is awesome because It's so flexible. This allows them to implant the unity like interface in a separate plasmoid, where you can actually customize if you want to use the new launcher or not. That actually looks pretty sweet.

[jerome1232]

:guitar:

Lookin good

[BigSilly]

Just as KDE was beginning to win me back...

Yeah but with KDE it'll (crucially) be optional and probably very tweakable. I think it looks nice as a launcher and I'd love to give it a try. But I've no doubt the regular KDE menu options will be available if I don't end up liking it. Like nerdopolis says above, KDE is so flexible. I don't see them throwing the baby out with the bathwater as perhaps Ubuntu did with Unity.

[Jakin]

Cool, then i can make a Unity, the way i believe it should be- not dictated to me, and not even have to leave KDE to do it :)

[lykwydchykyn]

I'll have to check this out; I bet my kids would like this on their KDE machine.

I wonder if Kubuntu will try to adopt a unity-esque layout for its default desktop?

[weasel fierce]

More options is always good. Not sure if I'd use that, but who knows. It might be awesome.

[BigCityCat]

Yeh KDE has a lot of options. I won't use it but some people will probably like it. I prefer the traditional desktop.

[forrestcupp]

If they force it on everyone, that's bad news. One of the main reasons I like KDE is that it's not like Unity and more like the traditional desktop.

[KiwiNZ]

I don't see any major issues with it based on the links but I guess the proof of the pudding will be in its consumption.

[neu5eeCh]

But, as always with KDE, they add and cultivate that little extra touch of bad taste. It's not Unity, it's Kunity. :popcorn:

[MisterGaribaldi]

See, the biggest issue I have with Unity is not Unity itself, but the inexplicable attitude on the part of the Gnome Project to go against the very sacrosanct element of choice.

If Gnome had made Unity an optional UI, that'd have been fine. But no... they said that would be the new interface, and essentially (don't know how else to interpret it but) F.U. if you don't like it, 'cuz that's how it's going to be. And I will not tolerate nor forgive being held hostage like that.

Now, hopefully the KDE Project will be sensible, and implement a Unity / iOS-type of UI, but only make it an option which one may choose to enable and use, if and only if the user wants to.

[jerome1232]

See, the biggest issue I have with Unity is not Unity itself, but the inexplicable attitude on the part of the Gnome Project to go against the very sacrosanct element of choice.

If Gnome had made Unity an optional UI, that'd have been fine. But no... they said that would be the new interface, and essentially (don't know how else to interpret it but) F.U. if you don't like it, 'cuz that's how it's going to be. And I will not tolerate nor forgive being held hostage like that.

Now, hopefully the KDE Project will be sensible, and implement a Unity / iOS-type of UI, but only make it an option which one may choose to enable and use, if and only if the user wants to.

And yet you can run gnome-shell or unity on gnome3.

[weasel fierce]

Well, almost any other widget or effect they have in KDE is optional and configurable, so I have no doubt this will be too

[ARooster]

Just as KDE was beginning to win me back...
KDE was winning you back or was Unity pushing you towards it?

[lykwydchykyn]

If they force it on everyone, that's bad news. One of the main reasons I like KDE is that it's not like Unity and more like the traditional desktop.

I don't think it's in the project's DNA to "force" a design decision on users.

Years ago when KDE was in the early, awkward 4.0-4.1 stage, I kept hearing KDE developers talk about the new desktop paradigm that was coming and how they were building KDE for it. So finally I asked some of them, what this big new paradigm is that they're preparing for. The response I got was basically, "We don't know -- and that's the point." In other words, they built a system that would be ready for the new desktop paradigm -- whatever it might end up being.

This is why I cringe a little bit whenever someone says KDE is more "windows-like" or "traditional", because that really misses the point. Yes, the default setup is very traditional/windows-like, but its designed so that any user can make it into whatever very easily.

This new menu/launcher is just another tool in that toolbox.

[mr john]

Their approach seems alot more sensible that then gun-ho way Shuttleworth went about it. Alienating a large section of your userbase is not a sensible thin to do.I like the look of unity. But I don't like the Dash for finding out what apps are installed on my systems and the software centre takes too long to load. With a bit of work those things could be changed.

[mips]

The fact that it's like an optional 'plugin' is pretty cool. Those who want it can have it and those that don't can just carry on as per usual.

[bailout]

The standard kde menu, kickoff, is tabbed and has a search bar and many of the same features. The annoying thing about kickoff is that the tabs aren't editable. It is also designed on the traditional list style of menu. This new menu obviously has similarities to unity but could also be seen as a icon/explorer layout of kickoff which predates unity.

[tartalo]

This new menu obviously has similarities to unity but could also be seen as a icon/explorer layout of kickoff which predates unity.

Initially I thought the same, that KDE Homerun looked like an oversized Kickoff (or a redone Plasma Netbook), but then, I saw it:


The more sources we get the more useful Homerun is. (...) One could even create an Amazon source... Could be handy as long as it is not on the Home tab :)


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Jokes aside, it just one option more to add to the many existing in KDE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDE_Plasma_Workspaces)

[forrestcupp]

See, the biggest issue I have with Unity is not Unity itself, but the inexplicable attitude on the part of the Gnome Project to go against the very sacrosanct element of choice.

If Gnome had made Unity an optional UI, that'd have been fine. But no... they said that would be the new interface, and essentially (don't know how else to interpret it but) F.U. if you don't like it, 'cuz that's how it's going to be. And I will not tolerate nor forgive being held hostage like that.

Now, hopefully the KDE Project will be sensible, and implement a Unity / iOS-type of UI, but only make it an option which one may choose to enable and use, if and only if the user wants to.
I think you must have accidentally worded this wrong. Did you mean "If Canonical had made Unity an optional UI..."? Because the way you worded it sounds like you're mad at Gnome. Gnome was working on Gnome Shell before Canonical started working on Unity. Canonical started working on Unity because they didn't like where Gnome Shell is going. It's not Gnome's fault.

[Linuxratty]

I prefer the traditional desktop.

Same here..Also that's why i don't use Unity.

[Dragonbite]

Kudos to KDE to have the flexibility to allow for this, yet not have to throw the "baby out with the bath water" and do all-or-nothing!

I'm waiting for somebody to make Metro Modern like tiles interface similar to Windows 8! Hey, not everybody likes them but I do.. or may.. or think it looks interesting (but haven't been stuck with it for a long enough time for it to get on my nerves).

[ARooster]

Kudos to KDE to have the flexibility to allow for this, yet not have to throw the "baby out with the bath water" and do all-or-nothing!

I'm waiting for somebody to make Metro Modern like tiles interface similar to Windows 8! Hey, not everybody likes them but I do.. or may.. or think it looks interesting (but haven't been stuck with it for a long enough time for it to get on my nerves).

Actually that may be a good idea for mobile phones or tablets. Of course, that distro would have to work pretty well out of the box because let's face it... who's going to poke around the mobile phone's touchscreen for hours on end until they get the 'look and feel' just right? With a mouse and keyboard, yeah, maybe.... with a touch screen? Forget it! :)

[Dragonbite]

See, the biggest issue I have with Unity is not Unity itself, but the inexplicable attitude on the part of the Gnome Project to go against the very sacrosanct element of choice.

If Gnome had made Unity an optional UI, that'd have been fine. But no... they said that would be the new interface, and essentially (don't know how else to interpret it but) F.U. if you don't like it, 'cuz that's how it's going to be. And I will not tolerate nor forgive being held hostage like that.

Now, hopefully the KDE Project will be sensible, and implement a Unity / iOS-type of UI, but only make it an option which one may choose to enable and use, if and only if the user wants to.

Gnome didn't come out with Unity, Unity was in response to Gnome. But aren't Unity, Mate and Cinnamon just Gnome-shells?

Gnome-shell choices aren't as fully integrated into Gnome as KDE's Plasma desktops are.

There is a touch-screen focused KDE desktop named Active, so I would assume that is their focus for touch screens and tablets. I'm waiting for ZaReason's ZaTab (http://zareason.com/shop/zatab.html) to come with KDE Active as the desktop environment (on a Linux distro) as an option instead of Android.

[MadmanRB]

I am giving it a try and I kind of like it, though it n3eeds drag and drop support and the ability to change the icon.

[MisterGaribaldi]

And yet you can run gnome-shell or unity on gnome3.

Instead of them just adding it as a choice as a UI and letting me choose *if* I want to use Unity.

But oh no, you now have to install and configure additional software so you can keep what you already have and want. Sorry, but that's not friendly AND a load of unacceptable crap.


Gnome didn't come out with Unity, Unity was in response to Gnome. But aren't Unity, Mate and Cinnamon just Gnome-shells?

Gnome-shell choices aren't as fully integrated into Gnome as KDE's Plasma desktops are.

Which kind of proves the point: Gnome Project's attitude is very unacceptable.

[anarchticgrimm]

Well, the flexibility of KDE was always it's main feature. (as known as, the power of the gray side) You can make it look like almost everything. But I do remember there was another launcher that does the same trick - but it was buggy as hell.

Yet, I believe there's no point of making KDE look like Unity when there's already an Unity UI. I still prefer my -very blank- panel with Kickoff Menu.

[lykwydchykyn]

Yet, I believe there's no point of making KDE look like Unity when there's already an Unity UI. I still prefer my -very blank- panel with Kickoff Menu.

What if someone likes *some* of the aspects of Unity, but not all of them? What if someone likes the Unity look and feel, but wants to add in some unique plasma features like activities or specific plasma widgets?
What if I want a Unity-like desktop experience on one of the many, many distros to which Unity has not been ported?

[anarchticgrimm]

What if someone likes *some* of the aspects of Unity, but not all of them? What if someone likes the Unity look and feel, but wants to add in some unique plasma features like activities or specific plasma widgets?
What if I want a Unity-like desktop experience on one of the many, many distros to which Unity has not been ported?

What if that's just what I believe? =)

[MisterGaribaldi]

forrestcupp & dragonbite:

No, this is a Gnome thing. Just simply taking a look at the Gnome Project's home page and the screenshots they have posted there makes it pretty obvious the UI in question comes from them.

[forrestcupp]

Instead of them just adding it as a choice as a UI and letting me choose *if* I want to use Unity.

But oh no, you now have to install and configure additional software so you can keep what you already have and want. Sorry, but that's not friendly AND a load of unacceptable crap.



Which kind of proves the point: Gnome Project's attitude is very unacceptable.


forrestcupp & dragonbite:

No, this is a Gnome thing. Just simply taking a look at the Gnome Project's home page and the screenshots they have posted there makes it pretty obvious the UI in question comes from them.

So you didn't accidentally word your post wrong? Can you explain what you're talking about, and what your specific complaint is? From my perspective, Gnome was working on a new paradigm for a DE, Canonical didn't like it, so they made their own DE that just so happened to look like a copy of what Gnome was doing, and then Canonical forced it on us. So how is any of that Gnome's fault?

Also, I know this is just my subjective opinion, but I think Gnome Shell is a much better DE than Unity.

[Dragonbite]

So you didn't accidentally word your post wrong? Can you explain what you're talking about, and what your specific complaint is? From my perspective, Gnome was working on a new paradigm for a DE, Canonical didn't like it, so they made their own DE that just so happened to look like a copy of what Gnome was doing, and then Canonical forced it on us. So how is any of that Gnome's fault?

Also, I know this is just my subjective opinion, but I think Gnome Shell is a much better DE than Unity.

IIRC, Gnome drastically changed the appearance and Canonical didn't like it and produced Unity. AFTER Gnome saw what Unity looked like then Gnome started suspiciously looking more and more Unity-like but in their own way.

Now, I don't have any links to back this up because I'm going on my own memory. When Gnome 3 was being announced and for a while, before Unity came out, Gnome 3(shell) was available on Ubuntu. It was buggy and just a preview. I gave it a shot and kinda liked it, but that was before Gnome started copying/looking more like Unity.

This would have been maybe 2009? I don't remember when Unity first came out (not as the default, as a separate installation).

[Gster4]

i thought kde was always nice, but i use unity because of the launcher. now i can have both. so happy.

:cool:

[jerome1232]

Canonical didn't like it, so they made their own DE that just so happened to look like a copy of what Gnome was doing, and then Canonical forced it on us.

A) They don't look similar, at all, they function quite different as well.
B) Explain to me, if they forced it on us, how are all of these other Ubuntu users using Gnome-Shell, KDE, XFCE, and other WM/DE's? Sounds like Canonical isn't very good at "forcing" something if that was their intent.

If you're going to make wild accusations like that, at least base them somewhere in reality instead of forrestcupp's dreamland. That goes double for MisterGaribaldi, who's can't even blame the right people for the DE he's "forced" to use.

[sandyd]

A few more screenshots...

[screaminj3sus]

IIRC, Gnome drastically changed the appearance and Canonical didn't like it and produced Unity. AFTER Gnome saw what Unity looked like then Gnome started suspiciously looking more and more Unity-like but in their own way.

Now, I don't have any links to back this up because I'm going on my own memory. When Gnome 3 was being announced and for a while, before Unity came out, Gnome 3(shell) was available on Ubuntu. It was buggy and just a preview. I gave it a shot and kinda liked it, but that was before Gnome started copying/looking more like Unity.

This would have been maybe 2009? I don't remember when Unity first came out (not as the default, as a separate installation).

yep, here's what gnome-shell looked like at first: http://andrewharvey4.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/shell_activitymode.png

In any case, with the current versions of gnome-shell and unity, any similarities are mostly superficial and I really don't think they really "copied" each other. gnome-shell and unity work pretty differently.

[MisterGaribaldi]

@forrestcupp:

I'm not sure how to answer your question. The UI featured on Gnome Project's site looks like the UI that ships with standard Ubuntu. So...

Either which way, that "style" of UI on a desktop system, IMNSHO, sucks.

[sffvba[e0rt]

Could we reserve our opinions about Gnome-shell, Unity and such for one of several threads floating around the Recurring Discussions section?

Seems people that prefer KDE are going to be spoilt for choice in just how they interact with their systems.



404

[doorknob60]

Good idea, as long as it's stuck in its own optional plasmoid, and I can continue using the normal kickoff menu. I'm sure that's how they'll handle it, so this is good, even though I probably won't use it (I'll try it out when it hits the Arch main repos though)

[catlover2]

This is old news. :)


http://s9.postimage.org/pwcjnaf23/KUnity2.jpg (http://s9.postimage.org/61qi15zul/KUnity2.png)

[forrestcupp]

A) They don't look similar, at all, they function quite different as well.They both have an information bar on top with a Dash launcher on the upper left with your favorite app launchers lined up on the left side of the screen. Both of their Dashes bring up a shaded, full screen feature area where you can deal with running apps, tile/icon based menus, and virtual desktops. Both of them have extensions/lenses to extend functionality, which on both, is pretty much the only means of any customization. Yeah, you're right. They don't look similar at all.

Of course they have differences in looks and function. But to say they don't look similar at all is just stubbornness and sticking your head in the sand.



B) Explain to me, if they forced it on us, how are all of these other Ubuntu users using Gnome-Shell, KDE, XFCE, and other WM/DE's? Sounds like Canonical isn't very good at "forcing" something if that was their intent.On any distro you use, you're going to be able to add DEs. If you install Ubuntu, then install Gnome Shell, it's going to be tainted by all of the extra crap that Unity brings that is a royal pain in the backside to get rid of. But about all of the other flavors of Ubuntu, absolutely none of them are backed and developed by Canonical but the Unity version. Did you forget about how they dropped Kubuntu and basically got rid of their only Kubuntu developer because they wanted all of their development to go toward Unity? Yes, there are always going to be other options out there, but as far as Canonical is concerned, they're doing everything they can to railroad people into using Unity.


If you're going to make wild accusations like that, at least base them somewhere in reality instead of forrestcupp's dreamland.That's kind of uncalled for. I gave you my reasoning, and I sure don't think it is baseless.

[Lightstar]

Why is everything going so freakinly BIG these days.
Yeah maybe for tablets, smaller screens..
I do hope icons can be resized.

I liked the older KDE better.

[NormanFLinux]

Experimental PPA is now available for Kubuntu - there are some bugs so its great for testing:

https://launchpad.net/~blue-shell/+archive/homerun

It can be run as a default shell or in "search and containment" mode.

[smellyman]

KDE is so great.

want a gnome 3 type launcher? use takeoff. Want unity-like? use Homerun (takeoff can be configured like it as well) Want classic? use the classic mode. Want something classic yet modern? Use lancelot. Want standard KDE? Use kicker etc.....

KDE is infinitely configurable. All the features clamored for in Unity, G3, xfce etc. are already there in KDE