XFCE4 impresses, Amarok 2 fails.

Still in the process of switching to XFCE4 as the window manager of every Linux machine I own (six machines, counting both work and personal machines), but I'm getting the process of customizing it quickly to my liking down to an art. The more I use it the more I like it, or the more I can make it look and act like KDE 3.5 (only seemingly more responsive).

I also worked out how to get ssh-add to start when the XFCE desktop comes up, slightly different from autostarting processes on KDE.

I only just realized Amarok has changed as well, as we now have Amarok 2 on Fedora 10. As with other KDE4 rewrites of well established KDE tools this is sadly another great step backwards in terms of functionality, despite the standard claims of "significant improvements". Not only has the iTunes-like playlist interface totally disappeared but the customization options are severly restricted compared to the old KDE 3.5 Amarok (just go to Settings -> Configure Amarok and take a look at the barren emptiness). You can right-click to add KDE4's totally awesome Plasmoids, but none of the ones available on Fedora 10's version of Amarok 2 add back the basic playlist/tracklist functionality we've lost.

I do not appear to be the only naysayer either. Add to that the fact that it can't resume playback if you pause playing, and you can appreciate why I'm less than impressed. I may have to switch music players completely.

I hate acting like the Grinch, continually criticizing KDE4 and its developer's ernest belief that their hard effort was producing an improved product. Yet too much of KDE4 has basic functionality missing (despite the fact that they clearly had the time to add new and unnecessary eye-candy) for me to continue with it.

I may have said this before, but I'll say it again. I can understand the motivation for a complete rewrite of some code when the existing code becomes too difficult to extend or add to. There are strong pragmatic reasons to embark upon such a project. But with KDE4, as with Gnome 2 years ago, you end up getting the impression that the developers were more interesting in add fancy new things (Plasmoids) than in recapturing the basic functionality of the older versions. If your new application can't recapture the core of the old application then it'd be better to call it something completely different, rather than adverstise it as "a new and improved" version of the old application.

Its a year since KDE 4 came out, and while KDE 4.1 fixed some of the most annoyingly trivial oversights (like a clock panel application that couldn't shown seconds), many other things I consider to be important (more important than eye candy) still haven't been fixed. I presume they've been redefined as features or expected behavior now.

I get the (possibly mistaken) impression that many of its developers lack a certain attention to detail, or a view of the big picture. Did they sit down before starting to write new code and consider what is essential functionality, what parts of our existing application work best, which part are used most, for example? The KDE4 page on wikipedia makes everything sound semi professional (although with a worrying emphasis on style, icons, multimedia API, desktop effects etc), but something must have gone wrong to end up with a product that radicalizes long term KDE fans (e.g. see here, here or even here).

Of course, KDE4 does have fans too (I suspect they don't use it the same way I do). Ryan Paul at Ars Technica defends KDE4 here. I am not at all convinced by his arguments, and tend to agree with Steven Vaughan-Nichols criticisms:

My real problems with KDE 4.1 is far more fundamental. The developers believe that they have a better way of handling the desktop. For them, I’m sure they do. For users, this user anyway, the new desktop fails at a desktop’s main job: enabling the user to get their work done as easily as possible.

[...]

I could go on, but I’m not going to bother. KDE 4.1 is full of visual improvements that dont’ improve anything. You can see KDE 4’s Plasma interface for yourself. Maybe it will work for you. It certainly doesn’t work for me.

KDE 4 developers, lead by Aaron Seigo, wanted to make a radical change to the desktop. They have. However, in so doing, I don’t think that they have made that classic engineering mistake of making something that’s great for them, but not for users.

Seigo assures me that he can explain what KDE developers are doing to me. I’m sure he sincerely believes that. Unfortunately, in so doing, he’s making my point for me. Desktops shouldn’t need explanations They should just let you do your work. KDE 4.1 gets in the way of my doing work.

Is it because I’m an old foggie? Maybe.

I'm not the only one who has no love for KDE 4. As Linus 'Mr. Linux' Torvalds recently said, "I used to be a KDE user. I thought KDE 4.0 was such a disaster I switched to GNOME. I hate the fact that my right button doesn't do what I want it to do. But the whole 'break everything' model is painful for users and they can choose to use something else."

This last paragraph is from another Vaughan-Nichols article, this time on KDE4.2.

Anyway, enough on KDE. Until the XFCE4 folks do something similar (I'm sure it'll happen eventually) KDE is dead to me. Long live XFCE!

Tomshardware has a Macbook / OSX review from a long time Windows user. All pretty standard stuff given that worldview, but it does inspire me to formalize my impressions of Apples OS from the perspective of a long term *nix power user. Just need to find the time.