Bruce Byfield: KDE5 Plasma is the best desktop

in linux on 2014-07-25 12:33 (#3RP)

Everyone knows opinions are like noses: everyone has one. But Bruce Byfield has been at it longer than most, and his opinion often reflects the industry. And he loves KDE5.

At a time when the Linux desktop offers six main alternatives (Cinnamon, GNOME, KDE Plasma, LXDE, Mate, Unity and Xfce), KDE Plasma consistently tops reader polls with an average of 35-40 percent. In such a diverse market, these figures indicate a broad appeal that other Linux desktop alternatives can't match.

I believe that one of the main reasons for this appeal is the KDE design philosophy. GNOME and Unity may offer a more aesthetic-looking default, but only at the cost of simplifying both the desktop and the utilities in the name of reducing clutter.

By contrast, KDE goes to the opposite extreme. KDE applications typically include every function you can imagine. Sometimes, they can take a version or two to organize the menus in a meaningful way, but applications like Amarok, K3B, or digiKam go far beyond the most common use cases. When you run into problems with them, they usually offer solutions.

Read the rest of his thoughtful and insightful review here.

[Ed. note: Actually, opinions are like something else. But Pipedot is a family-friendly site.]

Re: I'm offended! (Score: 1)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-07-25 19:16 (#2MY)

Good comment! Different strokes for different folks, though. I actually prefer programs that astound you from the start with all the options. It impresses me with how much the thing can already do, and I make an effort to learn what those options are and how to use them.

I use Adobe Acrobat XI at work now (not Reader) and they just went through this philosophical shift from the last version. In the last version there were tons of tricks and functions, and that's how I learned that it was even possible to deskew slanted images, reduce the DPI resolution and/or the file size, downsample bitmaps, and the like. XI does all those things too but looking at the menu you'd be hardpressed to guess it's possible. Instead you have to enable "toolsets" and that makes different tools exposed. Point is: the old version showed you everything it could do, while the new version you have to suspect it's possible and then hunt for the place to make it happen. I prefer the former.

That said, I recognize I'm in the minority. It seems most "modern" computer users are trying as hard as possible to not have to think, and expect software to be simplified down/dumbed down to where its interface meets their lighter cognitive load (so to speak). Maybe it's a generational thing.