In making Linux more friendly on a desktop, you can't lose the advantages that Linux has such as its configurability. If you do, you end up with a Windows clone and that is what you don't want to be.

I think you're maybe making a bit much of that particular example Asa. It says "Splash screen - control center" Really though it's just one tab in a control center for how the whole system looks, doesn't seem to overcomplicated to me.

Brant, when I can drag reoder the items on my start menu in linux, I'll start listening when people the configurability advantage arguments. When it comes to ease of use, I would LOVE for Linux to clone Windows. There are a lot of advantages that KDE and Gnome could sacrifice and more than make up for with just a few improvements to basic usability.

--Asa

Paul, I was making that exact point! -- the point that they give a prominent panel in their control center to something as useless as changing splash screens. It takes about 15 panels to do what I can do with one or two in Windows. Why? Because someone thought that changing your splash screen was just as important as fonts and colors.

--Asa

Well Mozilla went through that one if I remember well (the splash screen saga was quite fun, with proposal (OK not implemented) of a splash screen manager maybe by Blake?) - maybe Linux needs some UI tzar a la FF :-)
Is this what you *really* mean Asa ? :-)

I'm gonna side with paul on this one. I don't quite see what the big deal is, it's just a splash screen panel for those who want to change their splash screen. No need to look deep into the situation and over analyze. This kind of reminds me of the situation of those who were completely against Firefox having a splash screen, everyone bitched about it taking up too much size and it being a useless feature. I guess from a hardcore techie/geek point of view you'd hate something like this. Not that it's bad, I just think that maybe people are getting too uptight about something so small.

That's KDE's design philosophy: for any possible choice, give a control panel. GNOME goes the opposite way: Give choices only where obvious defaults don't exist. I greatly prefer the latter way, especially as it's the way both OS X and Firefox lean.

I am of the opinion that Linux is nowhere near ready for the desktop, and this really is one of the prime examples of it. Microsoft, and Apple, spend a lot of money on usability. Linux seems to not spend much thought on it (although greatly over generalising).

I'm not a newbie, I have no problem configuring things in text files, but I have yet to encounter a Linux configuration GUI that didn't send me screaming back to the terminal. If I didn't know what I was doing, where would I run exactly? Back to Windows I imagine. Or, more likely, back to OS X (but that's my personal bias).

Things like this should be configurable, I'm all for that. I'm also a firm believer in that if you really want to change this (how many people actually do?) you would perhaps install some switcher first, or install a plugin type thing (or extension or 'Advanced Customize' application).

As it stands linux as a UI (well, KDE, Gnome) is overly complicated and is not user friendly.

And here here on the comment about drag reordering of menus in the k-menu... that system is kludgy and strikes more of Program Manager moved into a menu form than the Start Menu. That's just my 7c though.

"In making Linux more friendly on a desktop, you can't lose the advantages that Linux has such as its configurability. If you do, you end up with a Windows clone and that is what you don't want to be."

It can be configurable without having these sort of mostly useless things in the Control Panel.

How about a single Control Panel tab called "Miscellaneous" or "Advanced", that had basically what about:config in Firefox gives you, only a bit shorter maybe. ;-)

"I'm gonna side with paul on this one. I don't quite see what the big deal is, it's just a splash screen panel for those who want to change their splash screen. No need to look deep into the situation and over analyze."

It's not just about the splash screen configuration. It's about Linux desktops in general. Overconfigurability that assist in crowding what you *really* are interested in configuring.

I've seen this problem Asa mentions myself, and it's one of the things that make you go "heh, I really see this is a Linux desktop".

I mean, you can change the login screen in Windows XP without too much trouble. Not many do it and MS didn't provide a GUI for it, yet few even care.

"How about a single Control Panel tab called "Miscellaneous" or "Advanced", that had basically what about:config in Firefox gives you, only a bit shorter maybe. ;-)"

This is the way Gnome works... keep the "control panel" simple and use gconf-editor for advanced configuration.

The major reason why I prefer Gnome to KDE is that it does try to keep the user interface simple.

Well actually I like all the options that are there to customize a lot. It is much nicer to have some good looking control panel to do this then to search thru registry or gconf-editor.

I also agree that all these options are too much for users who just started using the application. The best option to make all happy is in my optinion to just display only the very important options by default and then have a special option somewhere in the control panel/preferences to switch on displaying all the advanced options too. Something like in Zoom Player or in Miranda IM.

This pic shows why I fear KDE and love GNOME :-)

gnome is not kde

gnome has not gazillion of settings

gnome is mostly like firefox/thunderbird is for Mozilla : simplicity.

it seems you will prefere gnome to kde and you will learn to not be afraid of linux anymore.

I completely agree with Asa. Your example about not being able to drag-reorder items in the start menu is spot on. Gnome/KDE is configurable, but not in a way that makes it easier to use or even *as easy* to use as Windows. Another example is when choosing List View in Nautilus. There's no way of just drag-selecting multiple files using the mouse. Instead it starts a drag-and-drop operation on the first file you select. Can we get down to more basic computer usage than that?

If we're holding up Firefox as a paradigm of simplicity, Asa, try Epiphany. It's got four tabs in the Options window. One of which is Fonts and Colours. With no "Advanced" buttons. Kinda simple, no? There's one other screen you need for system-wide proxy settings and one for Privacy, similar to Firefox. It would seem that Epiphany is to Firefox as Firefox is to Mozilla in terms of options. I usually wouldn't be so picky, but the "Follow our lead" title is just a little hubristic, wouldn't you say?

Is windows really that much more simpler is what i was trying to point to Asa?

In display properties under winXP which handles most of the things seen in that screenshot you took of KDE, there are 5 tabs for what are basicly UI changes. Some of those tabs have "advanced" buttons whoch open up not an extra tab but a whole new pop up window. Really simple eh?

Not to mention that even there are further otions in other parts of windows

"Taskbar and start menu" has a whole section seperate and to it's self and then theirs "folder options" all by it's self too.

Windows really isn't that clean and simple and easy to configure, it's just people have been used to it since win95.

I take the general point about making UI clean and intuitive, something for which Firefox has deservedly won plaudits. There are areas in both KDE and Gnome where this could be improved for sure but really windows isn't scoring any huge advantages in this feild. Other than through familiarity.

Linux has bigger problems if it wants to attarct basic level users. Like installing software. Last i fiddled with nix even rpms seemed a nightmare compared to installing anything on windows.

For basic level users that the clean/simplistic UI benifits the most or even just for converts from windows there should never be a need or hardly ever to use a consol.

You know Asa, instead of *complaining* about what KDE has to offer perhaps you should go out and get GNOME to fix a few of their far more serious deficiencies instead. Such as still no straight forward way of setting a mailto: handler so that clicking on a mailto: link in Firefox doesn't throw an error about it not being a supported protocol (which is bad enough for GNOME users, never mind the KDE users who representant the increasing proportion of Linux users). Of course if we had used KDE's settings for these sort of things we wouldn't have this problem, but I digress. Actually, if we had used KDE we wouldn't have a lot of problems. Printing for example (peruse the debian-user mailing list archives for "Mozilla", "Firefox" and "Printing". The advice of the list? Use Konqueror. If not all the time then at least to print. Yay Mozilla.). And file pickers. And then there's GNOME's curious reliance on MSian double-clicks (apart from GNOME's piss-poor inter-app integration and inability to configure any but the most basic things this is one of the best reasons not to use it - and of course you can't *deconfigure* this classic bit of idiocy since, well, that's the way GNOME's oh-so great simplistic UI is).

As for UI, this is rich considering Firefox still has an "Advanced" category in its Options, err, Preferences dialogue (which is it again?) - I dare you to find one in a major KDE app - and the non-descript "Web Features" category and the little-better "General".

It's probably been said before, but someone really needs to build an OS from the ground up based on Linux, with a central focus on usability and simplicity.

The current distros have either inherited too much cruft, copy Microsoft/Apple too frequently and too poorly, or are simply made entirely by developers who wouldn't know good user experience if it bit them in the ass.

Linux needs its own equivalent of Firefox. The existing patient(s) cannot be saved, it must be killed and its soul reincarnated.