Very Computer

What exactly is the advantage of a KDE or GNOME application,
over a standard application launched through a kdelnk
or GNOME launcher?

Both KDE and GNOME seem to pride themselves
on their burgeoning collections of applications,
most of which are replacing standard and perfectly acceptable programs.

Personally, I would much prefer a well tested program
rather than an untested but KDE- or GNOME-aware one.

In my opinion, both KDE and -- even more so -- GNOME
would be far better advised to improve their documentation
rather than adding more and more applications,
most of which I suspect are never used except by their inventors.

Am I missing something?

--
Timothy Murphy  

tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Quote:> What exactly is the advantage of a KDE or GNOME application,
> over a standard application launched through a kdelnk
> or GNOME launcher?

If they were functionally equivalent, only aesthetic ones.
Usually they are not.

Quote:> Both KDE and GNOME seem to pride themselves
> on their burgeoning collections of applications,
> most of which are replacing standard and perfectly acceptable
programs.
> Personally, I would much prefer a well tested program
> rather than an untested but KDE- or GNOME-aware one.

So use whatever you want.

Quote:> In my opinion, both KDE and -- even more so -- GNOME
> would be far better advised to improve their documentation
> rather than adding more and more applications,
> most of which I suspect are never used except by their inventors.

> Am I missing something?

Yes. Try "xedit http://www.microsoft.com" and then try the same with
kwrite.

Try shift+left cursor on vi, then try it on kwrite.

Try dragging a file from kfm into kwrite, then try it over emacs.

And so on.

--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Quote:>What exactly is the advantage of a KDE or GNOME application,
>over a standard application launched through a kdelnk
>or GNOME launcher?

Well, a common, reliable clipboard, drag-and-drop functionality, a common
set of widgets and interface conventions . . . .

I just tried out both KDE and GNOME and ended up uninstalling both
and reverting to icewm, but that's not to say I don't *in principle*
see advantages to KDE/GNOME.  As you say, their documentation is bad,
and they've copied some really bad Microsoft ideas into their user
interfaces, like "Apply" buttons.

The only thing I miss from either is kfm -- I don't like it as a file
manager, but it's a wonderful web browser.
--

"This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy."
        -Martin Luther on Copernicus' theory that the Earth orbits the sun

spake unto us, saying:

Quote:>What exactly is the advantage of a KDE or GNOME application,
>over a standard application launched through a kdelnk or
>GNOME launcher?

It's my understanding that programs written to the specific desktop API
are able to use a number of services common to that desktop, and not
usually available to X programs not written to that API.

Quote:>Both KDE and GNOME seem to pride themselves on their burgeoning
>collections of applications, most of which are replacing standard
>and perfectly acceptable programs.

No, "replacing" is not the correct work.  The other programs are still
there, and are still viable options.  Even under KDE or GNOME.

Quote:>Personally, I would much prefer a well tested program
>rather than an untested but KDE- or GNOME-aware one.

Then continue use the "well tested program" you prefer.  This isn't an
us-versus-them scenario.

Quote:>Am I missing something?

I think you're reading way too much into what the KDE and GNOME folks
are doing, and I'm sure documentation volunteers are quite welcome.

--

     OS/2 + Linux + BeOS + FreeBSD + Solaris + WinNT4 + Win95 + DOS
      + VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
            REALITY.SYS Corrupted: Re-boot universe? (Y/N/Q)

Is kwrite the same as the application "Advanced Editor" in KDE?

I could not find any mention of kwrite
in the list of applications at http://www.kde.org .
As a RedHat user, I would have preferred an RPM,
but again I did not find any kwrite*.rpm at RedHat.

Having said that, your example illustrates perfectly my theme.
I would not regard the ability to drag-and-drop in kwrite
as anywhere like as important as the facilities offerred by emacs.

In any case, is it not possible to create a "wrapper"
to add this facility to an existing program (like emacs)?

--
Timothy Murphy  

tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Well if KDE uses Xdnd then XEmacs will soon be able to support KDE
DnD, but what it will do with that ability I don't know.  I also think
the pure raw power of emacs far outweighs being able to "drag" text or
whatnot into it.  Besides, who wants to drag when the selection
mechanism is much better suited to textual transfer?  Course being
able to drag a text file into emacs and having it open it is another
matter.

The problem with the wrapper is that the owner is not the one who
makes the request in the selection protocol.  If you could somehow
coax it into requesting the data in the selection then yes it would
work, but I am not sure that could be done short of building it into
the requestor....which I guess would be a good mechanism to design for
those times when it would be nice to interact with an unknown
protocol.

BTW, I have used 3 different desktops...out of all XDE is the one I
liked the best, but it needs a LOT of work.  Currently I am without a
desktop environment and am quite happy.  I am thinking of creating a
desktop icon program simply because I think it *might* be useful but
don't want the rest of the garbage.  Personally I think a seriese of
protocols could be invented that being adhered to would offer all the
services of a desktop environment without the shackles.  Its on my
*long* list of things to do......

About the aesthetics of the desktop...xemacs can be used as a widget.

Yup, same tool.

Quote:> As a RedHat user, I would have preferred an RPM,
> but again I did not find any kwrite*.rpm at RedHat.

> Having said that, your example illustrates perfectly my theme.
> I would not regard the ability to drag-and-drop in kwrite
> as anywhere like as important as the facilities offerred by emacs.

I would not consider emacs a facility at all :-)
If you want a quick, small CUA-like editor with syntax highlighting,
kwrite is one of the bests you can get.

Quote:> In any case, is it not possible to create a "wrapper"
> to add this facility to an existing program (like emacs)?

Ask emacs developers.

I noticed you managed to dismiss my argument without doing what I
suggested you to try, and thus presumably not knowing what would
hapen if you did. Amazing feat of rethoric.

--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Emacs does syntax highlighting (go to the help menu, options submenu
and turn on "Font Lock" --- a very un-descriptive term for syntax
highlighting).

--
______________________________________________________________________
                                        |
Time blows wildly against my door       | Justin R. Smith
Stirring discarded sorrows              | Department of Mathematics and
Like dead leaves of summers past        |     Computer Science
Memories of forgotten lore              | Drexel University
Making way for new tomorrows            | Philadelphia, PA 19104
New hopes, new fears,                   |
         and new ways that last         | Office: (215) 895-1847
                                        |
c Justin R. Smith, March 14, 1994       | Fax:    (215) 895-1582

My home page: http://www.mcs.drexel.edu/~jsmith