The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Model KWrite after GEdit, keep Kate for geeks
by lizardx on Tuesday 15/Apr/2008, @15:52
|
The gnome user comments here are very enlightening. They repeat the standard gnome myths, which thank god kde does not subject its users to:
1. the interface is too complex for users (ok, ok, I believe that gnome users can't handle complex interfaces, that's fine, that's what gnome is for)
2. the notion that removing all configurations and options is desirable.
Gnome can cater to its distorted view of what users can or can't handle, if they want to keep being second rate, and KDE hopefully will keep trying to simply be the best it can be, configurable, option rich, powerful.
Please kde devs, keep on producing a full featured, complex gui desktop that allows users like me, who can handle more than a tiny number options, to work efficiently, and not be crippled by crippled interface decisions.
I, like other people commenting, use kate for session based project work, and I use kwrite to work on single files if I don't need a session. If I need something really simply, I use nano to edit directly.
Normally I ignore gnome user comments since it long ago became clear to me that a desktop that aspires to mediocrity is not interesting to me, but since this is a kde site, I feel that it's ok to not have to listen to such interface luddites espouse their nonsense.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Model KWrite after GEdit, keep Kate for geeks
by AS on Tuesday 15/Apr/2008, @16:52
|
Have you seen KDE4? You're too late
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Model KWrite after GEdit, keep Kate for geeks
by Anon on Wednesday 16/Apr/2008, @02:55
|
Nobody has seen "KDE4". People have seen KDE 4.0.x and for some reason are assuming, against all historical evidence, that the direction of the entire KDE4 series can be judged on the basis of what they've seen so far - rather like proclaiming, on 1/1/1990, that "OMG teh 90's suck!1"
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Model KWrite after GEdit, keep Kate for geeks
by Tray on Tuesday 15/Apr/2008, @18:39
|
> the notion that removing all configurations and options is desirable.
I'm not advocating just the removal of options, but of the entire programming-related functionality because it is outside of KWrite's stated purpose to be a simple general-purpose text editor.
Having said that, it seems some programmers and sysadmins here want KWrite just like it is and say that Kate is too much for some of their needs. Fine, move the current version of KWrite to the kdeadmin package but slim down the version of KWrite in kdebase.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Model KWrite after GEdit, keep Kate for geeks
by Morty on Wednesday 16/Apr/2008, @06:00
|
But KWrite already are a simple general-purpose text editor, and when used as such the impact of the entire programming-related functionality is nearly non existing. Keeping on repeating it does not make it so. For instance less than 10% precent of menu entries are programming related, it would be real hard to make up a use case where it actuall could be a problem.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Model KWrite after GEdit, keep Kate for geeks
by Tray on Wednesday 16/Apr/2008, @20:37
|
> it would be real hard to make up a use case where it actuall could be a problem.
Programming functionality is outside of KWrite's goal. Average users (gramps, mom, cousin Ann) don't care about programming, and all those coding tools/options get in their way.
Again, programmers can use Kate, and if Kate doesn't work for them now, they should file wishes in bugzilla for the things they need. Taking over a general-purpose text editor like KWrite is _not_ ok.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Model KWrite after GEdit, keep Kate for geeks
by Morty on Thursday 17/Apr/2008, @05:20
|
>Programming functionality is outside of KWrite's goal.
Nonsens, it goals is to be a simple editor, witch it is. There is nothing in the goal of beeing a simple editor that demands it to be unfit for programming. As long as the programming functionality does not distroy the ability to use it as a simple editor, witch it it does not, there are no problem.
So your complaining is just plain nonsens, since KWrite meets it's goal by beeing simple. And to emphasize this, you can't construct one real user case where the programming functionality are a problem. That the average user don't care about programming does not matter since the functionality does not affect them in any way.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Model KWrite after GEdit, keep Kate for geeks
by Tray on Thursday 17/Apr/2008, @05:58
|
> As long as the programming functionality does not distroy the ability to use it as a simple editor
Wrongs premise: irrelevant options does detract from the use of KWrite because users have to wade through them. Not to mention they are unsightly.
Look, if you want a programmer's version of KWrite, use Kate or fork KWrite and move the copy to kdeadmin.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Model KWrite after GEdit, keep Kate for geeks
by Morty on Thursday 17/Apr/2008, @07:06
|
No, it's your premise that is wrong.
First of there are NO options to wade troug, the programmer related options are a tiny fraction of the options in KWrite. And even more important, they are located so that a user in need of only a editor for pure text does not get hdetracted by them. There are no valid user cases where removing the fetures will make any gain whatsoever.
Seccondly, there are valid user cases where a programmer may want to use KWrite rather than Kate. So by removing them you will case problems for valid use cases, while gaining nothing.
And haveing two versions of KWrite are so stupid, that comments are unneccesary.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Model KWrite after GEdit, keep Kate for geeks
by Tray on Thursday 17/Apr/2008, @08:44
|
> a programmer may want to use KWrite rather than Kate
So what are these reasons? I think that if Kate doesn't work for a programmer, he/she should file a wish in bugzilla or use something like KDevelop. KWrite should cover only *basic* text editing *without* niche functionality like progamming.
> And haveing two versions of KWrite are so stupid
Well if people are so attached to the current programming functionalityof KWrite, keep it in kdeadmin. But KWrite in kdebase should have no niche programming functionality.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Model KWrite after GEdit, keep Kate for geeks
by Morty on Friday 18/Apr/2008, @00:18
|
>So what are these reasons?
There are several, like working on single file programs you don't need the multiple file capabilities or sessons of Kate and it's preferable to not mix it with other projects. While working on big projects, where you work on one or more singel file, located in different part of the project. When doing system administrator task, remote or local, you usually work on single files, there are no need for Kates multiple file interface. When cecking out source code unrelated to your project to get a tip/idea how to solv a problem, or checking up on a header file.
>I think that if Kate doesn't work for a programmer
Kate works very well for programmers, but there are times where you even as a programmer don't need Kate's functionality and KWrite simply are a better tool for the job.
>KWrite should cover only *basic* text editing *without* niche functionality like progamming.
Why? Since you can't provide one single valid use case where the programming functionality in KWrite is a hindrance when using it as a basic text editor, you gain nothing by it.
>KWrite in kdebase should have no niche programming functionality.
Why do you keep insisting that, it's pure nonsens. Its already established that this functionality does not affects KWrite's abillity as a simple editor for non programmers. Is it some kind of fetish you have, that the tool you use for pure text should not be usable for programming by others?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Model KWrite after GEdit, keep Kate for geeks
by Tray on Friday 18/Apr/2008, @13:37
|
> you don't need the multiple file capabilities or sessons of Kate
How IRONIC! You can't be bothered to use the "default" session in Kate because the the ability to have multiple sessions gets in your way, and you complain about "multiple file capabilities". And yet you want to stuff your favorite esoteric coding style options and configurations on non-techy users of KWrite for whom those options are completely irrelevant. Because obviously your programming fluff won't bother them, and even if it does those users don't matter anyway.
> you usually work on single files, there are no need for Kates
> multiple file interface.
You can very easily make Kate work on a single file by closing the file lister on the left side. After that it's as if you only have one file open.
> Since you can't provide one single valid use case where the
> programming functionality in KWrite is a hindrance
Sure I can: Geekish programming options are tiresome, confusing, and intimidating for non-programmers and get in the way of their doing simple stuff like spell checking, copy/pasting and printing.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Model KWrite after GEdit, keep Kate for geeks
by Morty on Tuesday 22/Apr/2008, @14:45
|
>esoteric coding style options and configurations on non-techy users of KWrite
>for whom those options are completely irrelevant. Because obviously your
>programming fluff won't bother them,
Exactly, those options you for some irrational reason hate so much, are in the singel digit percentage of menu options. So yes, they are so few they will not bother the non-techy users. But it's features that have valid user cases and are indeed used by many existing users. And caused by of some kind of personal, and not founded in reality usability theory, you want to remove features used by many existing users. Removing a tool used by many to solve a non-existing problem, since those users don't matter anyway.
>You can very easily make Kate work
So rather than having a simple tool best fitted to the task, you need to preform extra actions to make a more complex tool less so. Thats irony.
>Geekish programming options are tiresome, confusing, and intimidating for non-programmers
>and get in the way of their doing simple stuff like spell checking, copy/pasting and printing.
This is not even a user case, only theoretical musings. And its even less valid, since it's not applicable to the reality of this case. Since KWrites programming options are so few compared to the non geekish options, they will not get in the way or intimidate the non-programmers doing simple stuff. Of the non-programming users more than 99.99% will simply just ignore the few options they don't have a need for or don't understand.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
