My only problem with modern gnome is that it is a bit too opinionated. Their design team may decide to remove something people use every day just because it doesnt fit their vision of how a computer should be used.
Otherwise is it a great DE. It is good looking and runs extremely smooth and I prefer it to macos and windows 11 every day of the week.
KDE on the other hand, for some reason feels to me like going back to windows 98.
> KDE on the other hand, for some reason feels to me like going back to windows 98.
...which tbh is a good thing, because the Windows desktop of that time was pretty much the peak of the desktop UI paradigm, with actual research going into the UX instead of 'whims and vibes' like today (I would pick Win2k though since it had a much more solid technological foundation than Win95/98).
KDE has found its own way since it was a mere Windows desktop copy though (e.g. it's much better now - even more visually consistent - than both modern Windows and macOS). But unlike GNOME, KDE never abandondend what made it great.
>...which tbh is a good thing, because the Windows desktop of that time was pretty much the peak of the desktop UI paradigm
Nostalgia of old out of touch PC users(of which I am one; old I mean, not out of touch ;-)).
I doubt people under 25 years old today have the same attraction to desktop UIs from before they were born and think that's the ideal usability goal for daily driving today.
I think that really depends on whether they use PCs at all, and what for. I wouldn't dare to generalize people's habits based on age (the American "Gen*" labels never made much sense, and is usually downright discriminatory in both directions).
E.g. one result of the downward spiral of desktop UIs is that at least a lot of devs seem to have moved back to the command line, and the most hilarious thing of all is that the most modern tools (e.g. LLM frontends like Claude Code) are 1980s style TUIs. e.g. that's how bad the modern graphical user interfaces are failing us, we have to bring back half a century old UI technologies ;)
> I wouldn't dare to generalize people's habits based on age
I wasn't generalizing. Your GP was doing that assuming everyone must thinks Win 98 UI as peak. I tried to provide a counter that people who used modern operating systems and never used Win 98 (because they're too young to have ever used it) might not find it usable today, and it's mostly rose tinted glasses nostalgia talking of the older people, who grew up with win 98 but they don't actually use it today. I also used win 98 back in the day, and yeah it looks clutter free, but too many modern QoL features are missing from it for me to actually daily drive it today.
Like for example to launch a program in Win98 you need to either have a desktop shortcut or click the start menu and then navigate a massive directory tree hovering the mouse pointer level by level and don't move your mouse by accident outside or the tree collapses and you need to start over, compared to any modern OS UI where you can access a global launcher via the meta key and just type what you need:an app, a setting, etc. Nobody can claim with a straight face Win 98 does this better than today.
>a lot of devs seem to have moved back to the command line
That's because thanks to AI development, TUIs today are 1000x more user friendly than they were 5-10 years ago, let alone in the 80s. And that's also ignoring the massive popularity of things like VS Code. Also TUIs are more popular today since more development today is done remotely via SSH on cloud instances rather than locally on the machine.
Where did I say it had to do with age? I said win 98 UI taken verbatim wouldn't be very usable today, especially for the younger generation who didn't grow up with it to think it's peak UI, as the older people who grew up with it are influenced by nostalgia but they also wouldn't be productive with it today compared to modern KDE for example.
KDE 3 was on DCOP, which would be fascinating to try to revive too. Unlike DBus where the programmer has to implement a DBus world, iirc every app was basically wired for automation from the start via DCOP, that it was just baked in. That would be fascinating to see.
I do really appreciate Klassik here though in general. There's so much nostalgia work for recreating or preserving various old systems. It's a noble tribute to see classic linux desktops also paid that honor.
> Currently the only real way to receive data from DCOP is to multiply inherit from the normal class that you are inheriting (usually some sort of QWidget subclass or QObject) as well as the DCOPObject class.
I could be wrong but I believe the QWidget's that make up nearly every KDE app had DCOP built in to them.
It would have been possible to automatically wire up Qt slots from its signals and slots system because these are introspectable, but AFAIK that was not done. For any arguments that needed to be serialized as more than one element of a QDataStream, it would have required additional marshalling code. Objects would also have needed consistent and unique names.
It would have been hacky and questionable to incidentally expose application internals like that.
How it was apparently done was that eligible objects inherited DCOPObject, for which marshalling code was generated at build time using dcopidl2cpp.
Thanks for digging in further! I'd done some poking around but I appreciate the deeper look! This has always been a fascinating topic for me, but it was only a month or two ago I actually poked around, saw that same architecture page you'd linked, etc. Obviously you went further though & I appreciate it!
Unlike modern Gnome, KDE Plasma is _really_ good. In fact, you can configure it to almost perfectly mirror Gnome 2.
That being said, this is really cool, and brings back a lot of memories.
My only problem with modern gnome is that it is a bit too opinionated. Their design team may decide to remove something people use every day just because it doesnt fit their vision of how a computer should be used.
Otherwise is it a great DE. It is good looking and runs extremely smooth and I prefer it to macos and windows 11 every day of the week.
KDE on the other hand, for some reason feels to me like going back to windows 98.
> KDE on the other hand, for some reason feels to me like going back to windows 98.
...which tbh is a good thing, because the Windows desktop of that time was pretty much the peak of the desktop UI paradigm, with actual research going into the UX instead of 'whims and vibes' like today (I would pick Win2k though since it had a much more solid technological foundation than Win95/98).
KDE has found its own way since it was a mere Windows desktop copy though (e.g. it's much better now - even more visually consistent - than both modern Windows and macOS). But unlike GNOME, KDE never abandondend what made it great.
>...which tbh is a good thing, because the Windows desktop of that time was pretty much the peak of the desktop UI paradigm
Nostalgia of old out of touch PC users(of which I am one; old I mean, not out of touch ;-)).
I doubt people under 25 years old today have the same attraction to desktop UIs from before they were born and think that's the ideal usability goal for daily driving today.
> I doubt people under 25 years old today...
I think that really depends on whether they use PCs at all, and what for. I wouldn't dare to generalize people's habits based on age (the American "Gen*" labels never made much sense, and is usually downright discriminatory in both directions).
E.g. one result of the downward spiral of desktop UIs is that at least a lot of devs seem to have moved back to the command line, and the most hilarious thing of all is that the most modern tools (e.g. LLM frontends like Claude Code) are 1980s style TUIs. e.g. that's how bad the modern graphical user interfaces are failing us, we have to bring back half a century old UI technologies ;)
> I wouldn't dare to generalize people's habits based on age
I wasn't generalizing. Your GP was doing that assuming everyone must thinks Win 98 UI as peak. I tried to provide a counter that people who used modern operating systems and never used Win 98 (because they're too young to have ever used it) might not find it usable today, and it's mostly rose tinted glasses nostalgia talking of the older people, who grew up with win 98 but they don't actually use it today. I also used win 98 back in the day, and yeah it looks clutter free, but too many modern QoL features are missing from it for me to actually daily drive it today.
Like for example to launch a program in Win98 you need to either have a desktop shortcut or click the start menu and then navigate a massive directory tree hovering the mouse pointer level by level and don't move your mouse by accident outside or the tree collapses and you need to start over, compared to any modern OS UI where you can access a global launcher via the meta key and just type what you need:an app, a setting, etc. Nobody can claim with a straight face Win 98 does this better than today.
>a lot of devs seem to have moved back to the command line
That's because thanks to AI development, TUIs today are 1000x more user friendly than they were 5-10 years ago, let alone in the 80s. And that's also ignoring the massive popularity of things like VS Code. Also TUIs are more popular today since more development today is done remotely via SSH on cloud instances rather than locally on the machine.
What other desktop environment doesn't have a dock or taskbar?
Age has nothing to do with it. Gnome 3 is just bad.
>Age has nothing to do with it.
Where did I say it had to do with age? I said win 98 UI taken verbatim wouldn't be very usable today, especially for the younger generation who didn't grow up with it to think it's peak UI, as the older people who grew up with it are influenced by nostalgia but they also wouldn't be productive with it today compared to modern KDE for example.
I dunno. Windows 98 is very usable. What does Gnome 3 have that someone who never used Windows 98 would miss?
You can configure KDE Plasma to be nearly identical to Gnome 2 / Mate.
It's great.
KDE 3 was on DCOP, which would be fascinating to try to revive too. Unlike DBus where the programmer has to implement a DBus world, iirc every app was basically wired for automation from the start via DCOP, that it was just baked in. That would be fascinating to see.
I do really appreciate Klassik here though in general. There's so much nostalgia work for recreating or preserving various old systems. It's a noble tribute to see classic linux desktops also paid that honor.
AFAIK, there was nothing in DCOP that automatically exposed functionality, and this old documentation seems to confirm it: https://techbase.kde.org/Development/Architecture/DCOP
> Currently the only real way to receive data from DCOP is to multiply inherit from the normal class that you are inheriting (usually some sort of QWidget subclass or QObject) as well as the DCOPObject class.
I could be wrong but I believe the QWidget's that make up nearly every KDE app had DCOP built in to them.
It would have been possible to automatically wire up Qt slots from its signals and slots system because these are introspectable, but AFAIK that was not done. For any arguments that needed to be serialized as more than one element of a QDataStream, it would have required additional marshalling code. Objects would also have needed consistent and unique names.
It would have been hacky and questionable to incidentally expose application internals like that.
How it was apparently done was that eligible objects inherited DCOPObject, for which marshalling code was generated at build time using dcopidl2cpp.
https://api-staging.kde.org/legacy/3.0-api/classref/dcop/DCO...
Thanks for digging in further! I'd done some poking around but I appreciate the deeper look! This has always been a fascinating topic for me, but it was only a month or two ago I actually poked around, saw that same architecture page you'd linked, etc. Obviously you went further though & I appreciate it!