New Qt Based Desktop Environment 241
aglider writes "Phoronix has an interesting piece of news about a new emerging desktop environment. And it's Qt based! From the project home page: 'Razor-Qt is an advanced, easy-to-use, and fast desktop environment based on Qt technologies. It has been tailored for users who value simplicity, speed, and an intuitive interface. Unlike most desktop environments, Razor-Qt also works fine with weak machines.' Someone has already tagged Razor-Qt as 'a KDE ripoff.' What we have so far is version 0.4, ... and ... a number of easy ways to install and test it on a few main Linux distributions.
Maybe time has come for something really new in the desktop environment arena almost completely occupied by GNOME and KDE."
The project site has a few screenshots, and the source is available under a mixture of the GPL and LGPL. It looks pretty pedestrian in its current form, but then XFCE wasn't much to look at in its early stages either.
It looks awesome. (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one welcome new razor-qt overlords.
Seriously though, completion is the best, and its really time to teach Gnome folks the lesson.
Re:KDE ripoff? (Score:2, Insightful)
And say what you want about Windows: Windows interface is to this moment unsurpassed in it's functionality and simplicity (at leat the classical 95/2000 on which KDE is based). OSXs finder with all it's annoyances and ,,so shiny/no content,, is, unfortunately gaining terrain with copycats (god save us).
Re:Rip-off? (Score:5, Insightful)
My complaint about that is that...
A project focuses on making a new desktop environment based on a GUI toolkit used by one of the major desktop environments, but with the aim to be lightweight...
And they are calling it a KDE ripoff? Shouldn't it be an XFCE ripoff?
Re:Window close/minimize/maximize buttons (Score:2, Insightful)
Because every possible alternative is worse.
Re:Hoping for a new generation of Desktop Envirome (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets hope this is the start of a whole new set of Desktop Environments, and I don't mean the bloated, needlessly flashy, touchscreen optimised, BS that looks like children's toys.(Yes KDE, Unity, Gnome I'm looking at you.)
It is the bloat that turns lean window managers into actual desktop environment. Take LXDE, it is basically openbox with a few panels. By the time you add a printing subsystem, notification subsystem, and all the other things that truly make up a desktop environment, then it is no longer so lightweight. It is not the eye-candy that makes KDE and Gnome so heavy, it is all the other services provided in the background.
Re:Window close/minimize/maximize buttons (Score:5, Insightful)
As opposed to just being different for the sake of being different?
Does it really matter what order minimise/maximise/close is? I mean, can you actually give a good logical reason why the order or placement should be anywhere else? If not, then why not just keep it the way everyone else does it?
Re:Window close/minimize/maximize buttons (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Window close/minimize/maximize buttons (Score:4, Insightful)
Because every possible alternative is worse.
This. IMO there is nothing wrong with the placement of close/minimize/maximize in Windows. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Besides, transition from Windows or other DE's with the same placement is easier that way. That goes for keyboard shortcuts too.
Re:Hoping for a new generation of Desktop Envirome (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a consequence, which cannot easily be avoided. The only thing I'd wish for is a better modularization. The current desktop environments are close to all or nothing. You can drop the one or other service, but the minimal set is still huge and in my view very intrusive.
Re:Window close/minimize/maximize buttons (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, can you actually give a good logical reason why the order or placement should be anywhere else?
Because destructive operations (like close) should be kept separated from non-destructive ones (like maximise/minimise). NeXT (and by inheritance WindowMaker) get this right. Fortunately most window managers also make it easy enough to change, which I usually do.
Re:It looks awesome. (Score:1, Insightful)
Which one you prefer, competition or alternativies?
As competition means there are no standards, no compability, no teamwork, no quality in products and less jobs
While alternatives means there are standards, compability, teamwork, better quality in products and more jobs
What competition means? http://xkcd.com/927/ [xkcd.com]
Competition always means that there can only be one winner. And every competitor does everything what they can to win other(s).
You know the phrase "It isn't personal, just business"? Well...
You know the government demands to ask price offers from competitors and give job for one who is cheapest? You only end up having crap in your hands.
How about projects where your timeframe is shorter and shorter all the times and budjet is smaller and smaller? Thank competition.
Or co-determination in corporations, where corporation lays off people because expensives... thank competition again.
Next time someones kid does not win, parent should just say "Shut the fuck up and next time you crush your fuckin enemies without any reasoning, my kid does not live as a loser but as a winner so learn to cheat and use violance to solve problems if needed!" instead saying "It does not matter who wins, but that it is a fair play"?
Software patents are all about competition. Propietary is all about competition. Monopolies are results of competition. Abusive of dominant market position is all about competition. Bigger corporations are free to crush smaller ones how they like. Richer corporation has much better situation than a start up company because they can pull multiple different market share products where start up can only focus to one or smaller market.
In other hand. Open Source (GPl not the BSD) is about teamwork and possibilities to offer a alternativies if wanted. With Open Source (GPL license in this case, not the BSD) licensed software no one can build a monopoly or abuse a dominant market position (unless abusing the license). Bigger corporation can not own the products or customers. There is always a change that someone get better idea and implements it and this way product developes better one.
When you replace "Competition is good" to real meaning what it is... you get "War is good". And thats is it. How many thinks war is good for anyone? Customers are civilians and they are those who suffer most. Bad products, limited choices, less jobs, smaller payrates... Everything bad comes from competition.
There ain't KDE vs GNOME vs XFCE vs LXDE vs XYZ...
There are just KDE, GNOME, XFCE, LXDE and XYZ's.
Those are not competiting projects, they are alternatives.
Competition is hostile by nature. While alternatives are about teamwork and goal to find out best result what to use and same time research and develop a alternativies with new ideas what to choose again together what is best to be used.
Standards are great thing and they are all about teamwork, not about competition.
If we would have free markets, everything would be ruined.... If we would have free markets, we would have fucked up situation on economy... good thing is that we don't have fr..... Oh wait... what is situation on world economy? US Dollar and EUR situation is pretty bad...
What is situation on computer markets? Software patents, market positions abuse, all legal fights, poor quality on software and their support and.... And people are rised from child to prise the competition as "there is nothing wrong on competition".
Razor-Qt is good thing, because it brings one new choice for users. It use existing technology, it follows FDO standards and it is Open Source (GPL/LGPL).
It is new choice, not a new coalition for war.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)