Random wonderings (Was: move klicker to kextragear)

Frans Englich frans.englich at telia.com
Tue Jan 27 00:25:17 GMT 2004

On Monday 26 January 2004 19:03, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> On January 25, 2004 08:31, Frans Englich wrote:
> > I guess I agree in large parts: The first layer is the technical
> > infrastructure, not a complete DE but allows KDE apps to be run.
> correct.. things like DCOP, XMLUI, kdecore and kdeui, kio, etc...
> >  The second
> > layer brings a DE which covers basic use for everyone - apps from
> > kdebase, basic parts from kdemultimedia, kdegraphics, kdepim, kdenetwork.
> not really; this is actually TWO layers put together: one is the desktop
> environment (kdesktop, kicker, kwin, ksplash, kcontrol) which are all
> contained within kdebase; the other layer is the applications.

Thanks for pointing this out. This distinction wasn't relevant for the issues 
I highlighted AFAICT, not for that the distinction was well established in my 

> i separate these two out because you can run the desktop env w/out the
> applications, and (more commonly) the applications w/out the desktop env
> (e.g. kmail or konqueror in a blackbox or windowmaker session). i also see
> a separation there because USERS see a separation there. this is because if
> one is running the desktop env layer, it will be (almost assuredly) all be
> KDE, whereas at the application level you may see a mix of technologies.
> this separation is critical to understand when branding something as "KDE",
> since one may be running KDE as an environment to launch apps in and it is
> indeed "KDE", but one may also be running KDE as an environment for KDE
> applications.
> it also makes it easier to move applications between the various
> application layers (which happens) without disturbing the definition of the
> less often altered infrastructure (Layer 0) and desktop (Layer 1) layers.
> > On top of that, there is packages for special uses, such as kmusic,
> > kdeadmin etc, not ment for everyone but it's there for those users who
> > has specific needs.
> >
> > But, in this layout, which we pretty much agrees on(AFAICT), kdeutils
> > most of all, doesn't fit in. I find the logic flawed, who wants kdeutils?
> > Those
> kdeutils fits in Layer 2 (a set of common applications to make KDE
> immediately useful to the bulk of KDE users). it includes a calculator, gpg
> manager, floppy formatter, wallet manager, etc. things that many people
> need, but don't necessarily qualify as "network" or "pim" or "graphics".
> apps that don't meet the "user to the bulk of KDE users" requirement
> perhaps should be moved out of kdeutils (though that can be annoying for
> packagers and users alike =) and into extragear.
> > who wants a lot of utils? If we had a util package for each
> > package(kdegraphics ie.) that would make more sense - somekind of
> > extension to the packages(?). But right now it is a extension to the
> > whole of KDE?
> extension, or part of KDE's "Layer 2". things like a calculator which
> everyone needs, but doesn't really belong in kdebase or any of the other
> more specific modules.

This is getting interesting. No doubt parts of kdeutils is basically mandatory 
for a usable DE(kcalc, kfloppy ie), and so is a couple of apps from 
kdegraphics, kdemultimedia etc. In order to have the basic functionality 
which everyone needs you need all kde modules, kdepim, kdenetwork, 
kdegraphics, kdemultimedia and kdeutils. But, at the same time each of the 
mentioned modules provides tons of specific apps for it respective topic 
which not the bulk of users need - and that is probably the explanation to 
KDE's app bloatness(which I think exists). I think the modules suffers from 
personality disorder - while they are specialized in a certain area that 
doesn't help, you still have to install them all since they contain "must 
have" functionality.
If we skip technical details, wouldn't it be a better categorization if we had 
a "kdebase"'ish module which contained /essential/ apps which /every/ user 
needs(that is kscd and noatun from kdemultimedia, kpdf and ksvg etc from 
kdegraphics, you get the point) and let the different modules kdenetwork etc. 
be really specialized? In other words, the bulk of users would only install 
this "kdebase" while those with specific "network functionality" needs would 
in addition install kdenetwork(for example). Currently a lot of the modules 
is held back because we don't want them to grow too specialized for obvious 
reasons - that wouldn't be necessary.

Yes, I think a "vanilla" KDE install is way too big and useless functionality 
for an average user - that's why the various distros out there mods us so 
heavily in this aspect. Me judging other posts by you I get an impression of 
that usability aspects of KControl and KMenu is not only a matter of 
organization but also their "information density". If the KMenu is considered 
too big - what can we practically do about it?



More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list