Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
KDE Businesses GUI Apple

KDE Ported to Mac OS X 69

Posted by pudge from the but-i-want-a-ui-i-can-lick dept.
benh57 writes "KDE has finally been ported to Mac OS X, by the Fink team. Source packages and pre-built binaries are now available. Read the announcement and instructions for installing. Woohoo!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

KDE Ported to Mac OS X More

KDE Ported to Mac OS X

Comments Filter:

  • Fun--Not Practical, but Fun! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Spencerian ( 465343 ) on Wednesday May 29, 2002 @06:35PM (#3606007) Homepage Journal
    I've really enjoyed how the Linux/UNIX community has poured their time into making things work in Mac OS X. While OS X users have a really good interface already (and aren't likely to switch for good), adding KDE makes working around in X (as in XFree86, that is) that much easier. Further, it adds an additional arsenal of desktop tools that an OS user can take advantage of in the occasional event that an OS X native app doesn't do what you would expect.

    I'll wait for KDE/OSX to get rid of a couple of more bugs, and then I'll try my XDarwin out on the fruit-juicy goodness of KDE.

    Hopefully, this'll get the GNOME guys a little jealous and they'll wrap up their port.

  • Wow, let's make an analogy! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Imagine, for a second, that you work at a high-end brewery and have a steep employee discount on beer. Now, also imagine that you decide to stock up on Rolling Rock instead.

    What's wrong with this picture?

    • And then imagine that the high end beer you have a discount on doesn't have it's ingredients listed on the label, and only some of them are available to you. You can't quite be sure that it is safe to drink.

      Even with the discount, the Rolling Rock (whatever that is?) is free and you can see exactly what went into it.
      KDE is available for Mac OS X. That is cool. There is no need to go disparaging the months of work that went into this port with a silly beer analogy.
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Rolling Rock considered high-end amoung widely available beers?

      Besides, how can porting more open source stuff be bad?


  • Like an idiot, I accidentally deleted the .cvspass file from my home directory, not knowing that fink was dependent on it:

    [hobbsg4:~] jeff% fink selfupdate
    sudo /sw/bin/fink selfupdate
    Password:

    Your Fink installation is set up to update package descriptions directly from
    CVS. Do you want to use this setup and update now? [Y/n]

    I will now run the cvs command to retrieve the latest package descriptions.
    After that, the core packages will be updated right away; you should then
    update the other packages using commands like 'fink update-all'.

    cvs -z3 update -d -P
    cvs update: could not open /Users/jeff/.cvspass: No such file or directory
    cvs [update aborted]: use "cvs login" to log in first
    ### cvs failed, exit code 1
    Failed: Updating using CVS failed. Check the error messages above.
    [hobbsg4:~] jeff%

    Does anyone know how to get fink running again? Reinstalling from .pkg doesn't seem to work (and is not recommended). I love fink, but it seems like I'm stuck.

    ~jeff
  • First I'd like to say that choice is always good, and the more apps on OS X, the better.

    But, Aqua is a really nice window manager already. I use OS X and Aqua at home, and Linux/KDE at work, and IMHO Aqua is by far superior to KDE.

    I'd like to see konqueror on OS X though... :-)

    • Re:nice, but ... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ranger Rick ( 197 )

      The nice thing about rootless X is, you can run those spiffy KDE apps without tarnishing the rest of your Aqua desktop... =)

      You don't *have* to run the whole KDE desktop to use this stuff, you can just use the apps you're interested in.

    • Re:nice, but ... (Score:3, Informative)

      by nathanh ( 1214 )
      But, Aqua is a really nice window manager already. I use OS X and Aqua at home, and Linux/KDE at work, and IMHO Aqua is by far superior to KDE.

      KDE is more than just a window manager. This port simply means that Mac OS X users could run Konqueror or Konsole on their Aqua desktop. It doesn't mean Aqua has to be turned off or that you have to use the KDE window manager.

      PS: Mac OS X is damn sexy. It's UNIX... but it's Macintosh... but it's UNIX!

  • i kinda really like aqua and i for one am not going to switch to anything else. i think it is very coo that kde is up though because when i get a new box, hopefully soon, i will try running that atop darwin for shits and giggles.

  • How to work efficiently with MacOS X? (Score:3, Informative)

    by rbrito ( 37104 ) <rbrito@nOspAm.ime.usp.br> on Wednesday May 29, 2002 @11:46PM (#3607384) Homepage Journal

    I have some moderation points that I was going to dedicate to this discussion, but I think that it would be better if I posted instead of moderated.

    Let me ask this honestly: how can someone work in an organized fashion with the MacOS X style of managing windows?

    I am an experienced Unix system administrator, but a complete newbie with Macs (in fact, I just bought my first macintosh 4 months ago, an iBook 600MHz, combo, 12") and feel completely lost trying to work with MacOS X.

    I don't care for eyecandy and animated icons as much as I care for a functional environment, but the fact managing windows with MacOS X is much messier than with standard Unix window managers, where you can separate your desktops for different tasks. In my case, I usually have my first virtual desktop for an xterm and e-mail, my second for browsing the web and my third and fourth for other tasks various tasks.

    On the other hand, when I am typing some important text in LaTeX, I usually reserve the first desktop for some command line hacking (say, with perl), the second virtual desktop for Emacs and the third for seeing the output of my text with xdvi (I usually use Windowmaker as my window manager, both under Solaris and under Linux).

    I feel that this separation of tasks keeps me organized and makes me quite productive since I can quickly move between different aspects of my work, but how can I keep everything organized with MacOS X with just one desktop and with applications with more than one window (say, Appleworks)?

    I also appreciate that I can do all that under Windowmaker with intelligently set key-bindings and having to use the mouse quite few.

    So, this is an honest question: how are you guys productive with MacOS X? Is there any way to keep various applications organized?

    I already tried Space [sf.net] for MacOS X and, honestly, its capabilities are nowhere near, say, windowmaker in terms of functionality.

    So, when people say that MacOS X's user interface is so good, I can only think that they work in a different fashion than I do or that they are exploring features that I don't know about.

    Also, today I tried installing Fink and was amazed at first, but after only two or three hours of using it, the fact that XDarwin is much slower than XFree86 under Linux (on the same notebook) makes me also suspect that I may not be using the programs correctly. I can't believe how slow it is. I would not even dare to run KDE on MacOS X (the topic of this story).

    So, when people say that MacOS X's user interface is so good, I can only think that they work in a different fashion than I do or that they are exploring features that I don't know about.

    Any comments are desperately appreciated.

    • I believe the XDarwin/XFree86 team is working hard on making it faster. I suspect you won't see a dent in the speed of XFree86 on OSX until 10.2, though. It is definitely not your fault - the problem is XDarwin, and the way it is designed. It simply needs to operate at a lower level than it does currently.

      OS X is a very young OS, remember - just over a year old.
    • Let me ask this honestly: how can someone work in an organized fashion with the MacOS X style of managing windows?

      Bothered me too. Until, you realize that you can focus on one application by holding down the open-apple & option keys and clicking on an application in the dock. That hides all other applications - letting you work with just one. The exception to this, of course, is XDarwin, but if you install Gnome, or, I guess, KDE (I don't have time to let the stuff compile, dammit, and the binaries aren't working) they come with window managers for Xwindows apps.


      So, this is an honest question: how are you guys productive with MacOS X? Is there any way to keep various applications organized?

      Snax [cocoatech.net] helps.


      Also, today I tried installing Fink and was amazed at first, but after only two or three hours of using it, the fact that XDarwin is much slower than XFree86 under Linux (on the same notebook) makes me also suspect that I may not be using the programs correctly. I can't believe how slow it is. I would not even dare to run KDE on MacOS X (the topic of this story).

      I haven't gotten linux beyond a rudimentary command line to work on my mac yet (I've tried) so I can't answer your question that well, but running XDarwin in full-screen rather than rootless mode seems to work.
    • I agree, I wouldn't dare try to run KDE under XDarwin. I recently tried XDarwin for the first time and was disappointed at the speed. (G4 667, 1gb RAM). Hopefully it gets faster in future releases.

      As for the usability of OSX... my only suggestion is to hide apps you're not using. You can set the dock to show hidden apps with transparent icons with TinkerTool.

    • Re:How to work efficiently with MacOS X? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I've been a Mac user for years'n'years'n'years, and believe you me, I can feel your pain w.r.t. Mac OS X's window management.

      The trick I'm using to keep them under control is to download Youpi Key [club-internet.fr], which is an automation tool, and configured it to hide all other applications with command-space. It's not perfect, because there are some apps I'd like not to hide, like DesktopConsole [newcastle.edu.au].

      One final thing to note: Many of us (including Apple) would appreciate it if you could send this feedback to Apple here [apple.com]. If you could clearly explain your problem (and your post, as is, is mostly there), and then make clear suggestions on what exactly would help you, I'm sure they'll give it serious consideration. Their recent track record seems to support my belief that they are more customer-focused these days.

    • I find that ASM [mac.com] is useful in hiding/showing running applications, just like the Application Menu in classic used to do, and it is GPL which is nice. Additionally it allows one to go back to the classic windowning mode of bringing all application windows to the front if that is what you like rather than Mac OS X's default mode of treating each window seperately which I have difficulty getting used to.
    • I am an experienced Unix system administrator, but ... feel completely lost trying to work with MacOS X.
      This doesn't surprise me. I have been supporting Mac users in education for a few years now, and can tell you that not only are most existing Mac users not experienced Unix system administrators, but that they would feel completely lost trying to work with most *nix desktop managers.
      I care for a functional environment ... where you can separate your desktops for different tasks. In my case, I usually have my first virtual desktop for an xterm and e-mail, my second for browsing the web and my third and fourth for other tasks various tasks.
      This notion is completely foreign to most Mac users, who think of a "task" as something they, not the computer, does. A task would be editing a movie, sending a friend some music, or writing a message. They might use 3 or 4 different sets of overlapping applications to do each of these tasks, but to them, using iMovie to import some video, PEAK to add audio, and QuickTime Pro to encode it is one "task", regardless of the fact the menu bar changes 3 times while they do it.

      The notion of having a separate "desktop" for each stage of a single task would be as absurd to them as someone telling you to use different window managers depending on whether you want to type vowels, consonants, or digits on the keyboard.

      I usually reserve the first desktop for some command line hacking ..., the second virtual desktop for Emacs and the third for ...
      I can tell you from long, painful experience, this will never work for most Mac users. For them, if they can't see it on the screen it doesn't exist. I've had to explain (over and over ...) to users that windows behind other windows aren't really gone, the data is still there, it's just hidden by a more frontmost window. Understanding the dock is a conceptual leap, trying to explain the concept of multiple desktops is practically impossible; to most Mac users the desktop is the one fundamental bedrock of their computer.

      IMHO, even if you did explain it, most Mac users wouldn't like it. I'm sending my son this web page; here's the web page window and here's the email window. They're both sitting right there on the screen, why on Earth would you want to go through all that rigamarole to hide the windows you're working on? Or to hide the entire *desktop*, yet? Why try to hide what you're working on? That makes no sense.

      I feel that this separation of tasks keeps me organized ... since I can quickly move between different aspects of my work, but how can I keep everything organized with MacOS X with just one desktop and with applications with more than one window (say, Appleworks)?
      Mac users would ask the same thing about *nix window managers. Since each document is a task, how can you keep it organized when it keeps opening in different windows that look completely different, or even in a different "desktop" where you can't even see it, for God's sake.

      Users don't think applications have more than one window; my printout, my email, my expense form, and my customer list are all applications, right? And they're each one window. Oh sure, the menu bar reads "AppleWorks" when I'm working on my expense form and customer list, and "Entourage" when I'm working on my email, but that's one of those weird computer eccentricities. You're saying I can only look at my expense form and customer list together at one time? That as soon as I open one the other also opens automatically? That makes no sense, they have nothing to do with each other. What if I wanted to email my expense form. I have to use two different windows? Two different *desktops*, where I can't even see what I'm working on? You're nuts!

      So, this is an honest question: how are you guys productive with MacOS X? Is there any way to keep various applications organized?
      They are organized. Forget about "applications", think about the job you're trying to do. If you're a manufacturer do you have a special workshop just for scewdrivers, another one for chisels, and third for drills, and so on, so every time you build something you have to carry all your work from one workshop to another? On the Mac, you have a document for each thing you're working on, and you open it with whatever tool you want. All the tools and all the documents are right there on the screen, it doesn't hide anything on you. If it did, Mac users would go nuts; there are a lot of long-time Mac users who hate OS X because of this.
      So, when people say that MacOS X's user interface is so good, I can only think that they work in a different fashion than I do or that they are exploring features that I don't know about.
      From the very first Mac from 1984, the OS has tried to be document-centric. The original PICT document format could be opened in graphics, database, and word-processing applications. Apple spent enormous effort to create a document-only API called OpenDoc a while ago. Now I admit they don't always succeed, and OpenDoc was a failure, but this has been the guiding principle behind the Mac from day 1.

      Think visual documents; anything you can see is a document you can work on. If you can't see it on the screen it doesn't exist, or at least you don't have to worry about it. Forget about "files" and "programs" and you'll get into the mindset of Mac users.

      • What a typical Mac zealot responce: "there's no problem with the gilded Mac OS, rather a problem with the user."

        Hey I like OS X a bunch, but I don't think it is the end-all be-all of operating systems -- how absurd!

        IMHO, even if you did explain it, most Mac users wouldn't like it. I'm sending my son this web page; here's the web page window and here's the email window. They're both sitting right there on the screen, why on Earth would you want to go through all that rigamarole to hide the windows you're working on? Or to hide the entire *desktop*, yet? Why try to hide what you're working on? That makes no sense

        You don't hide windows that you're working on... you hide the ones that you're not working on to get them out of the way.
        Mulitple desktops are a way to organize the windows of several related programs together so that you can hide or unhide them as a group. When you're using many different apps together to do a task this is very useful.

        OS X is a professional grade OS and can be used to do real work (be it programming, video editing, document creation, or whatever). Multiple desktops or something that provides similar functionality would be a nice addition to OS X... and if you don't need this feature, you don't have to us it.

    • As a long time Mac user, I'd have to say that the answer lies in Apple's support for multiple monitors.

      Most Mac users don't have the same level of desktop organization and task seperation needs that you or I have. I, too, am completely spoiled by virtual desktops under X and similar hacks added on for Windows.

      Instead, most advanced Mac users just need more screen real estate to do their work on. The publishing and graphics design industres are the best example of this. Once you get used to having 3 monitors attached to a machine, it's just about as good as virtual desktops, though I prefer the latter.

      As another poster said, though, many Mac users (and Windows users, I'd like to add) are honestly too easily confused by hidden virtual desktops. Clutter does not offend most casual PC/Mac users like it does some of the more advanced users. As a result, you'll probably never see official support for multiple workspaces in Mac OS X, just like Apple canned the support for official Apple windowing themes after finding that it confused some users.

    • The Macintosh Way for virtual desktops is hiding. Apple-H hides an app and the Option and Command keys give you additional ways to hide and un-hide apps. Within an app, you minimize windows.

      More info from OS X Hints [macobserver.com].

    • are point2focus & scrollbars on the right(left;-) side...xdarwin lets me, but i still have 2 put up w/ the finder:-p
    • rbrito wrote:

      Let me ask this honestly: how can someone work in an organized fashion with the MacOS X style of managing windows?...Also, today I tried installing Fink and was amazed at first, but after only two or three hours of using it, the fact that XDarwin is much slower than XFree86 under Linux (on the same notebook) makes me also suspect that I may not be using the programs correctly. I can't believe how slow it is.

      Sounds like you might be running X in "rootless" mode. Run it full screen: start it from the command line in a terminal with "startx -- -quartz" and select full screen mode. Set up your .xinitrc with WindowMaker or some other speedy wm like blackbox. X is very fast in full screen mode on a 600MHz iBook (my machine too), and you can set up your WM virtual desktops and switch between them as usual. Toggle (instantaneously) into Aqua from X with Option-Command-A, and back to X by clicking on the X icon in the dock.

      It's the best of both worlds. I do all my email (via ssh in an xterm to my office machine) and serious writing with xemacs/LaTeX/xdvi in X, and have Aqua for all those great Mac apps.

      TXLogic

  • Missing the point (Score:3, Informative)

    by ZigMonty ( 524212 ) <slashdot@@@zigmonty...postinbox...com> on Thursday May 30, 2002 @05:47AM (#3608135)
    KDE has been ported to *Darwin*. The fact that that means it can also run on Mac OS X is less important. Darwin, the bare Unix part, now has a decent window manager/desktop environment. Now (or soon anyway) people could use Darwin as an alternative to Linux. It may not be everyone's cup of tea but we now have a free Unix for the Mac that is binary compatible with Mac OS X. This will make it a lot easier for the community to work on Darwin as its own OS, with obvious benefits to Mac OS X.
    • All well and good, except for the fact that KDE *hasn't* been ported to Darwin. :)

      Currently, the Fink port only builds on Mac OS X. The darwin build is being worked on, and should come fairly soon.

  • QT port? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by beigeboy ( 565208 )
    Rather that port KDE via XDarwin would it not make more sense to port the apps vie a port of the QT toolkit to Aqua? I think QT is available for OS X, the web page at Trolltech appears to say so http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/index.html I don't know if this means you get an Aqua look 'n feel...
  • does anyone know what the menu bar weather app is in this screenshot [sourceforge.net]?

  • Go Krusader! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cornice ( 9801 ) on Thursday May 30, 2002 @02:24PM (#3611417)
    Yea! I can finally run a file manager on a Mac that is easy to use and not just easy to understand. 2 panes make it easy to copy and move files with a couple clicks or keystrokes. I hate the search, click, copy, search, click, paste method of file management. cp with command completion is faster than that.

    Check out:

    http://krusader.sourceforge.net/

Slashdot Top Deals

A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.

Close