Not being a KDE4 user it made me run away and look else where after being first released without the functionality of kde3. I can’t really comment on whether it is better or not but many around here use it fine and many claim it is better than what was originally released.
As for updating quite easy now me and Caf will do this differently. I prefer repo integrity over newer packages without caring about vendor so I will use zypper dup. Now I’ve done this several times by adding the 42repo and having no extra repos beyond the usual suspects and making the priorities all equal the same. As for going back down disabling/removing the kde42 repo and doing zypper dup again.
Now caf will do similar but will recommend update unconditionally via yast.
I prefer repo integrity over newer packages without caring about vendor
As I see it - you must care about Vendor in order to maintain repo integrity.
Maybe I misunderstand?
zypper dup - Fine, I get it. Works fine too. Should be better support for this in 11.2
My point is Suse is making out its self to be a user friendly distro(Double click by default on 11.2 for example) Imo its simple we have external which there will never be any control over then… Unstable/Testing, Current no more none of this easy access to stable/untesting masquerading as one clicks. One clicks came about due to difficulty some users had finding/installing packages now with the build service they are creating more of a mess than they where meant to be relieving.
We should have 3 clear categories
Unstable/Testing (Not a million sub categories for each individual part, that end up looking like current)
External/Community(Which includes OBS)
Zypper dup will always choose vendor over package. So if there is 2 amarok it will choose vendor integrity its on the man page. As for better supported I find it fine, I’ve gone from 4.2 clean install, down to 4.1.3 back to 4.2 and added xorg factory and removed it with never any problems. I do care it is update unconditionally that doesn’t
Amarok2 even today sucks compared to 1.4. Why oh why did they had to redesign a perfect interface and replace it with one that’s unintuitive. And who the hell decided to put the play/stop control buttons at the top left corner, along with the progress bar??? Each time one wants to use them, one needs to go all the way up with his mouse pointer to use them. 1.4 had the controls and progress bar underneath the playlist which was optimal and intuitive. There was absolutely no need to replace it but I guess a moronic developer just had to scratch his itch and replace it with crap
I know but we had to wait for so long until this. Also don’t get me started on where they put the repeat and random controls… Guess where, in a sub menu!!! Are you sh.itting me??? Who thought that up??? Why not place just under the play/stop controls a few small buttons where one can control easily repeat and random stuff and where it’s actually visible to the user, just like 1.4 had a small button below the play/start ones for easy control of these features. In sub menus belong features that are not frequently used and this is not true for repeat and random. When I first fired up Amarok2 I literally had to dig for 2 minutes until I found out the repeat and random functionality was hidden in the Playlist menu. Oh, and don’t get me started on the spacing issues of the playlist itself. What a load of bullcr@p, even when you have the possibility to align each cell to left, center or right, it still looks like cr@p. This is really ridiculous. It’s not to get depressed, it’s just to go bonkers and hurt those who came up with such a design!
it was a microrant by me (hahahaha >:) ) 'cause honestly I often get pissed off at idiots who replace a perfectly intuitive and well designed interface by one that’s pure cr@p and unintuitive. Then they try justify their decisions by some pity excuse which easily can be refuted by intuitiveness and usability point of view. Anyways, it’s over now
Amarok 1.x was loved (and still is) for its simple, intuitive and uncluttered well designed interface, that’s why it gathered so many users and became popular. Have you read the reactions of hundreds and hundreds of people on Amarok’s blog when version 2.0 came out for the first time? I have and it absolutely wasn’t a pretty picture. Lots of people just loathed its new interface and went on ranting about. The devs just sat and tried to justify their doings and even after doing so, Amarok2 is today still inferior to 1.x when it comes to usability, design, intuitiveness and useful features set
wasn’t better in what sense? I’m only talking about usability and intuitiveness POV, which 1.4 just cleans the floor with 2.x, IMO. Also they could just have taken the 1.4 interface, ported it to QT4 and started from there by improving & adding features. I wasn’t really talking about 1.0 or earlier.
This is like: “You are sentenced to death, the good news is that you may make the knot in the noose yourself”.
I am still on Amorok 1.4, but I understand that after upgrading I should first spend a considerable amount of time studying how I have to get my interface back. I will wait for a recipe to change new to old
I know but you miss the point, first amarok also started and lacked of many many features which were added later so does amarok 2. Usability? Intuitivness? Only users of the previous amarok find any problems with that, don’t mistake familiarity with usability. You just got used to the way amarok 1.4 worked. I was using amarok 1.4 and i find no problems with the current 2.1.1
Your remark is valid, but I think I am talking about familiarity. I normaly do not like it when products I have chosen for my usage do change there user interface, behaviour, or whatever without my wish to do so. That is true for cars, jogging shoes and computer programs (and more).
How am I mistaking familiarity with usability? You’re totally utterly completely not making any sense so please think before you write. How for example hiding a frequently used function (like repeat and random) in a sub menu of a main menu has anything to do with familiarity? Or what has placing control buttons in the top left corner which requires one to go all the way up with his pointer to control playback, has anything to do with familiarity? Or the fact that by default the “show active track” button sits right in your face just under the playlist but buttons which are much more important (like repeat & random) not only are totally absent but also hidden in submenu’s somewhere? And why does the “Amarok” menu repeat the functionality of the main playback control buttons by placing again the same thing but this time in the “Amarok” menu?
Hmmmmm, oh wait, it has nothing to do with that rather with usability which clearly exposes the wrong design decisions of Amarok2’s interface. There was absolutely no reason to ditch the 1.4 interface and completely replace it with something unintuitive and just wrongly designed from usability POV. The 1.4 one was optimized a lot and very easy & intuitive. They could have taken it, ported it and improved it further here and there. This is a fact and has nothing to do with familiarity. If one day they place the play button in the top left corner and the stop button in the bottom right corner, will you argue for familiarity or will you argue that it’s a usability flaw and inefficient design?