kdjdjdjfjsjd

This was meant complimentarily, mind you. KDE apps more often than not tend to land on the “so full of options with conflicting text hierarchy, icons and weird spacing rules” that opening a KDE app sometimes feels like a risking complete sensory assault. It’s truly refreshing to see a good, competent UI that doesn’t feel like the devs just gave up and made every variable a button with some insane icon.

Kudos KDE Photos team.

Yes it really should. It’s much easier for users to identify what “Photos” does instead of “Koko”. It’s infinitely easier to identify at a glance what a “Files” app does versus “Nautilus”, same goes for “Epiphany” and “Browser”.

Off-the-wall crazy names only work for non-defaults because then you guarantee that those who need it will know what it does whatever the app’s called.

Your comment is the prime example of why Linux sometimes gets a bad rep for being too obtuse or inscrutable for the general public. These small things matter. They make a a real difference for the end user. And friction when trying find a single default app/utility is the last thing you want when trying to get people to use your OS.

If I were to guess I’d say they went with Safari because of Internet Explorer that used to be the Mac’s default browser. In a safari tour you discover and explore, so keeping up with the discovery theme we have Internet >Explorer<, Netscape >Navigator< and Apple >Safari<.

This is all just conjecture though so take it with a grain of salt.

Why even buy a thing that you currently don’t have a use for? And what does AI have to do with it at all?

A decently looking KDE application? I’m proper amazed. (And I’m not even joking).