Jesse Kline said: > On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 21:53, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > >> agreed, there's nothing wrong w/choosing GNOME and putting effort into >> making it look good... on the other hand, i don't think how they've >> packaged KDE is a positive thing in the least. > > I'm not quite clear on exactly what they did with KDE. I have read > RedHat's explanation and I have seen it in action. It looks like purely > cosmetic changes to me. But they made the same cosmetic changes to Gnome
What Redhat did to KDE was much more then just cosmetic. They modified binaries and libraries. Since no one at Redhat knows anything about KDE, they made a complete mess of the modifications. The way they treated the KDE community in this was also rude and completely uncalled for. In my eyes, redhat still makes a good server OS, but I will never again use redhat as a desktop or recommend it to KDE powerusers. It's not KDE, it's a forked KDE. > (Bluecurve, Mozilla instead of Galeon, real stupid menu system, etc.). > Is there something that I'm missing here? I know when I put RedHat on my > system my girlfriend was real pissed off. She wanted KDE back (at least > the way it was in Mandrake). I changed the themes, background, mouse > click from double to single, etc. and setup kmail as the default mail > program and konqueror and the default browser. What I'm trying to say is > I can see how these changes piss people off, but they're nothing that > can't be changed in a few minutes. > > Jesse
