Aaron J. Seigo wrote: >On Friday 17 March 2006 19:35, Gustin Johnson wrote: > > >>http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm >> >> > >there are a few good points in there, but most of it is complete crap IMO, >especially when he goes on about user interfaces. it would be a nicer world >if people would stick to talking about that which they know about. > > > >>Mike Bougie wrote: >> >> >>>Here's an article (I'm refraining from assigning an adjective to it) >>>regarding another fork from KDE. >>> >>>http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT3601556298.html >>> >>> > >there's only one or two people working on it so it's pretty impossible for >them to keep up with the pace of development upstream, and the concept is >fundamentally flawed though i respect their goals (an easy to use, powerful >desktop GUI). i've talked with the guys involved and they are huge kde fans >and are truly trying their best in their own way to make it better, but it's >pretty much a doomed effort given the approach they've selected. at the end >of the day, it's one of those "nothing to see here" sort of stories. *shrug* > > > Agreed!
Aaron, correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't KDE essentially going this way a bit already? Lots of integration, improved usability and major eye candy. I was just updating a buddies box at work today that had Mandrake 9 with KDE3.0. Before I started I had to grab a new Etch CD iso from Debian. Despite the Mandrake Desktop customizations it still looked rather dated. I used Gcombust (no K3B) to burn the iso which worked OK but the user interface leaves much to be desired. No tabs in Konqi. Slow load on launch of DM. There was a how shall I say a "somewhat beta" appearance to the Gnome/KDE integration on the Desktop. Needless to say KDE3.51 suffers from none of these issues. It has evolved, and from what I here about the proposed 4.x features, I'm in for a major treat. Insofar as the KDE fork is concerned I applaud them. They clearly have an itch to scratch and who the heck is Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols anyway? Is it his code? Nope! His itch? Nada! So as far as I'm concerned the man is without clue on this issue. Forks are just another one of the evolutionary forces that drive FOSS. Nature itself and the evolution of our own species have been shaped by this very force. If FOSS is a jungle driven by evolutionary forces, the weak code dies (depricated) and the strong code survives. Forks then must be a part of this process just as they are in nature. If the fork lives or become extinct will be driven almost solely by public interest and support. As a longtime user of FOSS, I can only tell the new folks how we pined for tools like web browsers and office tools. The first KDE build I did was on an early FreeBSD rev from ports. Nothing against the Gnome guys but it was pretty much unusable back in the day (segfault city). The KDE though crufty was cute and stable. I called it KMart windows, but I was hooked, despite the "trollish licence" at the time. In fact its what started my itch to build a better distro. It was .9x that made me realize we could build a rev for John Q. Public. As such I understand these men in their desire, and without them we would still be held tightly in the clutches of the Beast. All the best, Dan PS: and when can we expect to see XGL integration? :-) >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >clug-talk mailing list >[email protected] >http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca >Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) >**Please remove these lines when replying > -- Chaos, panic, & disorder - my work here is done. _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
