On Sunday 06 September 2009 21:12:37 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Sunday 06 September 2009 19:31:27 Peter Humphrey wrote: > > On Sunday 06 September 2009 10:49:13 Alan McKinnon wrote: > > > One thing [kde:4] definitely is not, is the next evolution of KDE-3. > > > Comparisons with KDE-3 are going result in disappointment > > > > Well, that seems to condemn v4 out of hand :-) . If it can't compare > > favourably with its predecessor, what's it doing there at all? > > Read the post again. I said nothing about favourable, unfavourable or > anything else like that. > > I only said that KDE4 is not KDE3 (doh...) so if you run KDE4 thinking > you are going to get something like KDE3 you are going to be > disappointed. It is not like KDE3, it is not built on KDE3, it is not an > evolution of KDE3. It is different, and stands on it's own. Comparisons > with KDE3 are unfair, sort of like comparing you with your father is > unfair.
The way I read your words is equally valid. If I compare a later version with its predecessor I don't expect to be disappointed. > > I'm working quite hard at getting used to it (it's even the default > > grub choice), but it's uphill all the way. > > Um, dude.... grub selects a kernel. Or an OS. But never a DE. > The dm does that. Depends how you have it set up. On this box I have two separate installations: one with kde:3 and one with kde:4. I select the one I want with grub entries. -- Rgds Peter
