Peter Humphrey wrote: > 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. > >
Could you post your grub.conf? I'd like to see how you do that. Dale :-) :-)
