On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:06:22 +1300 Rik Tindall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick Rout wrote: > > I haven't seen an out and out slugfest between gnome adherents and kde > > > > adherents for years now. In fact you are the only person I have seen who > > > > discusses it with such antagonism. > > It is a mistake to personalise this Nick, because the finger you point > is at a mirror. What on earth are you on about? > > > Most people I know are happy to have > > as many libraries on their systems as is required to run the software > > that they want, whether it is gtk based, gnome based, qt based or kde > > based. Its not as if a modern machine will fall apart because you load > > both the kde and gnome libraries on board. Hardware is relatively cheap. > > No argument there, as stated elsewhere in thread. More message > de-distortion to follow.. Translate to English please? > > > Oh and it is important to have both. The competition is good for the > > progress of both. If there was only one major desktop, progress would be > > slower, even if that desktop had the combined programmers of kde and > > gnome. > > Hmm. Maybe. > > Attend http://lca2007.linux.org.au or similar, to observe how both KDE & > GNOME are crying out for developers - in the same space. > > Both are good products. ..Different uses? > > > And not to ignore the others. XFCE4 is a damned fine working environment, > > as are others. > > Sounds clever, but actually OT. The discussion was of the macro desktop > landscape, and not what indiv.micro.User might choose. > >*** i.e. Is there a 'great desktop shakedown' in the offing, forced > upon > KDE/GNOME (read SuSE/RedHat?) within the *nix/M$ tussle? Within a > Europe/US contest? - Or more of a Novell/M$ tussle? Larry Allison's > Ora-call?.. > > i.e. Is that context what will effect our choice the most, into the > future (subject to patent$)? > > And are we allowed to discuss it? Discussion would invove the trading of reasoned propositions, couched in the English language, not a series of coded messages that mean something to you, and very little to anyone else. There is a prime example of what I mean three paras up (I marked it ***) Another example: > You edited out my ";-)" joke indicator, and ignored my acknowledgment of > being a happy Qt user? - Why? > Spin (dishonest misrepresentation) I read. > > - Why?.. > > What this thread fork has proven is the strong connection between > Qt-exponents 'then' (<= June 1998, when it was non-free) and > Qt-exponents now.[1] And that is, the low moral ground.[2] > > These guys have a conscience, which is so near the surface they run > around with shields_on_full. - So quick to feign grievance, they are > aggressive about it. Defensive to a fault, of a culture they'd claim to own. > > - Definitely not the full story on 'free unix'. A striking veracity deficit. And another: > Soothing convergence (of distribution entitlement; otherwise?..) and: > It proves, once and for all, incontrovertibly, that: > > Microsoft = 'Open Source' = 'Linux' (GNot) more: > Cloud? - simplify the choice enough to remain interesting while focused > (against a mish-mash hobbyist backdrop; referring to meets, not this > list). A small range, where skills are more directly transferable than > from Xdist to Ydist to Zdist brands. Because this subset is the business > end of *nix (corporate roll-outs aside.. or maybe not). > Semi-professional fun. Really Rik, if you want to debate a point, please do it in a way where people can even begin to understand what on earth it is you are trying to say! Nick.
