On Saturday 08 February 2003 1:17 pm, someone claiming to be Brett I. Holcomb wrote: > No, I'm not anti-KDE - I just don't want to use it -. nor did I speak > against it - I simply said I read the changes and remembered why I didn't > want to use it. Any one who wants to use it is welcome - and I did try and > give the man some help. >
Ahh, but you *did* speak against it by virtue of the <G> added to your comments. > As it stands I abandoned KDE for many reasons. One was bloat. It's just > so big. One thing though was every few weeks we had to wipe out files in > /tmp and other places and let KDE recreate them because you lost the panel > or it wouldn't log in. Gee, I haven't had to do that, um, since around 2.1, and rarely then. > Then there was Konq - a fantastic file manager - > bad browser as you had the try Konq at site , failed, try Mozilla - works > routine. KHTML has matured well beyond what it was in the 2.2.1 days. > I guess the final straw was that when we submitted bugs on KDE 2 > almost a year before KDE 3 was out we were told "use the beta or wait" - > not a good situation in a production environment. > Fine. I'll agree with you there. But I don't find that to be the case currently. As always, YMMV. Have you seen this http://www.linux-mag.com/2002-11/kde_01.html ? > To be honest, I did think of trying KDE 3.1 as I did see the list of > improvements but held off and now I'm seeing the same thing I saw with KDE > 3 - people in mail lists, forums, etc. having trouble that they shouldn't > be having in installing and running it so I backed off. I have enough > other stuff to worry about. > Most problems I see are people trying to install binary RPMs, getting dependancies and resolving them with --force and --nodeps. Talk about not good. I will not install a new KDE from rpm, it's simply too big, and affects far too much, to trust *anyone's* binary RPMs. I build it manually from source, install via checkinstall, and only get what I need/want. > I'm not denying KDE 3.1 is different than KDE 2.x but I don't want it > 's differences so I decided to stick with xfce which works and does what I > need. I just don't want to fight with KDE again and to try it I'd have to > go through all the hassle of trying to compile it and then make it work. > Fine. Use XFCE, I don't particularly care one way or the other. But, don't disparage KDE 3.1 based on your experience with KDE 2.2.1. Regards, Tim <snip> -- RedHat Psyche 8.0, stock kernel, KDE 3.1.CVS, Xfree86 4.2.1 7:00am up 9 days, 9:31, 1 user, load average: 0.32, 0.08, 0.02 It's what you learn after you know it all that counts _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
