John Andersen wrote:
On Thursday 01 March 2007, Kai Ponte wrote:
I remember thinking that the Gnome group were a bunch
of whining children about the whole idea and that creating a second desktop
would do more overall harm than good.
Rather than concentrate on writing a replacement for the one part of KDE
that wasn't totally free (QT) they set out to rebuild the world but without
a blueprint or even a coherent plan. The internals of Gnome are a mess.
So you don't disagree with their objectives or objections, just the way
they went about it?
What do you make of these relatively fresh objections to Trolltech's
behaviour? They do have a bit of a flame-grilled flavour, I must admit.
http://lists.trolltech.com/qtopia-interest/2006-06/msg00003.html
http://lists.trolltech.com/qtopia-interest/2006-05/msg00006.html
Context:
http://www.linuxtogo.org/gowiki/OpieWithAngstrom
http://qtopia.net/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=100&forum=1
I still stand by my opinion from then. I don't at all mind Enlightenment,
IceWM and the other "lightweight" desktops,
Agreed.
KDE is often called bloated, but a GNOME is actually worse after
a couple applications are loaded.
That may be so, but it's somewhat beside the point I was making :-)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
