The latest beta of KDE's 3.2, beta 2, was released a few days ago. I installed the provided Fedora RPMs and had a look in this early pre-release version of the popular X11 desktop environment. Six screenshots are included. We look at both the strengths and the weaknesses of the DE.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
First of all, linux is a kernel, not an OS. Second of all, KDE is more like an OS than a simple environment. If you don't like the size of it, then you haven't understood that something that is more than a simple environment (more than a windowmanager and a panel) is bound to be bigger than say a web browser.
We have started getting people who argument for KDE or Gnome because of the "feel". That is on the same turf as the arguments between AmigaOS, Windows and MacOS's "feel". We have a new situation: windows vs. KDE or KDE vs. Gnome. These environments have become operating system like, or more technically correct, platforms.
I love the KDE platform -> it gives me a highly customizable environment in which I feel totally at home. I can modify the various window gadgets to my liking (AmigsOS style), and I can set a theme I like, with no problems. The panel is wonderful to modify. Actually, when using "easy to use" windows, I get claustrophobic, I can't modify the environment because I have no real choice.
KDE lets me be creative, and I am sure MacOS users and Gnome users can achieve creativity and productivity just like me. The versus fights must stop. They are irrational.
Rationally, KDE has some steps to go. More polish, yes, like finding crystal icons where there are none right now (you also see a mix of icons some places on the screenshots of Eugenia). We also need more system configuration utilities, and better control over fstab so that we are sure we can mount/umount cdroms without hassle (and we're 96% there). I'm really looking forward to 3.2, and I have been for a long time now. It's the best environment I have used! And it has a reason. A rational one. Why I use it exclusively is on the other hand less rational. But that choice is hardly open to rational discussion. I just love it
First of all, linux is a kernel, not an OS. Second of all, KDE is more like an OS than a simple environment. If you don't like the size of it, then you haven't understood that something that is more than a simple environment (more than a windowmanager and a panel) is bound to be bigger than say a web browser.
It's the best environment I have used! And it has a reason. A rational one. Why I use it exclusively is on the other hand less rational. But that choice is hardly open to rational discussion. I just love it 
We have started getting people who argument for KDE or Gnome because of the "feel". That is on the same turf as the arguments between AmigaOS, Windows and MacOS's "feel". We have a new situation: windows vs. KDE or KDE vs. Gnome. These environments have become operating system like, or more technically correct, platforms.
I love the KDE platform -> it gives me a highly customizable environment in which I feel totally at home. I can modify the various window gadgets to my liking (AmigsOS style), and I can set a theme I like, with no problems. The panel is wonderful to modify. Actually, when using "easy to use" windows, I get claustrophobic, I can't modify the environment because I have no real choice.
KDE lets me be creative, and I am sure MacOS users and Gnome users can achieve creativity and productivity just like me. The versus fights must stop. They are irrational.
Rationally, KDE has some steps to go. More polish, yes, like finding crystal icons where there are none right now (you also see a mix of icons some places on the screenshots of Eugenia). We also need more system configuration utilities, and better control over fstab so that we are sure we can mount/umount cdroms without hassle (and we're 96% there). I'm really looking forward to 3.2, and I have been for a long time now.