Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 17:45 UTC
X11, Window Managers Apparently, my article a few days ago caused a bigger stir than I had anticipated, not at all unrelated to the fact that my wordings may not have been optimal. So, let me clarify things a bit.
Thread beginning with comment 195744
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Huh?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 21:25 UTC in reply to "Huh?"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I think this statement is, to put it simply...not true.

"Other than that, KDE and GNOME developers themselves are never shy of referring to GNOME 3 and KDE 4 in a positive context" does NOT mean: "talking about it every possible moment".

It just means what it says right there-- that GNOME 3 and KDE are often used in a positive context without ANYBODY ever bringing up the argument that version numbers mean nothing-- however, as soon as I use the designations in a negative context, everybody is up in arms about the version numbers. That's rather hypocritical. That's all.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Huh?
by ciplogic on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 21:32 in reply to "RE: Huh?"
ciplogic Member since:
2006-12-22

Taking about GNOME 3, it already exist in GNOME. As you can imagine, Project Topaz page evolve, and most of it's ideas were put inside of the "old gnome" at the moment that were time and posibility to make them available (and were good ideas).

KDE 4 is on time on evolving, even right now it looks even uglier than KDE 3! Did you sow a build of Longhorn in 2003? That which looks as XP + a sidebar? And asks 384 RAM with doing nothing? I think that is the same as you count down.

GNOME or KDE hipocrisy is the same as you say the Vista is better as much as features, when of course they implement something in that two years, but from the articles it seems that GNOME and KDE doesn't evolve. That is the outside view.

Numbering in linux DEs, different from Windowses service packs which add mostly fixex and no visible update, the GNOME and KDE evolves a lot (look on screenshots on KDE page, and see some of them).

Edited 2006-12-23 21:36

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Huh?
by Daniel Borgmann on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 21:38 in reply to "RE: Huh?"
Daniel Borgmann Member since:
2005-07-08

But what are you talking about? Nobody is raving about how great GNOME 3 will be and it's never brought up as an excuse when GNOME is to be compared with Vista or OSX. Topaz is purely playground, it's neither used to make GNOME look good, nor should it be used to make GNOME look bad. There is plenty of good innovation that can and will still happen in the 2.x line.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Huh?
by tux68 on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 22:24 in reply to "RE: Huh?"
tux68 Member since:
2006-10-24

It just means what it says right there-- that GNOME 3 and KDE are often used in a positive context without ANYBODY ever bringing up the argument that version numbers mean nothing-- however, as soon as I use the designations in a negative context, everybody is up in arms about the version numbers. That's rather hypocritical. That's all.

Bzzzzt... Nobody was up in arms because you dared use version numbers in a negative context. People rejected your use of them in such a simple minded way. You used the lack of major new version numbers as "proof" of stagnation. People have tried to explain to you in post after post, why you are wrong.

Imagine when KDE 4 is fully released, someone writing on OS/news: "version 4 of KDE is out now and Microsoft won't have anything to replace Vista for 2 or 3 more years! That means they're in trouble!!" You'd think that person was smoking something illegal. Yet that pretty much sums up your entire article, except the names were reversed.

If you want to compare desktops, compare FEATURES, not major version release dates. And stop calling other people hypocrites because they took you to task for the conclusions you drew from the fact that Gnome and KDE aren't going to release major versions soon.

Reply Parent Score: 5