To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"""
"""
Indeed. To put that in perspective, it took over 3 and a half years from the release of kernel 2.6.0 for Slackware to move from 2.4.x to 2.6.x. Until last month, Slackware was still 2.4.x-based.
What Patrick accomplishes may be impressive for a one man show. But an impressive one man show is still a one man show. His human resources are extremely limited, and KDE definitely comes with less in the way of dependency issues.
Erm. Both things a distro maintainer should ALWAYS take into account when constructing a distro.
Really, they're just different DE's. Some people prefer Apples, other Oranges. That's it. Some people will fly around KDE, know every shortcut, intuitively understand dialog boxes, settings, etc.
Those same people will feel Gnome is clunky, boxy, overly restricted and limited with a lack of configuration/tweaking options.
The same goes the opposite way - Gnome users may find KDE too cluttered and complex, etc.
What the REALITY is most users have used both. Most people aren't religious about it. It reminds me of the Red vs. Blue talk in the USA that polarizes so many people for no reason. Most are in the middle and have their preferences.
Fighting about it is pointless...




Member since:
2006-02-28
Pat Volkerding gave up on gnome because of maintenance complexity, _not_ because of gnome complexity. There is a huge difference between bloat on the backstage (maintenance, development for devs, compilation, installation for power users/distro developers), and bloat on the stage (slow response, big memory footprint, weird bugs/crashes, brain-dead UI consistency and usability). One refers to the code itself, the other refers to what the code is doing.
[edit: typo]
Edited 2007-08-23 12:02