Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2008 14:41 UTC, submitted by superstoned
"I think it's really necessary to respond to some criticism seen on the reactions to the latest OSnews article. I won't go into the article itself, imho it's rather negative, but hey. From an user's perspective, it makes sense to only review 3 or 4 parts of KDE 4 and complain about them, and ignore all the other brilliant pieces of work in there, right? On to the responses, I found this reaction by dagw to be the most typical. Well. That's painful. So, is he right? Did we make the wrong decision? Let's look at it from a broader perspective for a while. Let's see it in the Grand Scheme of Things to Come."
Thread beginning with comment 295872
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-07-07
Being stable but underfeatured in this way is not suitable for a consumer product. I think you don't understand part of the KDE audience
See: http://osnews.com/permalink?295864
If you're going to nag, I'd nag about the need to use the big 3rd party KDE apps and KDE Pim from KDE 3... Hauling all of those libraries and icons and services into memory, with redundant technologies eating my CPU. Oh, woe is me that can't run a 'pure' qt / KDE 4 stack :p (Then again, apt-get remove 'KDE 3' does give a person something to look forward to.)
In short, stable and underfeatured, but usable for daily work is fine. Heck, I could argue that all of GNOME remains stable but underfeatured