To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
KDE is not a total disaster. I use KDE 4.2 and love it. The first two point releases were bad, but it's gaining shape now. Sometimes you need to make a clear cut in your path, like Apple did, like Microsoft did with DOS->NT migration, like KDE guys did.
On the other hand, I see the word enterprise and document used too much in gnome, too much of business involved in the decisions. How boring.
Think about when jumping GTK1 to GTK2.I think that was a mess too.
Form development point of view, stick to old library means we have to deal with potential legacy/ugly code when implement new ideas. And difficult for newbie to contrubute.
Think about the delay of Xorg 7.5. X works for decades. It take afford to implement new feature based on old code. That's why Wayland comes out.(Although it is not a replacement for X, but Wayland make it a lot easier to implement modern stuff).
KDE4 needs a bebase/rewrite to incorporate new things, so there it went.
No one knows when GNOME needs too.
GNOME and KDE are just two different ways of how FOSS evolve.
Hey. I was using KDE long before there was a KDE 1.0. I was using Gnome long before there was a Gnome 1.0. And I went through the Gnome 1.4->2.0 transition. And you are spewing crap. There is no way in hell that the Gnome 1.4->2.0 transition was ever even in the same ballpark as the disaster that has been KDE3->KDE4.
I get the impression that some people think that if they keep claiming so, it will somehow become true. But it won't. I know. I was there. And I will continue to remind folks who are engaging in revisionist history that they are engaging in revisionist history.
Edited 2009-04-04 18:04 UTC







Member since:
2005-07-11
I don't like the look of it. Smells to me like the jump KDE made from 3.x to 4.0. It was a total disaster. Might happen again. Where's that incremental spirit of GNOME?