KDE used to be a very nice desktop environment for Linux, I remember using it over the years in CentOS, Fedora Core, Kubuntu, Mandriva, and PCLinuxOS. I used KDE 3.5.x in Kubuntu and thought it was the best desktop environment available for the Linux operating system. But lately things have gone downhill.
Full story »
http://ardchoille.nfshost.com –
Category: End User Tags:
- Login to post comments
Rhapsody
15 years 46 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago
Bad article, seen it before
Dolphin was introduced a separate, easy-to-use file manager because some thought Konqueror was too complex for such a simple task. It has no tabs because of this, it's not meant to imitate GNOME (which the author, ironically, seem to have migrated to). Don't like it? Konqueror is still the same file manager it always was, use that instead.
KControl has been replaced by System Settings, which used to be Kubuntu specific but is now a part of KDE. I prefer KControl to System Settings for now because System Settings simply seems incomplete (17 modules in System Settings vs too many to count in KControl), but System Settings is likely better now it's a core KDE component. Could the author not find it?
As for the whole wall of text about Plasma, he seems unhappy about the state KDE 4.0 was released in, ignores improvements made in KDE 4.1, and will likely ignore further improvements in KDE 4.2 (which I think of as the first proper replacement for KDE 3.5).
The reason it was released in that state was because the KDE Team wanted widespread testing of it. There was no compulsion to use it, KDE 3.5 is still supported. Further development of KDE 3.5 into KDE 3.6 would just have taken development time from KDE 4 in sunk it into a branch that we all know is going to die. What would be the point?
Abandoning KDE because of this is the height of stupidity. He was happy with KDE 3.5, so why suddenly leave? It's still supported, and will be for some time. KDE 3.5.10 was released after KDE 4.0 was already out. He seemed to assume the unfinished features in KDE 4.0 would never get fixed, which is lunacy. Many were fixed in KDE 4.1, most of the rest will be fixed with KDE 4.2, which is when I intend to switch.
Then finally, talk of a fork. It all sounds good, until you realize that not only would it mean maintaining KDE (not a small job in itself) but also the applications (they've all moved or are moving to KDE 4), and even the Qt toolkit (Trolltech are killing off Qt 3.x, which is part of the reason KDE 4 arrived). Do Canonical really want that sort of responsibility when they're still not even making a profit? Get real.
Really, this is a bad article that says nothing new. The fundamentals of KDE 4 are solid and are turning into a great desktop environment with the subsequent revisions. KDE 4.2 looks like the complete KDE 3.5 replacement I want, and KDE 4.3 will have further improvements and additions. There is no need for a fork.