As seen in another forum:



I agree 100%

Please digg the related story:

http://digg.com/software/I_m_keeping_KDE_3_5_9

Yeah, I agree with you KDE 4 not good in performance and other things.
I'll try KDE 4.1 and see I hope there's a different.

It isn't all that different. Actually Aaron Seigo said that some basic features won't be available before 4.2.
But then it is the whole concept behind KDE4 that many, including myself, don't like.
Even if eventually I used KDE4, I'd configure it to look and behave as KDE3.5 as much as possible. So, what is the point?

Well KDE4 is ok but I don't like the desktop interface. Like there is something different that I can't explain exactly but I don't like it that much. Other then that KDE4 is ok I guess...

The thing that I don't like about KDE 4 is the performance and I don't like it's new interface I'm using 3.5 with Gnome.
I wanted to update to KDE 4.1 I was thinking it will be good but I won't now

Yeah, the new interface. That is what most people don't like.

I actually like oxygen, do u mean the plasmoids and stuff? 

Yeah, oxygen is OK, it is how everything works (or doesn't) that it is not OK ( plasmoids and stuff ).

Yeah plasmoids still don't offer all the feature of 3.5.x, we might have to wait till 4.2 

You seem to spend a lot time waiting...

Not really, I am 3.5.9 as default and I will only completely switch to 4.1 by OS 11.1 maybe 

4.2 will have a few added features and maybe it will be more stable, but it won't be all that different.

how come? what r they planning for 4.2?

Just what I said above: a few more features (nothing major).

I saw a video, but can't find the link right now that allows the folder view plasmoid to act like a regular desktop so lets say if u r pointing to your desktop directory then it will act like a traditional desktop.




I hope at least that feature makes it in 4.2 

This whole KDE 4 thing is really annoying me...

Sure, it's not perfect yet - but the first alpha only came out just over a year ago! Compare it to Vista, where they spent 3 times that and still have a POS of an OS (and yes, I know KDE is just a desktop, but I think my comparison is still valid).

KDE 4 is a HUGE change from KDE 3, and I think it is one in the right direction. They will be able to build much better features on top of the great new platform KDE 4 gives.

Personally, I think they've been rushed into releasing it and that perhaps the 4.0 number should've been given to 4.1.

But guys, get a grip - THINGS CHANGE, and change is good

yeah I like it so far, I am just waiting for it to get more stable

I'm pretty sure using KDE 3.5 is a crime against humanity...

So true, so true.

KDE 3 fell out of the ugly tree, got hit by ugly sticks on the way down. Then it rolled down the ugly hill, went crashing through ugly bushes at the bottom and landed in a big pill of ugly mud.

I don't like KDE 3.5, and if I don't like 3.5 I'm pretty sure I won't like KDE 4 either I prefer GNOME, so it doesn't really matter to me what happens, but since KDE 4 doesn't seem to be a huge hit obviously, its only logical that it is kept alive, at least until they get people to like KDE 4 just as much as 3.5.

No. I'm not digging that, and I'm not going backwards. KDE 4 is a complete overhaul, but unpaid developers, of COURSE its going to have growing pains. It's the same reason Vista is just NOW being accepted and a pleasure to use after 18 months of pain. You just have to give new technology a chance. Stick to KDE 3 (or temporarily switch to GNOME like me) until you are comfortable with KDE 4. All this talk of a fork is simply outrageous.

But so many people have liked, loved and of course used it. Before Ubuntu it was always by far more popular than GNOME.




Nobody really mentioned a fork. But even if they did, forks are the most normal thing in the world of open source.
Why nobody screamed blue murder when Ubuntu forked Debian?

Ubuntu forked Debian...? I'm pretty sure Debian forked Ubuntu, not the other way around... but correct me if I'm wrong.

Debian came first. Ubuntu forked off later.

I like KDE4, just the problems need to be ironed out and I'll be all good with it

InorganicMatter, everybody keeps saying that KDE4 has been done by unpaid developers (that is always the case with open source, unless they are paid by some company).
But if your best friend tells you to jump off a cliff for no reason at all, are you going to do that?

That wasn't what I was saying. All I am saying is that a code base rewrite of any magnitude, ESPECIALLY one as huge as KDE 4, is going to have serious growing pains. KDE's growing pains have actually been relatively small compared to the growing pains of others (e.g.: Windows Vista, or the soon to be Cocoa rewrite of Adobe CS4). Be patient, or use another product in the meantime. Lots of people I know held onto XP and put off on upgrading to Vista for over a year until the bugs were all ironed out. There's nothing wrong with being patient.

Actually most people I know haven't moved to Vista and are not planning to do so
Even those who bought a new computer with Vista preinstalled asked an engineer to install XP.
Same with my new laptop, except that I didn't need an engineer, of course.
With other words, Vista is a fiasco and no amount of bug fixing is going to change that.

An interesting example:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/con...0610_435192.htm

KDE 4 is still in it's infancy. OS X was also immature once, I mean 10.0-10.1 had so many issues, and yet it's come along nicely. One day KDE 4 will mature.

I found this sentence (from an Ubuntu user ).



http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5358967#post5358967

It pretty much sums up the problem, IMO.

The other side of the coin is of course that people believe that KDE 4 is too complicated.

Well said.

Debian indeed came first, and is one of the oldest Linux distributions still around today, being founded a scant few months after Slackware, the oldest Linux distro still being developed today. If you're curious, there is a chart of the lineage and ages of every major Linux distro you can look at.

Well, while we are talking about Debian, previous to Ubuntu it had hundreds of derivatives and none of them ever forked Debian: there is no need for that, you can take whatever you want and you don't even have to say "thank you".
It takes a really devious mind to fork Debian, it is like stealing a lollipop from a toddler.