KDE Addressing A Spike In Bug Reports Following The Plasma 6 Alpha

[mrg666]

customization being the most important when it comes to BEHAVIOR, not necessarily "looks."

I think this is "the" most important strength of Plasma. I have customized my Plasma functionality just as I need (no themes, just Breeze) and there is no other DE that can make me feel home any more.

[mercster]

I think this is "the" most important strength of Plasma. I have customized my Plasma functionality just as I need (no themes, just Breeze) and there is no other DE that can make me feel home any more.

Yeah... other desktops make a lot more choices for you... and UI "connoisseurs" can come around and say "Oh this is scientifically proven to be sleek and intuitive" and blah blah blah... I've been working with Xwindow desktops for 30 years, I gotta have something that will do exactly what I tell it, and how. KDE is tops for that (XFCE ain't bad either, but last time I used it I still couldn't get an exact behavior I wanted, I don't remember what... I think it had to do with which icons show up on which of my two monitors... something goofy, but it bugged me.) I'm not sure many people realize the extreme degree to which you can modify the look, behavior, and everything else with KDE. (GNOME2 was good too.)

[AlanTuring69]

Of course not. The usual gnomshitters littering KDE threads.

Very smart to group all users of a competing desktop UI together when only a very small portion are cringe enough to flame other DEs on a random web forum.

It's nice to see that KDE and GNOME are still very much both alive and kicking (along with Xfce) 15 years after I first used them. Can use them all for professional tasks.

[woddy]

Gnome was a counter movement to KDE. KDE used Qt and the license of Qt was being made more open source compatible. Since this did not happen fast enough, Gnome was born by using Gimp's toolkit (GTK) instead of Qt to build a desktop env. It worked out quite well for them: they still exist and their product looks nice.

While you'd expect Gnome to be the more "bazaar" style project compared to KDE, the opposite is true. Gnome seems to be more "cathedral" with corporate backing, and top down leadership. In the mean time the Qt lib has long been released under several open source licenses: GPL 2.0, GPL 3.0, LGPL 3.0 and LGPL 2.1 (with Qt special exception).

I don't understand the relevance! Gnome and Plasma are two different DEs, with different approaches and different interfaces and that's right if we want to be free to choose. I don't care in the slightest about the licenses or the reasons why Gnome was born.

[rafanelli]

I don't understand the relevance! Gnome and Plasma are two different DEs, with different approaches and different interfaces and that's right if we want to be free to choose. I don't care in the slightest about the licenses or the reasons why Gnome was born.

Ok, about relevance. You said (what I reacted on):

If KDE Plasma was like Gnome it would have no reason to exist.

So you started to talk about Gnome's "reason to exist". I tried to help you be explaining what was that reason: not difference in interface (look for old screenshots: the difference in interface came much later), but a license issue. History lesson for you, but you do not seem to be able to understand it.

[woddy]

Ok, about relevance. You said (what I reacted on):



So you started to talk about Gnome's "reason to exist". I tried to help you be explaining what was that reason: not difference in interface (look for old screenshots: the difference in interface came much later), but a license issue. History lesson for you, but you do not seem to be able to understand it.

I agree about the historical reason, but if it weren't for that reason, I suppose GTK Gnome would have been born regardless, as other DEs have been born.