KDE No Longer Competitive? Developer Calls It Quits

[blackiwid]

Ok, but do you realize that gnome-shell has been such a fiasco that had to be forked 2 times(unity, cinnamon)? and even LinuxMint attempted a gnome2 revival with their Mate fork so make that a third fork... http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...e-year-919888/

thats just not true... the develoopment of gnome2 was stopped by the gnome team so someont other made patches for it, thats no fork thats a attempt to keep it running, and they realised later that that was a bad idea and that gnome-shell is so good that its easy to make extentions that the migration unwilling people dont have problems with it... unity was a fork yes but not because gnome-shell was bad... they forket basicly gnome2 because it worked not good on netbooks... than they were to proud to kill it or to stuborn to agree that gnome did make something better so they made it... the reasons can be seen different, but it was not because gnome3 is to bad... maybe to bad from their view as developer, but nobody said w?hh gnome3-shell is so bad please give us unity it will be better, the difference is true at the beginning where unity was way older but still was more unstable and not as fast as gnome-shell unity gots mass critics... while gnome-shell got less... ( yes there was also some people who did not like it but they all hated unity too... and more people could make there peace with gnome-shell than with unity ) last unity version gots accepted more because it finally got as stable and fast than gnome-shell was.

so unity is a fork of gnome2 that uses some newer gnome-3 libs now, but was not there because all users cried about how bad gnome-shell is... and the extentions that revert some changes in gnome-shell is no fork, so I use a fork of chromium because I installed some plugins or I use a fork of gnome-shell because I use this nice transmission extention? it lets you make a very custom ui, so maybe one did not like the switch on the one place (as example no big application menu) the other dont like this... and they can go all the way back so it behaves nearly like a gnome 2 or make their own mix like they want it... thats great for all people... everyone that liked gnome2 or gnome3 or something between gets what he wants... but looking nice now ^^

[blackiwid]

There is no need to eliminate one or the other... KDE, Gnome, Unity, etc, all of them can coexist well if they agree and share basic standards...
Linux needs basic changes, like a common file dialog or a common system settings application...

KDE, Gnome and the other DE's should have frontends to common backends...
For example, we have gvfs and kio... Gvfs feels more transparent, and could be used on both sides in order to share work...

If they shared some important parts, there would be less bugs, and we would have a better experience...
There would not be reason to fight, because in a pair of years things will be rewritten and/or improved to suit everyone's needs...

thats maybe true but then the problem exists that a company would still have to support at least 2 if not even 3 desktop environments to fully support 99% of the linux users. than in some cases it does not happen... or we get such crappy interface like we did have in openoffice or something like that...

but go for it... I dont care... I know which one will win... kde is no opponent against gnome(shell) unity a bit, but then again its only used in one os on one distribution... that looses users right now... and had his biggest lost of users since it exist because of unity... so I dont see it have a change seperated with it alone... so gnome will (as I belive) win anyways but... with that ubuntu desition it will take much longer... but I can live with that... I just say that such problems ( a fight about the standard desktop (and if you dont have that, they will never use the same backends...) and even the the frontend is a problem) but whatever... ^^ go for it... you said maybe the same about gnome2 for 10 years and loosing market share with kde3 vs gnome2 each year... shurely also because of ubuntu... but still ubuntu did not change to kde.... but fedora switched from kde to gnome-shell as standard... so its clear for me where the journy is going...

but I could also say why its technology-wise a good thing... and no crap... lets begin with that its most polished of all des... but I forget you cant say that I am true here because you love the look of kde ^^ because you hate gnome-shell it cannot be nice looking ^^ then the technologies they used, I needed a while to get it, thought why would they switch to javascript but then I did understand it they just made the switch from 1/10 the developers to the 9/10 so that most developers can easily writh themes animations (with css) and functionality for it. they also are creating a cloud-os with it... (I hope here a kde product gets support soon, owncloud) but except me most noobs where the desktop-market is targeted dont care about data privacy, is that even a known wording in amerika? in facebookland?

it looks great its focused on keyboard what is great too or for tablets but less for mouse... thats where I think most users will use that inputs more in the future... then they made such genious stuff like dynamik workspaces the killed the desktop -forders stuff that is stupid streamlined it here (yes I now you can turn that all off but its the default)... it works way better on laptops where also most users dont want to use the mouse to much... than gnome2.

its a really big step, it was pretty stable in the first 3.0 version where maybe kde is now... or maybe a few months ago it was there... they are great... look about the plugins, they have even way more plugins than libreoffice and owncloud which did have plugin-support or existed much longer... they are genious... activity journal sucks at the moment... they removed the search opened files or folder stuff right now... but thats also good concepts... that is such a big step forward... yes some people dont wanted the switch because there are some regressions to gnome2 and some dont like to see changes at all... but its pretty solid its the web2.0 os.

[Alex Sarmiento]

english is not my first language and I live in europe so its not midle of the day like in amerika at least maybe there where you are? so yes my english is maybe not the best, or for shure its not the best ^^ but at least good enough that you understand me... so I am very effektive with my small range of english words I know ^^.

But yes Distrowatch... and yes I know that there are not more mint users right now that ubuntu users, but there are switching people to mint that can you see there... and I never saw any possitive reactions to unity only the hud seems to be good, but that is nothing that could not be done in gnome-shell... so most of the time you have the be happy if somebody is neutral about unity... and even if you look in the webstore of unity only gets 3 from 5 stars and gnome-shell has 4 from 5 stars... and there are nearly 50% of the comments like it was for unity so I guess it seems to be 50% of the people that installs ubuntu switch away from unity and thats hard because ubuntu-standard is the only unity distribution...

Ok, but do you realize that gnome-shell has been such a fiasco that had to be forked 2 times(unity, cinnamon)? and even LinuxMint attempted a gnome2 revival with their Mate fork so make that a third fork... Which give us at least 3 gnome3 versions and 4 gnome versions, and if you want to include gnome2 it would be 5 gnomes. Even more, if you want to count all gtk desktops including XFCE, it would be 6 gtk+ desktops versions. None of then might be more popular than KDE http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...e-year-919888/

[rainbyte]

I dont wanna talk about apple or microsoft, because its not free, if I would not care about that, I would use maybe apple maybe not...

I wanna talk about the linux-DE?s, so he thinks that gnome isnt good enough too to get support from companies. but thats even now not true, they get some peaces even from canonical but mainly from redhat, redhat is a relative big company so that denys his speech...
But there is one point I agree to, it would be better to have one MAIN desktop environment, I dont talk about that there should not be others, but the standard os for each Major-Linux should be the same... all standards if you want as example desktop items like icons like even the frameworks should be focused on that... so if you want to make another de, you should use this standards or make warppers or something... if that would be gnome(shell) kde should make shure that each gtk/gnome app looks good on their plattform... so then all companies would now, if you wanna support linux, you write your app to make it work in gnome...

and one point made the situation with gnome vs kde even worse that ubuntu crap that no other distribution uses unity. I dont get it, its so easy to customise gnome-shell, they could implement 99% of all the shit as extentions and in javascript files and in css. so to fork this was such a terrible idea... before kde 3 was coming gnome was the clear winner... but kde was not totally dead, or not dead enough ^^ to become the clear looser... so but now ubuntu made that stupid move...

and that from a distribution that was not able to make something that will stand a change against systemd...

There is no need to eliminate one or the other... KDE, Gnome, Unity, etc, all of them can coexist well if they agree and share basic standards...
Linux needs basic changes, like a common file dialog or a common system settings application...

KDE, Gnome and the other DE's should have frontends to common backends...
For example, we have gvfs and kio... Gvfs feels more transparent, and could be used on both sides in order to share work...

If they shared some important parts, there would be less bugs, and we would have a better experience...
There would not be reason to fight, because in a pair of years things will be rewritten and/or improved to suit everyone's needs...

[blackiwid]

First at all: you talk like a 12yo kid. I guess that's because you are 12yo kid.
Second: Who says that linux mint is the most wanted distribution? distrowatch?

english is not my first language and I live in europe so its not midle of the day like in amerika at least maybe there where you are? so yes my english is maybe not the best, or for shure its not the best ^^ but at least good enough that you understand me... so I am very effektive with my small range of english words I know ^^.

But yes Distrowatch... and yes I know that there are not more mint users right now that ubuntu users, but there are switching people to mint that can you see there... and I never saw any possitive reactions to unity only the hud seems to be good, but that is nothing that could not be done in gnome-shell... so most of the time you have the be happy if somebody is neutral about unity... and even if you look in the webstore of unity only gets 3 from 5 stars and gnome-shell has 4 from 5 stars... and there are nearly 50% of the comments like it was for unity so I guess it seems to be 50% of the people that installs ubuntu switch away from unity and thats hard because ubuntu-standard is the only unity distribution...

[Alex Sarmiento]

rofl yes such useless that you become from a sub-distribution like linux mint to become the more liked distribution because you do customize this crap ^^ and unity is so good that it falls from the most wanted distribution to a still most users did not switch away distribution...

First at all: you talk like a 12yo kid. I guess that's because you are 12yo kid.
Second: Who says that linux mint is the most wanted distribution? distrowatch?

[blackiwid]

The only two decent Desktops Environments for linux are actually KDE and Unity. Trying to customize the gnome shell crap is worthless.

rofl yes such useless that you become from a sub-distribution like linux mint to become the more liked distribution because you do customize this crap ^^ and unity is so good that it falls from the most wanted distribution to a still most users did not switch away distribution...

[Alex Sarmiento]

I dont wanna talk about apple or microsoft, because its not free, if I would not care about that, I would use maybe apple maybe not...

I wanna talk about the linux-DE?s, so he thinks that gnome isnt good enough too to get support from companies. but thats even now not true, they get some peaces even from canonical but mainly from redhat, redhat is a relative big company so that denys his speech...
But there is one point I agree to, it would be better to have one MAIN desktop environment, I dont talk about that there should not be others, but the standard os for each Major-Linux should be the same... all standards if you want as example desktop items like icons like even the frameworks should be focused on that... so if you want to make another de, you should use this standards or make warppers or something... if that would be gnome(shell) kde should make shure that each gtk/gnome app looks good on their plattform... so then all companies would now, if you wanna support linux, you write your app to make it work in gnome...

and one point made the situation with gnome vs kde even worse that ubuntu crap that no other distribution uses unity. I dont get it, its so easy to customise gnome-shell, they could implement 99% of all the shit as extentions and in javascript files and in css. so to fork this was such a terrible idea... before kde 3 was coming gnome was the clear winner... but kde was not totally dead, or not dead enough ^^ to become the clear looser... so but now ubuntu made that stupid move...

The only two decent Desktops Environments for linux are actually KDE and Unity. Trying to customize the gnome shell crap is worthless.

[blackiwid]

I dont wanna talk about apple or microsoft, because its not free, if I would not care about that, I would use maybe apple maybe not...

I wanna talk about the linux-DE?s, so he thinks that gnome isnt good enough too to get support from companies. but thats even now not true, they get some peaces even from canonical but mainly from redhat, redhat is a relative big company so that denys his speech...
But there is one point I agree to, it would be better to have one MAIN desktop environment, I dont talk about that there should not be others, but the standard os for each Major-Linux should be the same... all standards if you want as example desktop items like icons like even the frameworks should be focused on that... so if you want to make another de, you should use this standards or make warppers or something... if that would be gnome(shell) kde should make shure that each gtk/gnome app looks good on their plattform... so then all companies would now, if you wanna support linux, you write your app to make it work in gnome...

and one point made the situation with gnome vs kde even worse that ubuntu crap that no other distribution uses unity. I dont get it, its so easy to customise gnome-shell, they could implement 99% of all the shit as extentions and in javascript files and in css. so to fork this was such a terrible idea... before kde 3 was coming gnome was the clear winner... but kde was not totally dead, or not dead enough ^^ to become the clear looser... so but now ubuntu made that stupid move...

and that from a distribution that was not able to make something that will stand a change against systemd...

[devius]

However none of them are worth a damn when it comes to getting work done in the way that Mac OS is. Even the Mac has buggy apps but at least Apple gets the core features to work right.
That being said Linux still has a place in my house. I just see it as a crime to try to sell it as a effective replacement for the likes of Mac OS.

Well, the core Mac OS file manager (Finder) is pretty much terrible. I can get work done, when it comes to managing files, much quicker in any Linux file manager available today. Also, getting work done usually involves opening programs and using them, so how is Mac OS so much better? I use both on a daily basis and I don't see much difference at all when it comes to "getting work done" (apart from managing files like I said earlier).