I have a question regarding the KDE/Gnome debate, maybe you can help with it: do you think that you can all please shut the fuck up? It's because of people like you that I can't read these forums anymore. Go troll each other in pm.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
KDE Does Its Second 4.7 Release Candidate
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by mugginz View PostAnd with that you betray that you've not understood what I'm saying there. I would say though that to misunderstand what I wrote in my first post even after I explained the detail of the actual motivation behind it doesn't suggest a good faith reading of what I wrote. The reason for my first post follows it on the first page of this thread, and then further into it.
Well the basis for the first post was certainly explained within the first page of this thread. Then further on this page. While the subject of KDE4's stability can be seen as a hot topic, simply discussing it or bringing up stability as a relevant element of a new release of a desktop isn't too far off the pale surely. It's an issue that's been the subject of discussion for quite a while now at any rate. The issue of Gnome2 and functionality has also been a running topic for quite a while. If someone brought up the stability issue within a Gnome3 release statement I'm not sure how anyone could see that as irrelevant. It's up to that project to provide a reason to be happy about stability via quality code that's robust enough for day to day use.
I'm not biased. I don't make brand allegiances. To do so puts one in a position of difficulty when their chosen brand doesn't perform as required. The reliability of the products of brands can change over time, and as someone who isn't contributing to either Gnome of KDE4 I have no control over what level of breakage they do or don't ship with their code. I'm certainly not going to hitch my ship to anything when I'm in that kind of position. If Gnome2 updates cause breakage of an unsatisfactory nature for me in the future then my options will be to not integrate them, live with them or shift to an alternative subject to what makes the most sense at the time. If I want to use Ubuntu 11.10 which will be shipping Gnome3 and a Unity desktop based on it it'll make sense to perform some tests in the future. Calling me a Gnome fanboy isn't really consistent with the fact that I've used both desktops and that I'm happy to acknowledge any benefits KDE has over Gnome, even now while I use a Gnome desktop. The fact that Gnome has some over KDE as well doesn't evade me as I've discussed in this thread and is why it's what I use for the moment.
Apparently I do need to explain such things to you if you consistently misunderstand what I'm saying, either deliberately or not.
I also disagree that my entire discussion is about other things as well.
Chronologically, it's gone basically like this.
- Firstly I mentioned the breakage in the release announcement.
- Then I responded that no, they were already made aware that the breakage was there before I posted and then went on to detail why I posted there at all.
- Then I responded that no, I wasn't talking about Gnome3, but specifically ?What I wrote relates to my experience with the KDE 4 series, Gnome 2 series, and now with Ubuntu's Unity interface.?
- Then later even more detail on the nature of the instability that I found with KDE4.
All of this before the first page had even been filled. By post 8 in this thread actually.
People have then claimed that the issues were even worse with Gnome2, that the problems I had with KDE4 were a figment of my imagination or due to infrastructure or more specifically, the distro that I may have been using and other such things which I've then responded to as you've read.
I've then been told that my responses to those questioning the veracity of my claims were nothing more than trolling on my behalf, ultimately leading to my statement
You can and will likely will continue to claim that the issues I found were not those of KDE but instead those of the distro/infrastructure/hardware. The diversity of hardware and distro and the period of time over which the usage occurred isn't consistent with mere sole platform issues.
I didn't agree that KDE4 was as stable or more so than Gnome2. I still don't. I've detailed what I base my view upon. I feel that KDE4 hasn't been in the same ball park as Gnome2 in relation to stability. I mentioned that I felt this could very well be due to the fact that the Gnome2 desktop, at least from a functionality standpoint, was less grandiose than KDE4, but that ultimately when talking about having a dependable desktop, grandiose software which is unreliable is less palatable than software which may be less featureful, but more stable.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mugginz View PostAnd with that you betray that you've not understood what I'm saying there. I would say though that to misunderstand what I wrote in my first post even after I explained the detail of the actual motivation behind it doesn't suggest a good faith reading of what I wrote. The reason for my first post follows it on the first page of this thread, and then further into it.Originally posted by kraftman View PostAre you aware your motivation makes nearly no difference? Why should I care about your firsts posts in this thread while other were so trollish?
Originally posted by mugginz View PostWell the basis for the first post was certainly explained within the first page of this thread. Then further on this page. While the subject of KDE4's stability can be seen as a hot topic, simply discussing it or bringing up stability as a relevant element of a new release of a desktop isn't too far off the pale surely. It's an issue that's been the subject of discussion for quite a while now at any rate. The issue of Gnome2 and functionality has also been a running topic for quite a while. If someone brought up the stability issue within a Gnome3 release statement I'm not sure how anyone could see that as irrelevant. It's up to that project to provide a reason to be happy about stability via quality code that's robust enough for day to day use.Originally posted by kraftman View PostI don't know why are you talking about this. You still don't get what was the point? If you wouldn't ignore other people experiences and blindly follow yours, it will make a huge difference.
You said
Originally posted by kraftman View PostAs far I can see you intentionally posted a flame bit in this thread and you were blindly following you ideology.
Now, specifically to your question "I don't know why are you talking about this," you had misunderstood my first post as a troll. So I then posted
Originally posted by mugginz View PostWell the basis for the first post was certainly explained within the first page of this thread. Then further on this page. While the subject of KDE4's stability can be seen as a hot topic, simply discussing it or bringing up stability as a relevant element of a new release of a desktop isn't too far off the pale surely. It's an issue that's been the subject of discussion for quite a while now at any rate. The issue of Gnome2 and functionality has also been a running topic for quite a while. If someone brought up the stability issue within a Gnome3 release statement I'm not sure how anyone could see that as irrelevant. It's up to that project to provide a reason to be happy about stability via quality code that's robust enough for day to day use.
Originally posted by mugginz View PostI'm not biased. I don't make brand allegiances. To do so puts one in a position of difficulty when their chosen brand doesn't perform as required. The reliability of the products of brands can change over time, and as someone who isn't contributing to either Gnome of KDE4 I have no control over what level of breakage they do or don't ship with their code. I'm certainly not going to hitch my ship to anything when I'm in that kind of position. If Gnome2 updates cause breakage of an unsatisfactory nature for me in the future then my options will be to not integrate them, live with them or shift to an alternative subject to what makes the most sense at the time. If I want to use Ubuntu 11.10 which will be shipping Gnome3 and a Unity desktop based on it it'll make sense to perform some tests in the future. Calling me a Gnome fanboy isn't really consistent with the fact that I've used both desktops and that I'm happy to acknowledge any benefits KDE has over Gnome, even now while I use a Gnome desktop. The fact that Gnome has some over KDE as well doesn't evade me as I've discussed in this thread and is why it's what I use for the moment.Originally posted by kraftman View PostIt doesn't really matter if you were using both desktops or not to be a fanboy. I consider you're biased and I'm basing on your responses in this thread and on some older ones.
The fact that I use all platforms, each with their own strengths and weaknesses must really gall you. The fact that I could be so rude as to not lock myself down to only using one particular desktop so as to fit some fixed ideology, possibly KDE 4 perhaps, it almost sounds as though it confuses you terribly.
Clearly all platforms have their strengths and weaknesses. I like Microsoft Windows for some tasks as I can at the same time recognise Microsoft as a bad corporate citizen (to say the last, at least in the past) and also see the clear advantages it has over the Linux platform in some areas. When I use a Machintosh, I fail to see the "brain damage" that others consider it to be and find it a pleasant experience, and a most stable one as well. When I use KDE 4 I see a software design and feature set that I like but consider it too unstable for my tastes and so use the less featured but more stable Gnome 2 one instead. It was interesting to hear KDE 4.7's desktop search improvements touted as something to behold, only to be found wanting from a reliability point of view, due in part because of Strigi I believe.
It is in fact the lack of "fanboy" in me that frees me to discuss not only the good of the platform I use the most (Gnome 2), but also the bad as well. It's great to not have a "monkey on my back" in the form of brand loyalty that some who frequent internet forums seem to burden themselves with. It frees me to pick and choose the best platform available to me at any given time and not have to worry about what someone else might think, or worry about how the use of a different platform may contradict statements I've made previously. If I was to continuously preach how Microsoft Windows 7 sucked, but then need to use it for say, running Protools or somesuch, it wouldn't be a good look in my view. I can say I both hate the corporate behavior of Microsoft, especially that of them in the 90's, yet still acknowledge that their current version of Windows has some good attributes as well and is the best technical choice in some circumstances and do it with a clear conscience knowing that I've not been unreasonable about the product in the past. When (if) KDE 4 reaches a level of stability that I'm satisfied with I can also with a clear conscience switch back to using it. Pretty basic stuff really. Don't know why you seem to have so much trouble accepting that.
Originally posted by mugginz View PostApparently I do need to explain such things to you if you consistently misunderstand what I'm saying, either deliberately or not.
I also disagree that my entire discussion is about other things as well.
Chronologically, it's gone basically like this.
Firstly I mentioned the breakage in the release announcement.
Then I responded that no, they were already made aware that the breakage was there before I posted and then went on to detail why I posted there at all.
Then I responded that no, I wasn't talking about Gnome3, but specifically ?What I wrote relates to my experience with the KDE 4 series, Gnome 2 series, and now with Ubuntu's Unity interface.?
Then later even more detail on the nature of the instability that I found with KDE4.
All of this before the first page had even been filled. By post 8 in this thread actually.Originally posted by kraftman View PostOh man. Wasn't I clear when I said one of the problems was your attitude (you didn't took into consideration problems can lay somewhere else than in KDE)?
Originally posted by mugginz View PostPeople have then claimed that the issues were even worse with Gnome2, that the problems I had with KDE4 were a figment of my imagination or due to infrastructure or more specifically, the distro that I may have been using and other such things which I've then responded to as you've read.Originally posted by kraftman View PostAnd what's wrong with this part? Different opinion, experience, something wrong with that?
Originally posted by mugginz View PostI've then been told that my responses to those questioning the veracity of my claims were nothing more than trolling on my behalf, ultimately leading to my statementOriginally posted by kraftman View PostYes, I see it exactly like that.
Originally posted by mugginz View PostIt would take a particularly tortured reading of my posts here to conclude that the majority of my discussion here isn't actually merely defending my position that in my experience I've found the Gnome 2 desktop to be much more stable than the KDE 4 one, and that I don't feel that all of KDE's failures are due to lower level infrastructure.
Originally posted by mugginz View PostYou can and will likely will continue to claim that the issues I found were not those of KDE but instead those of the distro/infrastructure/hardware. The diversity of hardware and distro and the period of time over which the usage occurred isn't consistent with mere sole platform issues.Originally posted by kraftman View PostThe point is there's huge possibility the issues were not in KDE, but another point is - it sometimes cannot be proven easily where the problem lays- I mentioned this before and you simply should stop your rant after that.
If the issues were experienced over only a short period of time, with perhaps only one set of hardware and only one distro, perhaps the possibility increases, but not when a lack of quality control was observed over a prolonged usage with varied hardware and distro bases that other desktops were happy with.
Originally posted by mugginz View PostI didn't agree that KDE4 was as stable or more so than Gnome2. I still don't. I've detailed what I base my view upon. I feel that KDE4 hasn't been in the same ball park as Gnome2 in relation to stability. I mentioned that I felt this could very well be due to the fact that the Gnome2 desktop, at least from a functionality standpoint, was less grandiose than KDE4, but that ultimately when talking about having a dependable desktop, grandiose software which is unreliable is less palatable than software which may be less featureful, but more stable.Originally posted by kraftman View PostHeh, but this is just an opinion and some other people's opinions are different.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mugginz View PostYou should care because this thread is a conversation. Statements I've made later on in the thread have a basis in the statements I first made here.
You can consider criticism of KDE as a troll all you like but it doesn't make it true.
I have a long term experience with KDE that I think is relevant and is not merely the stuff of someone wanting to hate KDE 4. You don't think that's relevant? Further, it's been interesting to note the experience of others in relation to the recent release KDE 4.7 as noted in the tech press and associated user comments. It would seem I'm far from an outlier as far as experiencing problems with KDE 4.
You don't know? Even after I've explained several times. You're trying to read something into my words that isn't there. The first time you did it, fair enough, but then I went into more detail as to what I was getting at. You still refuse to accept what I'm saying, and instead want to quote out of context to try and suit your own ends. Lets see.
The post wasn't made out of being a troll and my preparedness to use any desktop environment that suits my needs is wholly inconsistent with me following blind ideology. If I was a KDE 4 user for more years than I was a Gnome 2 one and I'm so susceptible to being locked into ideology, wouldn't I still be using KDE 4? Wouldn't I be prepared to overlook any weaknesses KDE 4 has in order to satisfy my need to stay with the KDE 4 ideology?
Now, specifically to your question "I don't know why are you talking about this," you had misunderstood my first post as a troll. So I then posted
I was explaining the true motivation behind my first post. It may run counter to your mistaken narrative of a troll post, and perhaps given the standard and nature of a fair amount internet forum comments the possibility of the troll word coming across you mind can't be completely ruled out, at least not initially, but further elucidation of my post has clarified, time and time again the true nature of the post. You then seem to pretend that I've not explained further, ignore it, and go back to your initial position. The climate skeptics could perhaps learn a thing or two from you. They would be proud.
What, the ones in older threads where I say I am a KDE 4 user? The ones where I describe the behavior of KDE 4 and Gnome 2, both good and bad for both?
I did look into consideration that on occasion the problems could lay somewhere else but I also noted that the same infrastructure was also supporting a nice and stable Gnome 2 desktop and that didn't appear to sit well with some.
I noted that I was prepared to switch distros to test it's reliability on another teams packaging yet found problems there too. Also, it's not like the problems disappeared over quite a prolonged usage of KDE 4. I said that I didn't buy your assertion that it's all "someone else's fault" for KDE 4's issues when at the same time Gnome 2 could manage and certainly not in the face of an extended usage over years.
Just as we have the drivers we have, and not the drivers we want, we also have the distro infrastructure we have and not the distro infrastructure we want. In the face of that I think it reasonable that the current state of infrastructure should be taken into consideration when developing software.
If the issues were experienced over only a short period of time, with perhaps only one set of hardware and only one distro, perhaps the possibility increases, but not when a lack of quality control was observed over a prolonged usage with varied hardware and distro bases that other desktops were happy with.Last edited by kraftman; 05 August 2011, 08:09 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mugginz View PostYou should care because this thread is a conversation. Statements I've made later on in the thread have a basis in the statements I first made here.Originally posted by kraftman View PostWhy do you write so much about things which can be described in few sentences? It is you who thinks it's just about conversation, but I consider it's about trolling as well. It doesn't really matter if statements you've made later are based on your first posts - your later posts were simply ignorant.
Originally posted by mugginz View PostYou can consider criticism of KDE as a troll all you like but it doesn't make it true.Originally posted by kraftman View PostLike I said few times it's about ignoring facts and other people experiences and not just about criticizing KDE. If you still don't understand this I don't know if conversation makes sense.
Originally posted by mugginz View PostI have a long term experience with KDE that I think is relevant and is not merely the stuff of someone wanting to hate KDE 4. You don't think that's relevant? Further, it's been interesting to note the experience of others in relation to the recent release KDE 4.7 as noted in the tech press and associated user comments. It would seem I'm far from an outlier as far as experiencing problems with KDE 4.Originally posted by kraftman View PostYes, I think that's irrelevant, because of what I wrote above... Even if you were a KDE fanboy in the past it doesn't justify your ignorance.
Originally posted by mugginz View PostYou don't know? Even after I've explained several times. You're trying to read something into my words that isn't there. The first time you did it, fair enough, but then I went into more detail as to what I was getting at. You still refuse to accept what I'm saying, and instead want to quote out of context to try and suit your own ends. Lets see.Originally posted by kraftman View PostAsk yourself if you had the point and then rethink everything.
Originally posted by mugginz View PostThe post wasn't made out of being a troll and my preparedness to use any desktop environment that suits my needs is wholly inconsistent with me following blind ideology. If I was a KDE 4 user for more years than I was a Gnome 2 one and I'm so susceptible to being locked into ideology, wouldn't I still be using KDE 4? Wouldn't I be prepared to overlook any weaknesses KDE 4 has in order to satisfy my need to stay with the KDE 4 ideology?Originally posted by kraftman View PostIt's quite irritating to see at the beginning you've missed the point, because it makes your huge posts uninteresting. Your preparedness to use KDE doesn't matter, because of the thing I mentioned above - ignorance - you didn't want to agree other can have far different experience with KDE than you and you didn't want to believe your problems with KDE may lay somewhere else.
If for example one person out of 100 has a bug free experience with KDE 4, that leaves 99 that don't have a bug free experience with KDE 4. See how that could explain your own experience? Now, I did say in my previous post in this thread that my own personal experience is just that, my own experience. But I also said that I'd read many, many more reports of buggy KDE 4 experiences than reports of fault free ones, and that that correlated with my own experience as well.
Originally posted by mugginz View PostNow, specifically to your question "I don't know why are you talking about this," you had misunderstood my first post as a troll. So I then postedOriginally posted by kraftman View PostI think it must be funny feeling realizing that's you who had misunderstood what I was talking about.
Originally posted by mugginz View PostI was explaining the true motivation behind my first post. It may run counter to your mistaken narrative of a troll post, and perhaps given the standard and nature of a fair amount internet forum comments the possibility of the troll word coming across you mind can't be completely ruled out, at least not initially, but further elucidation of my post has clarified, time and time again the true nature of the post. You then seem to pretend that I've not explained further, ignore it, and go back to your initial position. The climate skeptics could perhaps learn a thing or two from you. They would be proud.Originally posted by kraftman View PostIf my motivation is to save the World from the evil and thus I'll kill the half of the entire population, am I good? What were your motives to ignore other people experiences and some circumstantial evidences? As far I can see you didn't clarify why have you ignored those who had different opinion and experience.
If you're killing because you have a mental illness then that's a very, very bad thing. If a police officer shoots and kills the murdering psychopath before he can continue to kill half of the people, well I'd say the police officer's a pretty good guy. Lets look at the motivations, two guys, each one has killed, one is a murderer with no reason for doing so other than his/her mental illness, one is trying to stop the murdering. One has a bad motivation, one has a good one.
Now I didn't ignore other peoples reports of a completely fault free KDE 4 experience but I did refute that it was the overall prevailing one.
My remark to the effect that I felt it was "business as usual" for the KDE folks when coming across the broken release statement has a basis in real life experience over years of using their project as a full time desktop. Further, it would seem that evidence of the basis for my position has been provided with the release of the 4.7 edition of KDE SC.
Originally posted by mugginz View PostWhat, the ones in older threads where I say I am a KDE 4 user? The ones where I describe the behavior of KDE 4 and Gnome 2, both good and bad for both?Originally posted by kraftman View PostOk, enough. You're sticking to wrong point like described above.
Originally posted by mugginz View PostI did look into consideration that on occasion the problems could lay somewhere else but I also noted that the same infrastructure was also supporting a nice and stable Gnome 2 desktop and that didn't appear to sit well with some.Originally posted by kraftman View PostHeh, but it was explained to you by some people KDE could trigger bugs in some parts which wasn't used before (by Gnome 2 in example).
Originally posted by mugginz View PostI noted that I was prepared to switch distros to test it's reliability on another teams packaging yet found problems there too. Also, it's not like the problems disappeared over quite a prolonged usage of KDE 4. I said that I didn't buy your assertion that it's all "someone else's fault" for KDE 4's issues when at the same time Gnome 2 could manage and certainly not in the face of an extended usage over years.Originally posted by kraftman View PostThere are many people who doesn't have problems with KDE. Like I said I had problems with Gnome 2, so I could write about its issues, instability etc. However, I know it works sometimes without problems I was facing and I found it strange you didn't want to realize that the same situation can be with KDE. It's one of the main reasons I considered some of your posts to be trolish.
Originally posted by mugginz View PostJust as we have the drivers we have, and not the drivers we want, we also have the distro infrastructure we have and not the distro infrastructure we want. In the face of that I think it reasonable that the current state of infrastructure should be taken into consideration when developing software.Originally posted by kraftman View PostThat's true and with such attitude it sounds far different. If there are problems in drivers and only KDE suffers from it, both sides should cooperate (KDE should report issue and track the progress of fixing it and driver guys should make a patch), but it wouldn't be fair to say it's simply a KDE's fault. My another point is there were no evidences pointing to KDE's faults, but maybe it was different from your POV - I follow KDE development, read and post some bug reports, so maybe I'm in a better position to point where some problems may be.
Having said that, when the need to turn your attention away from just micro managing problems and issues with the computer you're using and instead go and get some actual work done, it matters not why a particular desktop environment is problematic, only that it is problematic. If I'd found the same situation with Gnome 2 then Windows would've been the next stop at that point. Damingly, over a long period of time KDE 4 was problematic. Part of being a professional programmer is dealing with the realities of the target platform. As a hobbiest there's less consequences of taking a more pure academic approach that may lead to a more technically elegant solution, but lead to a real world end user experience that is sub-optimal. Conversely, a more pragmatic approach that is prepared to deal with the realities of the target platform in its current state can lead to a less pure program from a code beauty perspective but at the same time lead to a much more pleasant experience for the end user. It can be wise sometimes to not base ones project on libraries that are unreliable, or it can be worthwhile coding around weaknesses in a somewhat reliable library which may have particular corner case issues that are wise to stay away from. If the KDE 4 team have dependencies on broken code, that in itself is a weakness of the KDE 4 desktop. Ultimately, if Gnome 2 is reliable in an environment where KDE 4 is not, then don't be surprised if someone who doesn't have the time to patch the code themselves finds another environment.
Originally posted by mugginz View PostIf the issues were experienced over only a short period of time, with perhaps only one set of hardware and only one distro, perhaps the possibility increases, but not when a lack of quality control was observed over a prolonged usage with varied hardware and distro bases that other desktops were happy with.Originally posted by kraftman View PostAsk yourself: quality control of what Linux's stack? Many things points to graphic drivers related problems and some other to dbus (this one is already proven). About graphic drivers - there's a thread on Phoronix describing problems with kwin and the drivers which expose 'features' as complete even if they're not, so this can lead to problems on some configurations. Keep in mind many other don't suffer from the problems you've described, so if you didn't post a bug reports or if devs aren't able to reproduce problems it will be hard to fix.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mugginz View PostYou think I'm trolling? Well you're wrong. Simple. (and in one sentance.)
I'm not ignoring others experiences. I've noted that I've read many more complaints about KDE 4's stability than I've read good reports. That'd be other peoples experiences. Make sense?
You think it's OK to ignore the meaning behind what I'm saying. At the same time you ask that I not ignore the experience of others, yet I did mention the experience of others. It's helpful to read with comprehension.
I don't even know what this means. Perhaps you're becoming more irrational over time.
Here you demonstrate more lack of understanding.
If for example one person out of 100 has a bug free experience with KDE 4, that leaves 99 that don't have a bug free experience with KDE 4. See how that could explain your own experience? Now, I did say in my previous post in this thread that my own personal experience is just that, my own experience. But I also said that I'd read many, many more reports of buggy KDE 4 experiences than reports of fault free ones, and that that correlated with my own experience as well.
You directly called my first post a troll. You were wrong. I explained in detail the meaning of the post. You then called it a troll again. You're still wrong. If I've misunderstood you then you must be telling me that you don't consider my first post a troll. Perhaps we do have progress here.
So are you saying that the reason behind something's always irrelevant?
If you're killing because you have a mental illness then that's a very, very bad thing. If a police officer shoots and kills the murdering psychopath before he can continue to kill half of the people, well I'd say the police officer's a pretty good guy. Lets look at the motivations, two guys, each one has killed, one is a murderer with no reason for doing so other than his/her mental illness, one is trying to stop the murdering. One has a bad motivation, one has a good one.
Now I didn't ignore other peoples reports of a completely fault free KDE 4 experience but I did refute that it was the overall prevailing one.
My remark to the effect that I felt it was "business as usual" for the KDE folks when coming across the broken release statement has a basis in real life experience over years of using their project as a full time desktop. Further, it would seem that evidence of the basis for my position has been provided with the release of the 4.7 edition of KDE SC.
You're making statements saying I'm a fanboy yet my posts in the past and the ones here don't bear that out. If you're going to make inaccurate statements about me then I'm going to point that out to you and I can't see anything wrong with doing that.
And it was explained to you that when one is to make a selection for a desktop environment where stability is a prerequisite, it makes no sense to select a desktop environment that bases itself on buggy infrastructure. I see you didn't understand my post above. It is directly in the KDE team's control upon what they base their project and in what way they use it. See my statement regarding Strigi. Not to mention of course that over a prolonged period of use, where the base infrastructure had seen TLC, KDE 4 was there, still banging out the bugs.
As far as your experience with KDE 4 is concerned, I consider you the outlier here. To clarify, by outlier I mean not the common experience and more the exception than the rule. I gave KDE 4 a jolly good run. Even after I'd come to the conclusion it was time to move to an alternative I still stuck with KDE 4 for a while, but then one too many issues occurred, and that was that.
Having said that, when the need to turn your attention away from just micro managing problems and issues with the computer you're using and instead go and get some actual work done, it matters not why a particular desktop environment is problematic, only that it is problematic.
Comment
Comment