Kde 3.1 questions

[Tim Wunder]

On Saturday 08 February 2003 1:17 pm, someone claiming to be Brett I. Holcomb 
wrote:
> No, I'm not anti-KDE - I  just don't want to use it -. nor did I speak
> against it - I simply said I read the changes and remembered why I didn't
> want to use it.  Any one who wants to use it is welcome - and I did try and
> give the man some help.
>

Ahh, but you *did* speak against it by virtue of the <G> added to your 
comments.

> As it stands I abandoned KDE for many reasons.   One was bloat.  It's just
> so big.  One thing though was every few weeks we had to wipe out files in
> /tmp and other places and let KDE recreate them because you lost the panel
> or it wouldn't log in. 

Gee, I haven't had to do that, um, since around 2.1, and rarely then.

> Then there was Konq - a fantastic file manager -
> bad browser as you had the try Konq at site , failed, try Mozilla - works
> routine.

KHTML has matured well beyond what it was in the 2.2.1 days. 

>  I guess the final straw was that when we submitted bugs on KDE 2
> almost a year before KDE 3 was out we were told "use the beta or wait" -
> not a good situation in a production environment.
>

Fine. I'll agree with you there. But I don't find that to be the case 
currently. As always, YMMV. Have you seen this 
http://www.linux-mag.com/2002-11/kde_01.html ?

> To be honest, I did think of trying KDE 3.1 as I did see the list of
> improvements but held off and now I'm seeing the same thing I saw with KDE
> 3  - people in mail lists, forums, etc. having trouble that they shouldn't
> be having in installing and running it so I backed off.  I have enough
> other stuff to worry about.
>

Most problems I see are people trying to install binary RPMs, getting 
dependancies and resolving them with --force and --nodeps. Talk about not 
good. I will not install a new KDE from rpm, it's simply too big, and affects 
far too much, to trust *anyone's* binary RPMs. I build it manually from 
source, install via checkinstall, and only get what I need/want.

> I'm not denying KDE 3.1 is different than KDE 2.x but I don't want it
> 's differences so I decided to stick with xfce which works and does what I
> need.  I just don't want to fight with KDE again and to try it I'd have to
> go through all the hassle of trying to compile it and then make it work.
>

Fine. Use XFCE, I don't particularly care one way or the other. But, don't 
disparage KDE 3.1 based on your experience with KDE 2.2.1.

Regards,
Tim

<snip>

-- 
RedHat Psyche 8.0, stock kernel, KDE 3.1.CVS, Xfree86 4.2.1
  7:00am  up 9 days,  9:31,  1 user,  load average: 0.32, 0.08, 0.02
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts