> Very well said Darrell.  And TDE is not going anywhere
> soon if I have
> anything to say about it. :-)

I'm glad to hear that! I have learned so much by participating in this project. One such skill is learning a thing or two about compiling packages. Another is spotting bugs. I am learning C++ and can submit minor patches. If R14 was the last of Trinity I would be able to obtain a few years life out of that environment. By then I'm sure the horizon will have changed with respect to other options. Yet my first choice is to see Trinity grow. :)

> Responses like yours are good material for the KDE4 devs to
> digest as
> well.  If they care about the users then they can use
> your insight to
> actually do something about KDE's flaws.  If not, their
> desired direction
> will be clearer and we can safely ignore a good chunk of the
> criticism (as
> you said above).

Thank you. I want to emphasize again, for the trolls and those who have not read my previous response, I have no hatred for KDE4 or other desktop environments. The simple fact is those other environments do not satisfy my style of desktop computer usage. I wish advocates of those other desktops would accept that simple reality.

Yes, I'm not shy about expressing my opinion that those environments do not satisfy my style of desktop computer usage. But a difference of opinion and preferences should never be construed as hatred.

Second, there is nothing wrong with the concept of forking. Humans have been forking ideas and communities since the beginning of civilization. Forking is a natural way for humans to grow, mature, and evolve. Forking is very much an essential ingredient to improving how we exist.

Third, I would be far more open to using KDE4 if the KDE4 developers would address the three triplets of Akonadi, Nepomuk, and Strigi. Mere disabling the latter two is insufficient. End-users should be able not to install those packages without KDE4 failing to start or run. The problem with Akonadi is deeper but unless the developers provide end users the option to use or not use that backend, then I don't see KDE4 in my near future. The developers need to accept the reality that regardless of their skilled opinions about those three technologies --- and yes, the KDE4 developers are indeed a skilled bunch --- that a significant number of people do not want and do not need those technologies.

For a simple analogy, I admire the technology and luxury behind a Mercedes Benz, but I neither need nor want such a car. My pickup truck is far more suitable for my lifestyle and my needs and wants.

This observation about those three technologies is what these conversations are about. When developers do not provide users the options to use or not use certain backend technologies then they are acting no different from the proprietary commercial developers so many of us despise. Often I have said that if the Microsoft people had polished NT4 that NT4 would have been a killer desktop environment for running other apps. NT4 was the last of the Microsoft desktops that was benign and non intrusive. Instead those people pushed and rammed W2K/XP down the users' throats and decided they wanted to own the user rather than focus on delivering the best operating system possible. The end result was a lot of hatred and contempt for the Microsoft way of doing things.

The KDE4 (and GNOME and Ubuntu) developers seem to be thinking in a similar pattern --- "our way or the highway." Or, "you're stupid, we're not, so just STFU." In the end I respect their decisions but I'm saddened by such attitudes. The developers have every standing to scratch their own itch. They have standing to ignore what other people want outside their own social circle. If they go down that path then they have to realize they need to be honest with users that they have chosen that policy. If end users really are part of their goals and philosophy then do something about those three backend technologies.

> And yes, Qt4 is the culprit to a large extent when you said
> "I don't like
> the look and feel of KDE4".  What you are seeing is the
> end result of a
> widget pool and default styles that were designed for cell
> phones (after
> all, they are what Nokia makes!).  KDE4 could
> theoretically override these
> defaults, but there is some resistance to creating a new
> widget set that
> is more appropriate for a desktop environment as far as I
> can tell from
> reading various mailing lists.  Part of that is that
> creating widget sets
> is a lot of work, and I guess another part is that smaller
> widgets will
> only serve to accentuate the loss of point-and-click
> functionality from
> items such as toolbars, treeviews, and toolboxes.

Thank you for that explanation. I never was sure. I did not understand the significant style differences between KDE4 and KDE3. Your explanation about "cell phone" influence makes sense and identifies why certain things in Qt4 seem difficult to accomplish. I hope we maintain (T)Qt3 for as long as possible because the (T)Qt3 widget set much better satisfies the desktop style of computing than Qt4.

I want to clarify another point. Both here and in previous threads I have emphasized the phrase desktop usage. I have not closed the doors to how KDE4, GNOME, Unity, etc., perform or look with other environments, such as hand-held devices.

Darrell