> My second choice after KDE3 would be XFCE4, but there are a
> bunch of problems with it:

Thanks for reminding me of many reasons why I get frustrated with Xfce/GTK. In summary, every time I have to edit a gtkrc file my initial reaction is always WTF. That data format must have been designed by a deranged person. And that is one of the points I raised about GTK: are the GTK developers so consumed with NIH (Not Invented Here) that they need to introduce convoluted ideas like gtkrc?

I give the Microsoft people (or whoever introduced the idea) credit for the simplicity of the INI file, which KDE/Trinity uses.

> And technical considerations aside, the KDE4
> community seems unable
> to accept criticism gracefully.  Their product is
> simply not good enough for me
> to put up with that attitude.

I understand and appreciate the psychology and emotion of people rejecting my ideas. Been there done that many times. Yet to turn hostile toward criticisms is unhealthy and does not produce a quality project. In my own programming projects for other people I have had to throw away chunks of code because the customer did not like the approach I took. In the end they were right because they had to use the software, not me. A challenge with free/libre projects is the developers use the software too. But the appropriate approach is not to turn hostile but to support both options. Yes, more sweat equity is required to support both types of users, but a high quality product is the result. Keep the cool geek code but allow other users the option not to be cool geeks.

Generally, the KDE developers are good at providing options. Yet from the beginning of KDE4 many users have rejected the three backend technologies of Akonadi, Nepomuk, and Strigi. With those three technologies the developers have refused to budge and accommodate those who do not want or need those backend services.

Darrell