--- Joe Klemmer <klemmerj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 16:29 +0000, Timothy Murphy wrote: > > > > I'm using the Fedora-provided KDE, I don't see what the problems with it > > > are supposed to be. It works great for me. > > > > Same here. > > > > It is amazing that this long thread appears to be based on an apparent > > problem with KDE, but no-one as far as I can see has said what the > > problem is. > > I've said this before and I'll say it again. There's nothing wrong > with KDE or with GNOME. They are 99.9% identical in their usability. > They can easily be themed to look the same but that's nothing > significant. When it comes down to it they are both WinXX based GUIs. > I have never understood the KDE/GNOME war. Yes, back in the very dark > ages the whole thing was started due to the Qt license but that was > quickly resolved. In today's world, any differences between the two are > so insignificant as to be purely inconsequential. If you like KDE then > that's great. If you like GNOME then that's also great. > > It's like wearing a blue jacket with silver buttons as opposed to a > black jacket with gold buttons. Same pockets, same stitching, same > material, same same. I agree: there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of them. But it would surely be good to have a low-resources alternative which would speed up actually computing for all those who care about those things. It is called getting the extra bang for the buck. Why is this important? If you have something consuming more resources, less is going to be available for those computing jobs which have a set amount of need. Compare the performance of xubuntu with ubuntu or kubuntu and you will have an idea about what I am mentioning here. Best, Trotter ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the New Yahoo.com (http://www.yahoo.com/preview)
