Anne Wilson wrote: >> I still find the KDE-3/4 changeover completely baffling. >> It is as though the KDE-3 team had been lost in an earthquake >> with all their archives, >> and a new team developing KDE-4 had to work >> from their recollection of how KDE-3 functioned. >> > It's only when you've used 4 for a while that you realise just how many > things > in 3.x were only half-functional. When I first tried 4.0 I thought I'd > never > live with it. Now there are so many things about it that I love and use > constantly that I now find it quite frustrating to work with a 3.x > machine. > > You can't get away from the fact that it is very different, and there is a > learning curve, but I'm convinced that it is will worth it. I'm not criticizing KDE-4, which I find perfectly usable. It is just that many of the changes from KDE-3 to KDE-4 struck me as completely pointless; the new was neither better nor worse than the old, just different. I feel I had to waste a lot of time to no advantage, which I suspect is how Linus Torvalds felt. In fact, most of the time I'm using applications - kmail, knode, Firefox - and I just want to get to them as simply and quickly as possible. I realize this is sacrilege, but I actually think Windows XP is much better organized from this point of view. except for the multiple desktop idea, which I find great.
