On Thursday 30 April 2009 5:26:03 am Nikolay Vladimirov wrote: > 2009/4/30 Roberto Ragusa <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > Adam Williamson wrote: > >> We're circling. I already said that even if it doesn't really matter > >> which option you pick, making someone make a decision they don't > >> understand frustrates them. That's the problem, not the 'danger' that > >> they might pick the 'wrong choice'. > > > > Eh eh, the discussion is about giving a user the choice to select > > the desktop he wants. > > > > The GNOME desktop tries to avoid user choices. > > The KDE desktop tries to encourage user choices. > > > > And the decision on allowing a desktop choice divides people > > in two camps: > > 1) those that think the user should not choose > > 2) those that think the user should have to choose > > > > I'd bet people in 1) are GNOME users and people in 2) are KDE users. > > > > I'm in 2) and I'm a KDE user, I'd guess you instead use GNOME ;-) > > > > It is not a cliche, it is really a different way to approach things, > > and it is showing at the choice-about-choice level too. > > > > The no-choice position is intrinsically stronger, because > > it is in some way recursive: > > - no choice > > - no choice about having choices > > - no choice about the choice of having choices > > ... > > > > On the other way, the other approach is more aligned to > > the freedom ideal that Fedora wants to inspire. > > > > IMHO. > > > > :-) > > > > Best regards. > > > > -- > > Roberto Ragusa mail at robertoragusa.it > > It's not only about choices. > At the moment KDE is unstable crap and has been since 4.0 . Gnome is > somewhat stable and simple which is great and that's why it should be > the default desktop. This is obviously subject to personal opinion. The only unstability I currently get are due to the fact I use kdesvn-build to have the latest SVN. A friend of mine uses Fedora KDE on his netbook and is quite happy with it. Another uses 4.2 on gentoo and is also happy as a clam. KDE is just as stable as GNOME. The only problems one might find in fedora is that it doesn't get the same amount of love that your average fedora dev gives GNOME. Putting KDE up there with the same rank as GNOME should work to fix that. > Don't get me wrong I use it on my home Fedora machine and with Kubuntu > in my day job and I do like it. Also one good thing I noticed in > Fedora's KDE is that the nm-applet is from gnome. In kubuntu there is > some replacement that looks prettier but it's total crap. In KDE you > don't get nice audio or video player. Amarok is worse than awful so > are most of the video players. And so on... No nice AV player? You mean like Dragon Player? And if Amarok is so awful, I'm sure the developers would be glad to hear why. They're constantly taking feedback and using it to stop everyone's complaining. > > One thing that really must be addressed is that if I want to install > KDE I have to go trough all the trouble to remove all the gnome stuff > which is a lot of clicking. A different set of applications is needed > for every DE. And it will be good if there is some meta grouping of > the applications. > > On the installation methods I always use netinstall since I have 6-8 > MB/s bandwidth to my local fedora mirror. So I get all the stuff in > the anaconda package selection. It should be fairly easy to say: I > want "Minimal Install" or "I want [Gnome|XFCE|LXDE|SUGAR|KDE]" And all > the packages selected by that choice should intended for this DE. I > don't want rhythmbox in KDE or evolution. So, I'm kinda confused here. Are you /for/ or /against/ promoting KDE to be on the same level as GNOME? Just wondering.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
