On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, carmen wrote: >> Many people (including me) are using KDE4 and it's very clean and user centric > > i found it overtly hostile to basic tasks, like finding a web browser in an app menu > > plus it caused the boot-to-GUI proces to take 3 minutes > >> no problem. Why do some people still have problem using an app just because >> it's a QT or KDE app? I don't get that. > > because, at least on Gentoo, it requires compiling all of KDE and QT, which can be a multi-day affair (compare w/ 5 seconds for dwm, 10 mins for xorg, and 15 for webkit, a 'WebOS' system in a half hour) > > then when you launch a KDElibs app, it launches 10 odd daemons, kdeserver, dcop, etcetc, sucking 200 MB of ram > >> >> Messy? No way! > > the hodgepodge of panels and default icons was certainly messy All this KDE versus non-KDE is interesting, but I already know the downsides of KDE itself. I don't run it all the time, but like having it on my system as an available choice. I was just wondering though whether v4 was quite ready, or whether I should stick to KDE 3. I suppose there are a lot of opinions on that though, since there's a lot of discussion on that already on the Internet right now. For me, it comes down to: Do you think I should allow 'qt4' in $USE at this point, or should I stick to 'qt3' only for now? Loaded question, I know... -- + Brent A. Busby + "We've all heard that a million monkeys + UNIX Systems Admin + banging on a million typewriters will + University of Chicago + eventually reproduce the entire works of + Physical Sciences Div. + Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, + James Franck Institute + we know this is not true." -Robert Wilensky _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
