Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:56:15 +1000
From:      Da Rock <>
Subject:   Re: KDE: What a monster!
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <> <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 08:31 +0200, Jonathan McKeown wrote:
> On Monday 26 January 2009 17:02:05 n j wrote:
> > Linus Torvalds on KDE4...
> >
> > [quote]
> >
> > A: I used to be a KDE user. I thought KDE 4.0 was such a disaster I
> > switched to GNOME. I hate the fact that my right button doesn't do
> > what I want it to do. But the whole "break everything" model is
> > painful for users and they can choose to use something else.
> >
> > I realise the reason for the 4.0 release, but I think they did it
> > badly. They did so many changes it was a half-baked release. It may
> > turn out to be the right decision in the end and I will re-try KDE,
> > but I suspect I'm not the only person they lost.
> I've seen it suggested that KDE4 is faster than KDE3.
> I'm running FreeBSD 7.0 - granted, my machine is not brand-new: it's a P4 
> 1.8GHz with 512MB of RAM and an NVidia GeForce MX4000 (I mention the graphics 
> card because the latest NVidia binary driver doesn't support it). KDE3.5 does 
> what I want my window manager to do - keeps out of my way and works snappily 
> enough that I don't notice it.
> I recently installed PCBSD7.02, which uses KDE4.1. It's unusable. For example, 
> with only two applications running - the KBreakout game and the Psi 
> Jabber/XMPP client - the game was unplayable because each time Psi received 
> an incoming chat or event, the game froze for a second or two while KDE 
> struggled to open the chat window.
> The claim that KDE4 is faster than KDE3 is frankly incredible to me.

Wouldn't that be dependent on the Xorg server version and setup? It may
be that some extra features of the video you're using need to be

That said I'm not very impressed either (speed, features, etc). It looks
to me like they've gone to compete with Vista and have succeeded there,
but I find some of the little extras and the core of it seem unfinished
somehow. The concept is good (in that it could compete with Vista), but
to be completely successful in that venture even the aesthetics need to
be tidied up.

I'm also ashamed that they released it in a hurry to compete in this
condition to a very sceptical Window$ crowd. If they had of waited and
finished it properly even if it didn't reach the masses before Vista
they may have pulled more disgruntled users from the M$ addiction. Now
most are under the impression that nothing is any better than the crap
they have now so they may as well stick with it...

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>