A look at GNOME 2.14, comparison to KDE

[Janne Ojaniemi]

On Monday 20 February 2006 21:38, Mr Bulldog wrote:
> well it is more of a criticism of kde, i prefer being able to do stuff on
> an oss

None of the differences I mentioned would prevent you from "doing stuff". None 
of the differences I mentioned are about not having features. They are merely 
UI-elements that are sub-optimal.

> , however there is configuration options that can for example make 
> the icons bigger

The problem is not the size of the icons as such

> and you have got the old version of konqueror, which has a 
> much nicer "k" button.

So, I'm required to use old version of Konqueror, that might be missing some 
nice features and bugfixes?

> Where if you don't want a sidebar you can get rid of 
> it.

I do want a sidebar. I just want a sidebar that looks nice.

> I know kde has to be straightforward more but it gives users an ability 
> to configure it how you want

I haven't yet seen the "Remove unneeded borders, frames and lines from the 
UI"-checkbox ;). While KDE does offer lots of options, it does not offer 
infinite options. And offering lots of options has it's share of problems.

What we (users, developers) need to do is to take a good and hardlook at KDE. 
And when we do that, we should not be thinking "KDE kicks ass! It's the best 
desktop there is!". Rather, we should try to think "KDE sucks. It needs loads 
of work and polishing before it's acceptable!". Why? That way we can find 
things that are sub-optimal easier. If we start from the assumption that KDE 
is great (it is), we are more willing to overlook some shortcomings, either 
on purpose, or subconsciously. We really should try to notice all the little 
things (tiny things, I would say) and raise hell over them. If we overlook 
them, we will end up harming KDE. we need to be fanatical about doing 
everything right, including the little things.