A look at GNOME 2.14, comparison to KDE

[Janne Ojaniemi]

On Tuesday 21 February 2006 17:22, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Monday 20 February 2006 20:28, Brendan wrote:
> > On Monday 20 February 2006 15:24, Janne Ojaniemi wrote:
> > > 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
> >
> > Isn't that just as dumb?
>
> IMHO, yes.
>
> not only does it sell our current work short and open the door to changing
> things that do not need changing, it's a total moral killer.

I fail to see how you or any other KDE-developer would suffer from bad moral 
if I or someone else tested KDE with an intention to pick every nit. The 
rationale is that if the tester starts from an assumption that "there will be 
lots of things to fix here", he's more bound to notice the annoying things. 
If he thinks that "the desktop is almost ready, and it's great the way it 
is", could cause the "little things" to be overlooked.

In short: If we assume by default that KDE kicks ass, there is a good chance 
that we will overlook some of the design-errors and flaws that there might 
be. Don't ask me for a scientific explanation, it's just something I have 
observed (not just in KDE; but elsewere as well) ;).

If/when I test KDE4 beta (for example), with an intention to do some 
nitpicking, the idea is not to make bugreports that say basically say "KDE 
sucks!". The idea is to find all those little things and things that could be 
done better, and make valid bug-reports on them.

In case you haven't noticed: I use KDE and I like it. Yes, I complain a lot 
about various things. But that's because I'm passionate about KDE and I want 
it to be even better.