Comments on: 10 Things I Love About KDE

By: Mr. Keen

Mr. Keen — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:18:37 +0000

http://freeringtones.ifastnet.com

By: AnferTuto

AnferTuto — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:39:46 +0000

Hola mardena!
falikotrepat

By: Richard Lewis

Richard Lewis — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:46:57 +0000

Just to add to the Qt open source debate:

“Part of QT is actually GPL’d but QT 2.0 is under the Q Public License”

KDE 3 doesn’t use Qt 2 so this doesn’t matter. And its not just “part of Qt”, all of Qt is available under the GPL. This is restrictive in that it forces developers to license their code (cf. KDE) under the GPL as well. Compare this to GTK which is licensed under the LGPL and so can be used to develop proprietary code; less restrictive for developers, but what about for users?

And there’s one other feature of KDE which hasn’t been mentioned yet: KParts, KDE’s component system. Its KParts which allows Konqueror to act as a sort of meta-application meaning that you can view many different files with it. This is especially handy when people include links to, e.g., PDFs for MS Word documents in web pages.

By: Azzurra

Azzurra — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 03:35:58 +0000

Buon luogo, congratulazioni, il mio amico!

By: Musica latina

Musica latina — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:07:42 +0000

[URL]http://www.musica-latina.anticoit.org[/URL]

By: ?

Sat, 02 Sep 2006 05:29:15 +0000

Download Cool Ringtone Right This Time: ?

By: Odysseus

Odysseus — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 03:43:09 +0000

In line with point 4, Respect, there’s two initial reasons I switched from Gnome to KDE 2:
File Dialog
Print Dialog
The same in every application, and still years ahead of what Gtk/Gnome thinks passes for usable.

And for Jai, stop your trolling, KDE 3 series uses QT 3 series with is GPL on Linux, and KDE 4 will use Qt 4 which is GPL everywhere. Compare that to Gtk which is only LGPL and Qt/KDE are actually MORE free than Gtk/Gnome, just ask RMS…

John.

By: Jai

Jai — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 01:34:32 +0000

Part of QT is actually GPL’d but QT 2.0 is under the Q Public License (significantly more restricting than the GPL). They even have a separate version that is proprietary that you have to pay for.

Oppressive I admit is a little too extreme, but I would prefer a little less added software.

By: bruchio

bruchio — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 19:52:42 +0000

While I prefer Gnome myself, I do like quite a few KDE apps, like Ksysmon, amaroK, and the like. I use NetBSD as a desktop OS, and there are people that have problems with that opinion too…*sigh* The only real things that made me go either way are /the little things/. KDE has KIOSlaves, Gnome has gnome-vfs. KDE has kopete, Gnome has Gaim. Eclipse. Gnucash. LibGnome. Evolution. Gnome (generally speaking) is just more portable across archetectures and platforms and usable on older hardware (although on older hardware, I don’t even bother with GUIs).

In my opinion, having set up a few machines with the usability that home users expect, KDE is for the power users, GNOME is for the people who use the commandline and/or want a clean, simple environment. It all boils down to what you do with the computer on a day-to-day basis.

By: Sébastien

Sébastien — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 19:10:45 +0000

shawnsblog:

Thank you for your insightful, cogent, and above all non-strawman-infested appraisal of KDE.