[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: Worth reading...
From:       Jeremy Blosser <jblosser () firinn ! org>
Date:       1999-07-16 8:05:15
[Download RAW message or body]


Derek [fountai@hursley.ibm.com] wrote:
> > > Perhaps we should
> > > make a concious effort to leave the hackers with a GNOME desktop and
> > > position KDE with the regular users?
> > 
> > If you do this, who do you expect will keep developing KDE?  The regular
> > users?  Developers that don't use it themselves?  Developers that don't
> > want to use it but do anyway cause they want to do work to appease all the
> > users because they are masochists?
> 
> And if we don't at least try to attract regular users, who's going to
> use it? The people who are using it now. My, that's ambitious.

I wasn't trying to say anything so extreme as we shouldn't at least try to
attract regular users.  You said "leave the hackers with a GNOME desktop",
etc...  I don't think it needs to be that dichotomistic.

> My experience with GNOME is that it is laiden with pointless, flashy junk.
> It's big, slow, and hoplessly complicated.

Exactly... so you see why I'd be offended you'd suggest KDE abandon me to
that ;)  So far KDE has done admirably well in being new-user friendly and
still powerful.  I don't see why it wouldn't want to keep moving that way.

> ... What will
> happen is that the likes of Corel or IBM will fork off KDE (possibly
> GNOME) and turn it into something that users can use. (That is the
> answer to your first question.)

Exactly.  People that are doing it for some other motivation -- if it's
commercial, they'll do it for the money.  Nothing inherently wrong with
that, but it sounds like we agree that we don't want it that way, if for
different reasons.

But again, I don't think it has to be a "chase the MSWindows crowd and
leave the rest behind" thing to be a success that means something.  And
that was what I responding to.  Apologies if I misread what you meant. 

> > This is truly an odd statement.  "Perfectly well reasoned", yet we should
> > avoid it? ... 
> 
> You've clearly missed the point...

I apparently misunderstood what you meant was "perfectly well reasoned".
One of the limitations of this means of communicating.  My apologies.

-- 
Jeremy Blosser   |   jblosser@firinn.org   |   http://jblosser.firinn.org/
-----------------+-------------------------+------------------------------
"Would you fight to the death, for that which you love?
                   In a cause surely hopeless ...for that which you love?"
                                             -- D. McKiernan, _Dragondoom_

[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]