> Compare this with BlackBox which has only a small bar at the bottom of the
> screen but it actually conveys more information about what workspace is
> current and the apps running within it than does KDE or GNOME and it does
it
> in a smaller space, less clutter and is simply ELEGANT.
KDE's default taskbar is large for visibility, etc. Right-click the panel
and look
through the K Control Center sometime. There's A LOT of options, including
one to set the panel to a tiny size like in my screenshot:
http://www.gigabee.com/linuxextras/kde2-konq+home+kicq.png

> appropriate mouse button on the desktop lets you choose workspace and/or
> applications. You DON'T NEED A START BITTON.
Do you have the third mouse button enabled? I'm not sure if it's that or the
right mouse button, but one of the two gives you the option to switch
desktops
by clicking on an empty area on the desktop. There's a whole set of options
in the control center that lets you specify what happens when you
left-click,
right-click, etc. on the desk top. By default, left clicking doesn't do
anything,
but you can set it to show the "start button" as you call it (it's called
the K menu).

> You can actually launch all of KDE's and GNOME's applications from
BlackBox
> without launching their respective desktops.
Which proves what? You can run KDE programs in GNOME and GNOME programs
in KDE without needing their full respective environments.

> Also, the argument that it's easier for a Linux newbie to feel at home
> because KDE look like windows is also crap - give linux users credit for
> some intelligence, don't treat them like dummies.
People who aren't computer experts really aren't as smart as people make
them out to be. And the fact that something looks like something the user
might already know means that its learning curve will be less steep. It'll
be easier to recognize. If you make similar tools look and function
completely
differently, people will have to learn KDE from scratch without being able
to
use their previous knowledge. This is why we have UI/GUI standards.

> Have a good look at BeOS, it's also clean, uncluttered and some
imagination
It's also not that very different from anything else. You can make KDE
behave
very similarly to it. All it takes is a little customization.

> it's the LACK OF IMAGINATION AND THE UNRIVALLED MEDIOCRITY
> of the KDE & GNOME Desktop that I find unsatisfactory.
Have you tried Nautilus (GNOME2's future file manager) yet? It definitly has
a
lot of imagination. Keep in mind that KDE is relatively new and they've just
redone
a lot of things with KDE2. They're only now starting to do some really cool
stuff.

> I strongly believe that to succeed you don't copy you innovate, of course
> the risks are greater but the rewards are more satisfying. As far as KDE &
> GNOME - there is no innovation.
You haven't looked close enough. Have you even fully taken advantage of
Konqueror, especially it's view splitting and stuff like that?

> Briefly: KDE and GNOME equals MEDIOCRITY it does NOT equal innovation.
Mediocre from what? BeOS? Please. BeOS is nice and simple, but I'd hardly
call
it revolutionary.

- Bart