| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The critics are wrong: KDE 4 doesn't need a fork (ars technica)The critics are wrong: KDE 4 doesn't need a fork (ars technica)Posted Jul 3, 2008 15:55 UTC (Thu) by sbishop (guest, #33061)In reply to: The critics are wrong: KDE 4 doesn't need a fork (ars technica) by Janne Parent article: The critics are wrong: KDE 4 doesn't need a fork (ars technica)
Distrowatch? Are you kidding me?! Janne, I would be happy to reason about KDE's long-term prospects with you or anyone else. But I'll need something to work with. I have no interest in a high-emotion, zero-content flame exchange.
(Log in to post comments)
The critics are wrong: KDE 4 doesn't need a fork (ars technica) Posted Jul 3, 2008 17:40 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] From the person who whined ambiguously about licensing and then stated that they were being deliberately obtuse, that's a bit rich. If you don't want flames, don't stand around banging bits of flint together in underwatered woodland.
The critics are wrong: KDE 4 doesn't need a fork (ars technica) Posted Jul 3, 2008 19:13 UTC (Thu) by sbishop (guest, #33061) [Link] I didn't mean to be obtuse, but I see that perhaps I was. Let me try this again. I have never heard of anyone who has chosen KDE over GNOME because Qt is GPLed. However, there have been whole distributions that have gone with GNOME over KDE because Qt is GPLed. For instance, I remember the disappointment of hearing that Bruce Perens had chosen GNOME for UserLinux, way back when. (See http://www.linux.com/articles/33279.) But that hasn't turned out to matter much. ;) Whether or not this is sensible behavior, it happens--to KDE's detriment. And again, what I think doesn't matter one bit. I certainly don't have anything new to say, which is why I only mentioned the whole issue in passing.
|
|
||||||||||||