Buy:Maxaman.Viagra Super Force.Viagra Professional.Cialis.Zithromax.Cialis Super Active+.Super Active ED Pack.Cialis Professional.Propecia.VPXL.Viagra Super Active+.Soma.Viagra Soft Tabs.Cialis Soft Tabs.Levitra.Viagra.Tramadol….

I am a fairly faithfull OpenSUSE and KDE fan from Namibia. That said, I have recently upgraded to OpenSUSE 11.3 and KDE 4.5+ (Factory). I do use Windows and I have tried most Linux desktops at least once or twice. I don’t like Gnome, a personal preference but I have never bad mouthed it. I prefer OpenSUSE because if it’s tight integration if you may with KDE.

I for one from the beginning credited KDE developers for their decision to leave KDE 3 behind and start on a new road of development which in the long run serves everybody best. I have seen and read many negative views, reviews and finger pointing about KDE 4 developments and seen many appologies been made. While I also had my share of problems with KDE 4.0 (Which I never really used but fully understood why it had to be released), every other upcoming new release has been a fresh breath of air. Running the latest factory release most of the time, I did occasionally suffer negative side effects which required some intervention on my behalf, but which admitadly, comes with the territory (i.e. If you run factory,non stable or edge cutting versions or technology). I can fully appreciate those users who don’t think or believe KDE 4 is up to standard with what KDE 3 had to offer but to be fair, it has many features KDE 3 never had. With that I am the last to say it is perfect. Perfection needs time. That said, a lot of features do still need to be re-implemented.

Developing a new desktop is a tradeof between the implementation of new features, re-implementation of old features, performance and stability and a lot of time and effort to achieve this

Desktop developers need to be much more inovative than appliacation developers, something the KDE team definately is. A lot of new concepts, ideas and technologies need to be developed and tested. Not every idea or technology will be accepted. The development of a new desktop should be compared to the evolution of species (i.e. Species representing a new breed of Desktop Environment)

Personally I can vouch that I am more than satisfied with what Novell and KDE have to offer and stability issues have been minimal and can mostly be contributed to lack of experience, knowledge and running factory versions on my part. KDE has been developing with leaps and bounds.

Personally I use computers with Intel and Nvidia graphics cards and have very few problems besides those that may be experience during an upgradeor implementation of new technologies. Each have had their own share of problems which in my case have been minimal, considering other products I have used (i.e. Microsoft Windows). If you want a 100% stable desktop, by all means stay with KDE 3 but don’t talk badly about the efforts of developers. Give credit where it is due and if you don’t like something, make a note of what you don’t like and even better, make some suggestions as to how things could be improved upon. Nobody and therefore nothing is perfect. I was brought up to believe that if you cannot say something good, rather say nothing. Doing so may come back to bite you in the back as is evident though some of the posts. It is much easier to say negative things than to acknowldge and speak about things that are positive. People tend to remember the negative things we hear or say. If you want Linux and OpenSource technologies to triumph, speak possitive and even better try to contribute.

From my perspective, I give thumbs up to all Linux and OpenSoucre developers and from my own experience, thumbs up for KDE and Novell. In my books you are doing a good job even if I think a lot of progress still needs to be made. I can fully acknowledge your achievements in the last 5 years or so and admire your quest to make Linux one of the most popular operating systems around. I can confirm that KDE 4.5 in my case is more stable and I am eagerly looking forward to what KDE 4.6 has to offer.

You cannot possibly expect a good review for KDE 4.5 when there are so many problems.

Actually Aaron, what I’ve noticed from you speaks differently. Every article I’ve ever read on Linux Today and several other sites that speaks ill of KDE, you always follow with a page full of text and going off on a tirade. I can pretty much set my watch to it. I read a negative KDE article, and then I keep refreshing throughout the day because I know it’s going to happen, and it always does. It could very well be a coincidence that you and I are reading the same articles, but it is what I’ve noticed. I think that you should instead take what your users and reviewers say into consideration. You may not agree with most of them, but they _are_ your users, so you should at least try to compromise a bit rather than go off with the “you’re either with us or against us” attitude I’ve seen from you on several blogs.

“In writing this piece you failed to do any real fact checking and decided to write a piece that really isn’t laced with much in the way of accuracy or balance. ”

What I said was completely accurate. KDE 4.4 works fine, and KDE 4.5 does not on my laptop, and a bunch of other peoples machines too. What more research is required? It doesn’t matter what inside of KDE is the problem, the fact is that there is a problem and that is all I need to focus on, and all any reviewer would focus on. I of course made sure the problem wasn’t my laptop (I have a KDE 4.4 Clonezilla image I can restore at will and double and even triple test) so as a reviewer, nothing else matters.

“You are completely free to exercise your right to free speech and write poorly researched articles. I am also completely free to exercise my right to free speech and point out that your article is poorly researched.”

Again, I did all the research that a review requires. KDE 4.4 works, KDE 4.5 doesn’t. I troubleshooted my laptop and made sure it’s not defective. No further research is required during a review, unless I was a developer, then I’d be expected to know where in the code is the cause of the problem.

“In the very blog entry by KWin developer Martin that you link to he explains with great detail that isn’t “some drivers don’t support those features” but that “some drivers lie about supporting those features”.”

While I agree that drivers lying about what they support is bad, they are still drivers in our current day and age your software is forced to have to run on. You guys are deciding to just do what you want to do regardless of what might break and then blaming it on the drivers. While I do agree that from what I read the drivers are to blame, it does not change my opinion. Actually, it strengthens it. The drivers suck now days, I understand that, but it’s no excuse. This is the technology that we have right now, and you have users that are expecting stable releases to in fact be stable releases. I understood perfectly when you guys released an unfinished KDE 4.0, but I didn’t complain. Why? Because KDE 3.5.x was still being maintained and I understood the direction. KDE 3.5 is abandoned now, KDE 4.x is all us KDE users have. We expect it to work, because not all of your users are comfortable diving into the code and tweaking it until normal usability is restored. You guys have to work with what you have access too. I hope the drivers get fixed, but they’re not fixed right now.

“Again, reading Martin’s blog, which you linked to, it is evident this isn’t a case. Such misrepresentation is despicable.”

Let’s look at the facts. The problems mentioned in the blog were found during KDE 4.5′s beta phase. The problems still exist in the stable version. The blog mentions possible downfalls of using the new filters. Therefore, it’s a fact that it was a known issue and that the filters knowingly broke the release. Misrepresentation is not what it is at all, it’s a truth you probably don’t want made public.

Yeah, we could have added yet another button, but that would have ended up with 6 buttons in a row. The original 5 buttons was already too complicated, considering half of them are totally redundant. It would also make things harder to interpret, since it would be unclear what, if anything, the “suggest” button or file name field would do in the “rename all” case”.

So yes, I made the dialog two clicks instead of one for overwriting or skipping, in exchange for reduce the number of clicks during a renaming operation from potentially thousands or more down to two. I thought making certain operations take one more click was worth it when it saved at least that many (and potentially orders of magnitude more) for another operations and made the dialog much quicker and easier to interpret. The KDE developers agreed.

So my options were: make an already really complicated dialog with a bunch of redundant buttons even more complicated, continue to make life really difficult for people who don’t want to delete their files, or do what I did. I had nothing but positive feedback from everyone who looked at the idea (both developers and users), no one expressed any concern with adding another button press since they all thought the benefits far outweighed the detriments.

I should add that I am NOT a KDE developer, I am a user, but after my bug report on the subject sat there for several years I decided to do it myself.

But you can’t please everyone. At least this way something that was impossible is now possible.