KDE4: It hurt, but did it work?

Last month's release of the KDE 4.4 desktop environment restored the faith of many after what has been something of a roller coaster two years. Even the most loyal KDEians found that loyalty stretched by the debut of version 4.0 in 2008. Reassessing, and with hindsight, I think it's fair to characterize the whole saga as both a cautionary tale and an admirable example. Admirable, because the KDE team has displayed a quality that is so often lacking in open source software development: leadership.

By 2008, thanks to its stability, performance and feature-set, KDE3 had become one of the best desktops on the computer scene. However, it was becoming clear that a successor, KDE4, would represent a significant break with the past - the best was about to get even better. More than a mere upgrade, it was to be a complete rewrite and absolutely packed with mouth-watering technology. To the credit of the development team, they released largely on time, but it was a release that pushed the community first to bafflement and then resentment. It was unusable - and when I say unusable, I mean it literally couldn't be used for any serious work - due to stability and performance problems. To most people, a 4.0 release means a new version of a finished product, yet the general consensus was that KDE4 ran like an alpha. To top it off, it lagged behind KDE3 in terms of features.

The other jarring aspect of KDE4 was that the changes that had been made were so bold. For example, music player Amarok had been an application that had evoked the sacred phrase, "killer app", magic words that desktop Linux desperately needs to have associated with it. It was, however, like so many of the old favorites, nominated for a rewrite and redesign. It's much improved since the initial, disappointing release, but it still doesn't quite have feature parity with the final KDE3 version. Konqueror, the file manager/web browser combination was another beloved, if slightly eccentric, KDE fixture that found itself depreciated in favor of something new.

Just what were team KDE thinking in terms of pushing me out of my comfort zone? The answer: they were doing what had to be done. KDE had reached the end of the line and needed to be restarted to keep up, and begin to lead, in the world of desktop environments. Some of the decisions were criticized, but there's a saying that good leadership is always in dispute. The problems that did crop up were due to poor communication and a determination to release on schedule, no matter what.

Two years on, things are back on track. It's perhaps time to begin a campaign of telling people who left KDE, "it's safe to come back!". As it stands, not only is KDE 4.4 a superb desktop, thanks to the new frameworks that are now in place the potential for new developments is almost overwhelming. Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend KDE4. However, it's been a rocky couple of years getting here.

______________________

UK based freelance writer Michael Reed writes about technology, retro computing, geek culture and gender politics.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not so much.

leapdragon's picture

I was one of the longtime KDE users (since KDE beta 3, pre-1.0) that switched away with the release of KDE 4.0, in my case when Fedora shipped it in 2008.

I'm not in love with GNOME, or at least I didn't think I was... until I tried KDE 4.4.3 in Fedora 12 last week and this week. It took hours to configure and reconfigure it to the same desktop functionality I have in my GNOME desktop.

It was slower than GNOME.

There is not a single professional, office-friendly (i.e. NO EYE CANDY) theme out there. No flat grays, no flat blacks, no flat anything.

It continues to lose settings on logout/login.

Plasma is, so far as I can tell, an essentially separate application from the rest of the KDE desktop, with little or no integration between the two.

Simple things like automounting, opening, and unmounting storage devices don't happen in complete integration and context like they do in GNOME, but instead in fragmented, disparate ways involving multiple components (notifications in plasma, recent devices plasmoid, the places pane in Dolphin, etc., rather than one central location).

Configurability is schizophrenic: all the options I don't care about and don't want to think about, none of the obvious options that I actually want to change. I can "fragment" my Plasma theme into a half dozen different assocations using "Desktop Theme Details," for example, but I can't simply change the color of the Plasma bar or get it to remember a consistent size.

It doesn't deal with multimonitor changes/environments. It doesn't integrate well with GNOME (yes, you can use the "GTK+" engine, but that doesn't support deeply necessary "hovers" at all, nor is it possible to find any Kwin theme that matches).

The kicker menu doesn't have spatial context in "new" mode, which makes navigation a slow, multi-click affair. In "old" mode, it throws away icons, making it much slower to visually navigate.

Everything is just damned slow in comparison to GNOME, even with rendering off.

In short, KDE 4 is about one thing and one thing only: 3D rendered eye candy. If that's what you want, that's what you'll get, in spades. But as a desktop, as a single, integrated, holistic sense of place and set of potentialities and operations that are intuitive, minimal, and streamlined and that support productivity, KDE 4 is an epic fail in a way that makes KDE 3 roll in its grave.

And that goes for KDE 4.4 as well. And the fact that GNOME now proposes to do the same with GNOME 3.0/GNOME Shell means that I will probably soon be using XFCE/LXDE. It's back to the future for this Linux user, who has been waiting for a real desktop Linux since 1993 and who will still be waiting (it increasingly seems) forever.

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Anonymous's picture

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

C'mon you guys. Listen to yourselves.

Personally, I used KDE 3.5, then tried out Gnome, staid for a while, then tried out KDE 4, then realized I had grown accustomed to Gnome and went back. Used fluxbox and openbox for a year (never actually went for the likes of xfce, despite it being wonderful) and now have my mind set on moving to KDE 4.4.2.

That’s it! Why so many flame-wars? These are huge projects and I consider myself so lucky to be able to use them, free of charge!

What I say is: Good work Gnome! Good work KDE! Love ‘ya both (each for its own reasons) and shall keep on switching and trying out everything out there for years to come. That’s the whole beauty of FOSS! Both of them keep getting better by the day.

Thank you, Developers, from the bottom of my heart! If you are out there, reading this, know that I truly appreciate your efforts and dedication!

Comment

Anonymous's picture

With 4.4 KDE4 is becoming usable. Prior to 4.4 it was too immature. I think the problem was that KDE4 was a rewrite, largely a new piece of software, not a normal major milestone in a roadmap.

Still on KDE 3.5 with CentOS 5

Sum Yung Gai's picture

I'm still on KDE 3.5 that comes with CentOS 5, because it works. By the time I'm ready to go to KDE 4, it should be up to version 4.5 and (hopefully) pretty solid.

One big feature of KDE 3.5 that matters for usability is a KPRINTER replacement. Lots of folks I know use Evolution or other GNOME apps on KDE. GNOME apps, of course, use the GNOME printing system. The result is that you've had to configure a printer *twice*, once for KDE apps, and again for GNOME apps. KPRINTER solves that problem very neatly. Hack or not, it sure does the job well.

If KDE 4.x now has that equivalent functionality added back in, then I can recommend it for typical home users. Not everyone with a KDE desktop runs *just* KDE apps. Some of you may be surprised at how important this functionality is.

Lighten Up, Folks

George P. Burdell's picture

Q: how many Old Blues Guitarists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: none; they just complain that the old one sounded better.

Just Kidding, get back to your trendy Hate.

It's A Conspiracy!

Anonymous's picture

Obviously, somebody's distro forced them to change when they weren't ready to, and they in turn, fault/blamed the KDE devs for forcing them to change.

Conversely, somebody needs to change their distro; but they prob won't. They'll most likely just keep throwing hatred at the KDE devs.

The "I Just Want Something For Free" crowd never holds their distros responsible for the buggy crap that they force on them too early in the name of Nifty Nomenclature.

Just kiddin'

Reason for changes

Anonymous's picture

Well, it is interesting that KDE has always followed the UI design ideas from the Beast of Redmond - so with Vista on the market, KDE had to change.

Gnome has always followed The UI Thought of Saint Jobs.

one thing i noticed about kde4 ranters

shamil's picture

Kde4 ranters only complain about the confusion behind the kde 4.0 release. They can't get it through their thick skulls that the 4.0 release was an alpha/beta release and only released as official (though not) to get the ball rolling for kde apps to be ported to kde4.

In other words it's very obvious kde4 ranters haven't read any ounce of the article and are only one sided and one biased to kde4 around the easy claim of confusion of release. A lot of people were confused when kde 4.0 came out, but people learned what it was all about. However, to drive someone up the wall over this confusion might make you think that kde4 killed their mother.

Kde4 ranters are idiots, and proven themselves to be on an agenda. It doesn't make sense. When you get confused, you learn differently, and you say "ok, i guess i should have looked more into the issue instead of going off like a retard".

Aside from that i'm using kde 4.34. It's an awesome release. I don't have the opportunity to use kde 4.4, but then again, the distros that sport it are the ones i wouldn't touch with my 9 yard pole.

You are correct

Anonymous's picture

IIRC, Fedora switched to KDE4 as it's default GUI before the KDE people had done a non-beta release. There were some comments from some in the core KDE dev community that Fedora had jumped the gun, that Fedora was not doing KDE any favours.

KDE

johnh3's picture

I loved Pardus 2008.2 with KDE3.5 desktop. But when they released version 2009 it had KDE4.2
It was not reday for a normal pc user I think, to much bugs and problems. They should have waited to KDE4.4 before they make the switch.

a state of flux....

Alex Stone's picture

I'm an advocate of the release early, release often mantra, but in the case of Desktops, and WM, i think some degree of stability needs to attained before releasing each version. Still, KDE4 seems to be up and running now, and good luck to all who use it.
For the "poisonous user" comment, never a truer word spoken. It's about ego, and trying to show you have enough linux "smarts" to know what you're talking about. This is also true for the "poisonous Dev" who readily resorts to sarcasm, and derision, when confronted with knowledgeable users willing to contribute to projects, for the same thing, ego, and the earnest intent to present ones self as skilled, and in command of all aspects of his or her project. When we all get past this digital puberty, as a community, user and dev alike, then linux will indeed be ready for global domination, and any "distance" that has been a perceived aspect of the linux dev/user relationship may be a thing of the past.

I'm using fluxbox (with Gentoo), because it's dynamite to work with, for my use case. It doesn't mean Gnome or KDE are "worse", it just means i found what i wanted, closest to my intended workflow.

So good luck to the Gnome and KDE teams, and the others, like fluxbox, who work to give users a choice, and make the Linux world such a rich, diverse, and digitally multicultural community.

Alex.

Short Memories.

Dave the Ocker's picture

Honestly folks I can't believe that this debate is still going on for goodness sake!

For those who have forgot, the GNOME devs of the day offered up promises of all sorts of features for the 2.x series following the transition from 1.x.

Remember the potential of bonobo, multi function documents, etc.

1.x was dropped like a hot potato with no ongoing support. 2.x started out lean, (which you'd expect), yet with each successive release features continued to be removed.

In contrast the KDE devs have added features with each release of the 4.x series.

Not to mention continued to support the 3.x series for a period of time.

In short the KDE devs handled the transition of 3.x to 4.x with much more grace and dignity than the GNOME devs from 1.x to 2.x, and have listened to and acted upon user input.

The GNOME devs simply adopted a 'we know best' and 'shut up' approach.

Furthermore, while some of the functionality of KDE 3.x appears not to have been reinstated, the fact is much of it has, just simply not presented in the same manner.

For those who take the time to explore the new interface, read up on factual and helpful information, available in the KDE forums, various official blogs news feeds etc, this is well known.

I for one left GNOME, as I got fed up with the devs attitude to end users, using the HIG to justify all sorts of hair brained changes etc.

Looking forward to GNOME shell are all you GNOME fans?

Let's see what you do once that hits the distros, no doubt many of you will jump ship and move to another DE.

GAWD I remember that

Anonymous's picture

I permanently switched from Gnome to KDE then.

For me KDE 4 is still much

Anonymous's picture

For me KDE 4 is still much worse than KDE 3.5. It has only 50% of KDE 3.5 useability. I have v4.3 running on my secondary desktop and honestly it irritates me more and more. It is shiny and nice-looking but is useless. So I'm still using the old version on my main station.

Run 4.4 instead. The speed

Anonymous's picture

Run 4.4 instead. The speed difference isn't small. In fact, it's enormous. Two examples are the Nepomuk system (up to 50x faster) and the graphics and animation system (up to 23x faster). Believe me, you'll feel it.

4.2 is what made me switch

Mackenzie's picture

4.2 is what made me switch from GNOME. 3.x never lasted more than a day on my machine.

none

Stan Tontas's picture

Saw a comment like this elsewhere, think it's apt here:

"Why are computer enthusiasts so change-averse?" Move the buttons and they throw a fit on the internet.

Me, I have to do work on my computer and I'm no programmer, so I stayed with the packages available in my distro of choice (Mepis, since you ask). I carried on working quite happily, casting occasional envious glances at the new features being planned and introduced every 6 months in KDE4.x

Now I have KDE 4.3 here. It's stable, flexible and I can see exciting (and *useful*) new features headed down the track.

My business also depends on PC in general

Anonymous's picture

It specifically depends on Kontact (for vCards, appointment scheduling, etc) to run my office duties. My distro of choice is PCLinuxOS, where we didn't encounter forced conversion from Texstar. PCLOS left the choice for switching to KDE4 up to the End User.

Texstar is like that old commercial for 'fine wine', as he would not "sell no OS before its time". I send a donation to PCLOS every year for all they do in not forgetting the End User experience.

grammar error

Anonymous's picture

"depreciated" s/b "deprecated"

I used to make that mistake too! (N/T)

TGM's picture

...

kde always ruled...

Anonymous's picture

no one forced you to use kde 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3.

some distributions still offer kde 3.5.

there was absolutely no reason for anyone to have ever switched to gnome.

after all, we kde users are people with estetics.

"after all, we kde users are

Anonymous's picture

"after all, we kde users are people with estetics"

... but apparently not spelling skills.

This article provides absolutely

Anonymous's picture

no facts, no detail, not a hint of news. Without loss of information it could be summarized as "KDE 4.0 was unstable. I like KDE 4.4."

I was just about to make the same comment

Kane's picture

What a silly article. As someone who left KDE when 4.0 came out I was really hoping to learn some great things that would lead me back, instead I found a dearth of any real content.

Sad. :(

crying about a Free Lunch?

Anonymous's picture

Typical of Freeloader Linux people: sitting around moaning and complaining about something instead of actually doing something about it. So, you wanted to "learn something about KDE4 that would lead you back", but you wanted said education to hit you in the bed? Lazy Bugger.

Freeloader Linux cheapskates like you give us all a bad name; thats why the OEMs hate us so much. Go back to bed, Grampa; you can compile Gnome on your 486 again tomorrow when the Visiting Nurse comes.

Linux Journal is a business, for goodness sakes. No, you don't have to appreciate all the content that they provide for FREE, but you also don't have to constantly spew your negative vitriol BACK AT THEM in this PUBLIC FORUM.

Agree

istoff's picture

I had left KDE3.5 for Gnome because it seemed to have hit a brick wall in terms of innovating. I stayed away until 4 was released and checked it out.

I was struck by the realisation that they had made a brave and difficult choice to ensure that kde would become relevant and USEFUL again. However I stayed with Gnome as KDE4 wasn't ready.

From about 4.2 the rate of change and improvement all around, including the applications, made me change.

Each increment is markedly changed and improved from the last because they have a more stable and consistent developer platform. Thanks guys. Good job.

Mistake

Anonymous's picture

KDE 4 is an example of how NOT to improve a product. The process was poorly managed. Real improvements were hidden behind the incredible bumbling.

This article misses an opportunity to help guide the KDE folks in the right direction. The author needs to put down his pompoms and do a little honest reflection.

Linux Journal... we need more effective leadership, not more cheerleading.

Agreed. KDE4 is the most

Anonymous's picture

Agreed. KDE4 is the most unusable desktop around. WTF is up with 2 file managers and 2 web browsers (konq doubles as both), also what if you use Opera? Hmm thats 3 web browsers and 2 file managers... awesome more bloat. Most distos offer like what 2-3 media players for KDE4 by default, WTF do we need this much crap for in a base system.
Akondi yeah I get what its supposed to be but what if I don't want all that...
Guess people will say don't use KDE4... but what if I wanted to but its just *too* much to deal with.
The desktop view or folder view ... zomg so much random customizable crap. Seems like a bunch of uber geeks got drunk and threw in as many *features* as they could ... useless features... guess even opensource can't escape crapware...

you may be onto something here

Anonymous's picture

Why use a Body Wash AND a Shampoo, thats just bloat. In fact, if you're already in the shower with water, why incur more bloat by using any soaps at all? Also, if you separately launder your clothes, showering just needlessly complicates the system.

I see where you're going with this.

We know, Grampa...

Anonymous's picture

...all those silly apps have no business in a Desktop Environment. Now get off that 486 and take your Meds because its time for another nap.

Hyperbole much?

Anonymous's picture

"KDE4 is the most unusable desktop around"; really?
...you were being sarcastic, right?

kde 4

Anonymous's picture

I loved KDE 3. I dont like KDE 4. I am using gnome now.

Why Gnome?

Anonymous's picture

It seems like, locically, you would just go back to KDE 3.* right?

Isn't going to decrepit Gnome like 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'?

Just sayin'

Fair Play

TGM's picture

But I can't touch Gnome cause it's completely unconfiguratableist :P

Did you ask for a refund?

Anonymous's picture

Did you ask for a refund?

missing the hard core issue

Anonymous's picture

The article just leaves out the hard core issue:
the new conceptional crap, plasmoids or whatever
they called it.

Like the right mouse button reduced to 10% of previous
functionality.

Like the cashew nut in the upper right corner of the
desktop.

The cashew nut has become the red light for me:
as long as it is there, KDE will not return to my PC.

Who is doing this?

Anonymous's picture

What distro has forced you guys to leave glorious KDE3.* for beautiful KDE4.*?

Will somebody please Man Up and name names?

This little cashew nut is

Frenchie's picture

This little cashew nut is driving me insane! ☹ ☹ ☹

KDE

Anonymous's picture

Small thing annoy you.
For instance it was possible to have a different background for each window.
I did like it a lot, but then that "small thing" disappeared and I am annoyed.
Amarok became less appealing, I do not know if the reason is Amarok or KDE.
As a programmer I know there can be a time where the code just gets to big, or should I say, too unknown so that a clean up is necessary.
Perhaps KDE should have taken more time and less stress in this clean up.
I have used both Gnome and KDE from the very beginning and will probably remain a KDE user, liking the possibility to have a look at Gnome too.
I sometimes wonder if perhaps the KDE team was to eager spending more time and resources building a version for Windows than was intelligent

1. Right click on your

Anonymous's picture

1. Right click on your desktop under 4.4, select "Desktop Activity Settings", and then select "Mouse actions". You can assign left and middle click actions there.

2. Right click on your pager, select "Virtual Desktop settings". Select the tick box "One activity per desktop", below the "Number of desktops" text. Now, you'll have separate Plasmoids for every desktop, and, of course, you can set different backgrounds for each desktop.

Workspace Backgrounds

shortbaldman's picture

There was in the KDE3.x series a simple little capability: The ability to have a different background/wallpaper for each work space.

This meant that each of my half-dozen workspaces could have a different colour background. And therefore I could tell from the background colour which workspace I was in; thus yellow for software development, pink for web browsing and other web activities, blue for network folders, and so on.

Just a little thing, but without it, the KDE4x series intensely annoys me.

I won't bore you just right now about the panel faults which also piss me off.

You can do that in KDE 4.4

Vishesh Handa's picture

You can do this in KDE 4.4, it's a little hidden under the name of activities. Goto SystemSettings->Desktop->MultipleDesktops and tick the different activity for each desktop option.

This would give you a different background + set of widgets for each desktop. To be fair, it isn't as fast as I would like it to be, but that's probably cause I had 4+ widgets querying the system every second.

Workspace Backgrounds

shortbaldman's picture

There was in the KDE3.x series a simple little capability: The ability to have a different background/wallpaper for each work space.

This meant that each of my half-dozen workspaces could have a different colour background. And therefore I could tell from the background colour which workspace I was in; thus yellow for software development, pink for web browsing and other web activities, blue for network folders, and so on.

Just a little thing, but without it, the KDE4x series intensely annoys me.

I won't bore you just right now about the panel faults which also piss me off.

The KDE team is unfairly blamed...

Matt Meola's picture

I remember reading a thread on dot.kde.org wherein one of the developers responded to a bunch of complaints about 4.0. He explained that the KDE team was caught in a bind: they couldn't release the whole system without the applications, but the app developers refused to port their code until KDE4 was released. So, in order to move the platform forward, they released KDe4.0 as a developer release.

It was the stupid distributions that screwed the user base -- they should have actually evaluated the software for inclusion, rather than merely updating the version number and packaging the thing. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I'm still searching for the discussion; when I find it, I'll post it. As far as I can tell, KDE from version 4.3.2 on up is solid, fast and reliable.

KDE won't get a 2nd chance to make a good 1st impression with me

Fred in St. Louis's picture

My first introduction to Linux was Mandrake in 2004, which, of course, by default, comes with KDE. KDE was on version 3.2 (I think) at the time, and I thought it was so cool. When I finally took the plunge and dumped Windows on my computer for good in January 2005, I initially had Mandrake on there and loved it. I eventually switched to MEPIS in mid-2006 and then PCLinuxOS when its 2007 version came out. All of these, of course, feature the KDE desktop environment.

However, I was absolutely APPALLED when I tested out a live CD of a distro with the then-new KDE4 (I don't remember what distro it was). It was an absolute piece of junk in my mind, and so I switched to Ubuntu (and GNOME, of course) and currently have Linux Mint 8.

As for KDE, I was ticked off at how they tossed an excellent desktop environment overboard that they had in the 3.x series. They alienated me so much that I will NEVER go back to KDE after a stunt they pulled like that. That was INEXCUSABLE, and I could care less about any so-called "improvements" that have taken place since 4.0.

That said, GNOME has left a little to be desired, too. GNOME 3 is expected to come out sometime later this year, and I've seen a few videos on YouTube of GNOME3, and I'm not impressed with the idea. Besides, I've had a few other gripes with GNOME, such as Mono, plus the fact that I've been getting sluggish performance when watching YouTube videos, even on 1GB of RAM.

Therefore, since I have tomorrow (Good Friday) off from work, I'm gonna back up everything and switch to Linux Mint 8's Xfce edition, which just came out the other day. Rumor has it that Mint Xfce is quite a bit faster than Xubuntu, which unfairly gave Xfce a bad reputation in the speed department, so I'm gonna see for myself if it really is all that much faster on Mint.

Don't Lie

Anonymous's picture

No, you "don't remember what distro it was", but your lack of recollection sounds a little too convenient.

You say you had PCLinuxOS at one time, but people have commented here that PCLOS never forced a change on anybody to switch to KDE4.* at any time. In fact, even die-hard fanboys of PCLOS found it arduous to switch to PCLOS' KDE4.* just to look at it or try it out. Lay off #1.

Get your lie straight.

Simply Silliness

Atarivandio's picture

Your comment is silly, under evaluated, and grossly one sided. The developers made it exceptionally clear that this was in fact a rewrite, and to deliver something so monumental in such little time is absurd. The problem was always perception, as 'KDE 3x' was the culmination of work that had been going on for years (code in '3x' was similar to that of '2x' and '1x'). The problem they experienced is similar to the problem that GNOME is just now trying to solve....

THEY CODED THEMSELVES INTO AN UNSOLVABLE CORNER...

The code was fragmented.
Multiple systems required the reinventing of the wheel (a lot).
Applications were resorting to modifying the manager to work ('Compiz').
Coding began to feel the burn of language limitations.
API's were spinning out of control due to non-standardization.
API problems prevented the sharing of basic system features.
Bit-rot ensued.
Memory 'leakage' began to devour memory addresses.

To fix this they came up with some 'simple' solutions that I feel you would agree should send them directly to hell.

The made the API's uniform in standardization and implementation.
They went modular to make memory leaks fixable and a thing of the past.
They made their manager bilingual.
They achieved a smaller memory footprint due to bilingual software.
They made system features visible to ALL applications.
Because the system is bilingual you can use ANY widgets (Apple, etc).
Because the entire system is plugin based comp effects are easy.
Updating a system feature upgrades use in all apps (uniform API's).
They invented the first manager that doesn't look like win 98.
They still have more features by default.
They have more power since they can directly mod QT.
KDE 4.0 still doesn't look as 'odd' as GNOME 2.3 or 3 or whatever it is.

It's called advances in technology, you should try it some time.

Unfortunately most idiots who complained about 4.0

Ian's picture

didn't read (or comprehend) what was said about rel 4.0 being a release for developers to port their apps.
I found it clear and easy to comprehend and stayed with 3.5 for my work and 4.1 onwards for playing around with.
I sick and tired reading the whining comments about 4.0 - they painted themselves into an embarrassing corner by whining and now have to keep it up to try an save face.

oh you poor thing

kaddy's picture

Listen to yourself...
First of all... Nobody ever put a Gun to your head to use the 4xx series... If you liked the KDE 3xx series... Why didn't you do what every other serious KDE user did??? Keep using the KDE 3xx series Until the 4xx series was ready and stable? what was the point of chucking a tanty and then throwing KDE 3xx in the trashcan in favour of Gnome? Kde Told everybody that the 4 series is not going to be stable for a while and to carry on using the 3 series and just test 4xx series as you wish, who cares about the .0 argument! it was well documented!

You sound like a spoilt little child... ohhh they alienated me! I was appaled! How could they!!!!! Kde3xx was still supported while the 4 series was being developed...

How about you do everybody a favour and stop whinging... your using FREE software and your still complaining.. I applaud Kde's efforts... Now We have a Modern, brilliant Stable Desktop environment that has outdone Mac, and Win 7 gui's.... Kde 3xx can now be buried in Ancient times. Kudos to the KDE devs

Call yourself hardcore?

TGM's picture

I run KDE 4.0, 4.1, 4.2... and reported any bugs I could find.

THAT is hardcore :)

Webinar
One Click, Universal Protection: Implementing Centralized Security Policies on Linux Systems

As Linux continues to play an ever increasing role in corporate data centers and institutions, ensuring the integrity and protection of these systems must be a priority. With 60% of the world's websites and an increasing share of organization's mission-critical workloads running on Linux, failing to stop malware and other advanced threats on Linux can increasingly impact an organization's reputation and bottom line.

Learn More

Sponsored by Bit9

Webinar
Linux Backup and Recovery Webinar

Most companies incorporate backup procedures for critical data, which can be restored quickly if a loss occurs. However, fewer companies are prepared for catastrophic system failures, in which they lose all data, the entire operating system, applications, settings, patches and more, reducing their system(s) to “bare metal.” After all, before data can be restored to a system, there must be a system to restore it to.

In this one hour webinar, learn how to enhance your existing backup strategies for better disaster recovery preparedness using Storix System Backup Administrator (SBAdmin), a highly flexible bare-metal recovery solution for UNIX and Linux systems.

Learn More

Sponsored by Storix