Comment on [deleted]
Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 month agoYes, and I think it may also have helped KDE a lot, KDE is really great today IMO. For the classical experience I prefer XFCE.
Comment on [deleted]
Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 month agoYes, and I think it may also have helped KDE a lot, KDE is really great today IMO. For the classical experience I prefer XFCE.
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
KDE 3 to KDE 4 transition was very dramatic too. Sadly Trinity is not as good a fork as MATE is.
KDE 3 was just an amazing desktop, but using it is not very practical. Relevant software using Qt3 - yeah, well, no.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yes that is true, but there was no similar breakage, everything KDE 3 and KDE 4 mixed well with other desktops, and mostly followed established standards for the Linux desktop.
The KDE team never showed similar arrogance to the Gnome team either, and KDE didn’t remove beloved basic functionality because obscure “reasons” like Gnome did.
Also KDE was not nearly as significant to the Linux environment as Gnome was.
Finally that is whataboutism and not a valid argument to the debate that what Gnome did was extremely harmful.
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
It’s not whataboutism, it’s personal experience. I used Slackware mostly after switching, so no Gnome.
About significance - you might be mixing up Gnome 2 to Gnome 3 transition with GTK2 to GTK3 transition.
GTK3 I hated with passion, oh yes. I literally built GTK programs from source if the repo version was GTK3 and GTK2 was supported for some time period, later got too lazy to do that.
Still, the inconvenience of needing a whole theme instead of one ~/.gtkrc-2.0 file .
Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Fair enough and yes the KDE road was a bit bumpy back then.