Q: how is plasma different?
valtermura at gmail.com
Sun Dec 28 22:42:50 UTC 2008
Il martedì 16 dicembre 2008 11:38:41 R C Mitchell ha scritto:
> On Tuesday 16 December 2008 02:28:52 Nigel Ridley wrote:
> > http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/Plasma/FAQ
> Wherein one may find:
> > What is wrong with the current desktop technology?
> > Today's desktops are static. Typically they are tied to a folder in which
> > one can find icons (application launchers), or user-placed documents and
> > folders. Along with pictures and images as backgrounds, the current
> > desktop doesn't go any further, or work for the user. Plasma takes a
> > different approach, engaging the user by creating a dynamic and highly
> > customizable environment.
> Which prompts me to ask:
> "Who are you? And what have you done with the real KDE team?"
> As it has clearly been taken over by alien marketing wonks talking
> marketing gibberish and not answering their own question.
> I like KDE 3.5 a lot. It does everything I need it to do, and I don't see
> any pressing need for customising different desktops. My desktop contains
> the things that I'm working with and when I've finished with them I put
> them away (but maybe that's a woman thing.)
> I don't like KDE 4. I don't like all that black, which is oppressively
> macho, and although I finally worked out how to change my background I
> can't seem to vary the atmosphere very much. I don't like plasmoids
> because they clutter up my desktop, which it seems to me is what plasma is
> trying to avoid. I like to see my essential information (time, date, moon
> phase (= state of the tide), local weather with temperature, pressure and
> (absolutely essential) wind speed and direction, tucked away in a small
> corner where I can see them clearly and succinctly at a glance.
> It's possible, of course, that I may learn to love KDE 4 and its successors
> given time. I'm planning to keep trying, out of harm's way on my spare
> HDD, but meanwhile it looks like if I want to progress with Ubuntu then I
> may have to resort to Gnome, which I also dislike although not as much as I
> do KDE 4 (An acceptable replacement for Epiphany would be a good start.)
> Meanwhile, I'm a reasonable kind of girl and open to persuasion by reasoned
> argument rather than a marketing pitch. Are any of you man enough to
> accept the challenge?
well, first, the dark and the black can be easily changed in what you want, you
can choose your perfect combination of colors.
Second, you can continue to use the previous version Kubuntu with KDE 3.5.10.
Third, you can change environment: try Ubuntu or Xubuntu.
Fourth: in which way do you think Ubuntu, better said Linux systems, could
compete with other OSes? In which way a well-structured environment can defy
Windows Vista/7 or MacOS in a graphical point of view? This is the point, for
me. For which characteristics "common users" (I underline common) choose an OS
(besides offers they could find in a shop)? Easy of use, readiness and graphic.
More: if I install Windows Vista in my old machine, it would burn and die in
few minutes. With KDE 4 my machine, after *5* years of glorious work, is still
working (slower than KDE 3.5.X, but working), and I haven't anymore problems
with my graphic card!!!
Many things are to be improved, but I think the way is right, they are making
a very good job.
Registered Linux User #466410 http://counter.li.org
Kubuntu Linux: www.ubuntu.com
Usa OpenOffice.org: www.openoffice.org
"Coltiva Linux, tanto Windows si pianta da solo"
More information about the kubuntu-users