KDE 4.0.0!

[David McGlone]

On Tuesday 15 January 2008 8:42:10 am Derek Broughton wrote:
> Terence Simpson wrote:
> > David McGlone wrote:
> >> On Saturday 12 January 2008 6:14:33 pm Terence Simpson wrote:
> >>> Dotan Cohen wrote:
> >>>> On 12/01/2008, Terence Simpson <stdin at stdin.me.uk> wrote:
> >>>>> Well, Dolphin is the file manager and Konqueror is the Web Browser.
> >>>>> Did you expect the Web Browser to have all the features of a file
> >>>>> manager?
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, yes, as it originally _was_ a file manager before it was a web
> >>>> browser. And so far as I've been led to understand (please RTFM me
> >>>> with information otherwise) Konqueror retains all it's features for
> >>>> KDE4.
> >>>
> >>> No, Konqueror uses the Dolphin KPart to use some file managing
> >>> features. (A KPart is like a plugin, not exactly the same but a decent
> >>> analogy for this)
> >>
> >> first off, let me laugh. LOL I'm sorry man are you new to linux or kde?
> >> Konqueror has been a file manager since I don't know how long, let me
> >> say RH 6.1 or somewhere around there. can anyone verify? Anyway I've
> >> been using konqueror as a file manager for quite a few years I'd say a
> >> good 6 or 8 years and been using linux for around 10 or 12 years. Also
> >> from what I can see, I believe you got it backwards, wouldn't it make
> >> more sense if dolphin was using the konqueror kpart since konqueror has
> >> been around as a file manager for a long long time. Matter of fact all
> >> dolphin is, is a stripped down and re-arranged konqueror with a
> >> different name. :-)
> >
> > To answer your questions:
> > 1) No
> > 2) No
> > 3) Didn't say it wasn't
> > 4) There is no Konqueror KPart for file managing, only the Dolplin KPart.
> >
> > I hope that answered all of those queries.

I didn't receive this reply, unless I accidentally deleted it. Anway yes you 
answered them just fine. :-)

<snip>
>Yes, David is being a little rude,

I'm sorry about this. I wasn't trying to sound rude. I was actually laughing 
when I replied.

> but you seem to be 
> intentionally telling us all to just "live with it", and it's no surprise
> if it rubs us the wrong way.
>
> #3 was not strictly said, but you certainly implied it.  #4 is completely
> irrelevant - Konqueror has a file manager kpart, and what it's called
> doesn't matter a bit to the users.  It _would_ have made much more sense to
> users if both Dolphin and Konqueror had continued to use the same kpart.
> To cripple konqueror by giving it only _some_ of Dolphin's features, and
> not even giving Dolphin all the features Konqueror used to have is going to
> hurt some users and annoy far more.

This was what I was trying to get around to, but I couldn't stop laughing at 
Terence's post where, from what I can tell, sincerely believes konqueror has 
been derived from dolphin. Or at least that's how I understood his post.

-- 
David M.