KDE 4.0.0!

[Terence Simpson]

David McGlone wrote:
> 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.
>
>   
Show me the sentence that says that?
All I said was that Konqueror used the Dolphon KPart in KDE4, how did 
you get "Konqueror has never been a file manager and Dolphin is older 
than konqueror" from that??

Really, that's a sincere question. How did you get to "from what I can 
tell, sincerely believes konqueror has been derived from dolphin." ?

On another note, I'm so glad you can be respectful on mailing lists and 
not say things like "I couldn't stop laughing at....
Oh, wait, forget that last part.