Rafael <rafael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Rafael on Wednesday
>>> Peter KÃhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://dot.kde.org/1179818755/
>>>>
>>>> /quote After an extensive two-year process of iterative
>>>> testing, TÃV IT confirms that "Open Source has reached a
>>>> very high level of professionalism" and concludes that
>>>> KDE's Open Source nature made it very easy for Munich to
>>>> ensure that the software is especially efficient and user
>>>> friendly for their office workers. /unquote
>>>>
>>>> This is in a stark contrast to the assertions of wintendo
>>>> lusers like DFS, OK or Hadron Quark that OSS software is
>>>> "half-assed crapware"
>>>
>>> KDE 1.0 as far back as 10 years ago was very usable. When
>>> coupled with WordPerfect for Linux suite, it was a
>>> threatening product. This is why WP needed to be killed.
>>
>> Yeah... Corel was invited for a little death knell. The press
>> shows the story very clearly. Embrace and Destroy is still
>> the tactic they use at present.
>
> I used KDE 1.0 and liked it. It was very user friendly, very
> Windows like. If one hovered the mouse cursor over the start
> button, it came up with, "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
>
> In some ways I preferred it to the latest KDE offering. Now I am
> using Gnome in Ubuntu. In the past I was not a fan of Gnome, but
> Ubuntu did a nice job of implementing it.
Please define, once more, what you mean by Ubuntu's "implementation" of
Gnome. Because if you choose the desktop based on Icons and not
functionality then I am shocked.
>
> They also did a nice job in implementing Samba.
What are you talking about? Ubuntu didn't implement Samba,
|
|