Re: Why not?
* Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> [2006 Jul 14 19:32 -0500]:
> Steve Lamb <grey@dmiyu.org> writes:
> > Pretty and pathetic does not trump ugly and useful any day of the week.
> > If it did we'd all be on Windows or OSX. I said they set out to make a great
> > desktop. They did that.
>
> Hardly. They made an "adequate" desktop. As I mentioned, the QT-apps
> I've used all seem rather clunky. clunky == awkward. Unpleasant to
> use.
Most everything about software that appeals to more than a handful of
people is merely adequate. It's the nature of the beast, compromise
and all that.
> Clearly all this is rather a matter of opinion; my only intent in
> posting was to provide a counter to your implication that KDE/qt was
> somehow obviously superior in functionality/usability, and that people
> only like Gnome/gtk for "political" reasons. That's simply not true.
GNOME *is* about politics as is the rest of the GNU Project. So long
as that pertains to Free Software, I have no problem with it and even
support it. What bothers me is when "awareness" of causes not related
to the issue of software are pushed my direction. I was largerly a
fan of GNOME back in its early days until they set about on the whole
"bonobo" thing and that is where they really lost me--I don't want
somebody's personal cause/politics being shoved in my face.
- Nate >>
--
Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | Successfully Microsoft
Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | free since January 1998.
http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | "Debian, the choice of
My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @ | a GNU generation!"
http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/ | http://www.debian.org
Reply to: