1.9 KiB
| author | comments | date | layout | slug | title | wordpress_id | categories | tags | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| einar | true | 2008-06-29 20:51:50+00:00 | page | annoying-fork-talks | Annoying fork talks | 406 |
|
|
Now even the (once respected) Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is jumping on the bandwagon of Plasma haters. With a rather uninformed and rant-ish entry that just advocates a fork, like some other people said on the kde-devel mailinglist a week or two ago.
The entry is rather dismissive of everything in KDE 4 save Plasma (and a mention on Dolphin's single click icon), and also gets some facts and links wrong (yes, the Plasma web site is outdated, but since the developers are busy coding, someone else should step up and help). I wanted to point out a link to the Plasma FAQ, but apparently I can't (I assume it's because of my ISP, as usual).
In any case, I didn't find mention of specific problems, save the fact that apparently SJVN doesn't like Plasma. But why? Why didn't he point out the specific problems? My question is, was he _really _interested in having problems fixed, or he just wanted to advocate a fork for the sake of some unspecified reason? I think the latter.
I'm no developer, but I'm liking where Plasma is doing. I already set up three different activities on my computer here at home, which uses nightly Kubuntu packages. I switch between general, writing and coding activities, which have different plasmoids loaded. The difference in layout and the like are the bigger advantage over traditional virtual desktops.
Fork talks like the aforementioned blog entry are no good, they only want to kindle more flames, just as the behavior of trolls on the Dot reached the point of no return. Not a good sign.