"Timothy R. Butler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As of kde-3.0, I may be wrong but it seems that there is only > > little to hope from the user side, between kde-2.2.2 and kde-3.0, > > isn't it? > > From what I've seen of it, that would be correct UI-wise, but it is binary > incompatible with kde-2.x applications since it is based on QT3 (so any KDE > 2.x apps would have to be removed/upgraded at the time of upgrading to > KDE-3.0 unless it was some how installed without removing KDE2/QT2). > The main reason I bring this up, is that I know around KDE 2.0's release, a > lot of people were rather frustrated that by the time the latest release of > SuSE started showing up in stores (7.0, mid-September 2000), they had to > download 50 megs of software, and many of the applications included in the > system ceased to function or had to be removed because of dependancy problems. OTOH we'll be releasing with a very stable version of kde :-). > > Actually we're trying hard to look "more professional" and the > > design team decided that this more "traditional" and "less > > eye-candy" design looks more professional. > > I can see where you are coming from. Is that why the console login screens > with the ASCII-art version of Tux have been removed, btw? I guess we can't Yes. > have any fun anymore, huh? ;-) Sort of. Times are rather worse than before and we need to attract more business to use mandrake. > Seriously, I'm very impressed with Mandrake's overall "professional" feel. > That's part of what won me over from SuSE, along with your great utilities > such as urpmi. Thanks. > Well, it's slow, but it may be useful for some real life emulation now > adays. I've been on the project as the PR guy since last May, and Bochs has > sped up, gained a CLI-based config tool, and networking support; among other > things. > Right out of the box (pun not intended), you can run the demonstration > DLX-Linux, and it only takes a few minutes to get MS-DOS or the QNX demo disk > to run. I haven't attempted it, but Bochs has also been known to run Windows > 95 and NT 4. Practically speaking, probably it's strongest use is as a way to > run legacy DOS apps (including ones requiring networking support). I should > also mention in my personal experience it ran Windows 3.1 at a fairly decent > speed (on my 450 MHz machine, without slowing down the system). I see, though I'm not sure this particular package would be the ideal candidate to be in the distro. Basic questions are the size and potential usage from people, and we are now much more strict to accept new packages. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
