Collins wrote: > On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:09:05 -0700 "Philip J. Koenig" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On 12 Apr 2002, at 23:02, Brett I. > Holcomb boldly uttered: > >> > Well, Konq is one reason I left KDE. Konq as a browser is useless >> > - it can't handle most of the pages I visit (and they aren't >> > browser specific either). However, Mozilla can handle those same >> > pages without a problem at > > Jumping in recklessly, he says: Konq is much improved in kde3. Will > it do everything for you? If it breaks, do you file a bug report?
Who knows. At this point I really can't see myself spending the time to go to KDE 3 so if it's fixed fine, if not fine. >> > all. It got so I would open in Konq, close Konq because it >> > couldn't handle the page, open Mozilla and it would work. My >> > frustration is from the fact I like many of Konq's features but >> > it's broken. When it was reported (by many of us) we got the >> > standard KDE response to all bugs - "It is fixed in the version we >> > are working on (KDE 3 at the time) so we aren't going to waste >> > time fixing it in the version everyone is using". At that time >> > KDE 3 was almost a year away - like what was I supposed to do - >> > work with a broken browser! No way. I now use Mozilla. >> > > In all fairness, I can sympathize with kde. I diagnose and maintain > commercial software (370 mainframe environment), and that's exactly > the approach we have to take. But then, we do support more than the > current level. In the case of kde, all the interfaces are changing to I can understand about supporting software - I've had to do it myself. But essentially telling people that the release software is not supported just won't fly. I look at it from an overworked sysadmin viewpoint - OpenSource is trying to be an alternative to MS but with this kind of attitude it won't fly. I've got broken software and I can't wait six months or a year for the next version to hopefully fix it. I may not live that long if my users get ahold of me <G>! And as an overworked sysadmin I don't have time to dig into the source and modify it to make it work. Another, more critical problem is/was printing from KDE. Print from browser or Kmail and the bottom line is cut in half (you get the top half of the letters) and then reprinted on the top of the next page. When I inquired I found out it was a known problem and blamed on qt. I guess it might be fixed in KDE3 but back then I had KDE2 - imagine the response if I tried to replace MS stuff with software with that kind problem. But it was like - "yeah, we know, we'll fix it later". >> I realize the OSS purists yell four-letter words at the thought, but >> you should also consider Opera. If Mozilla runs on Linux anything >> like the way it runs on Windows, Opera will run rings around it >> performance-wise and not use up half the resources either. I tried Opera on Windows a long time ago but haven't since I went to Linux - I thought Konq would work <G>. What makes Opera so appealing? > >> What little I played with Konqueror was a sorry experience indeed. >> > The one problem with kde (substitute most software products in the > linux arena, if you like), is that the interfaces are always changing, > and when you upgrade it's the whole lollapalooza each time. No one > seems to have considered incremental upgrades of portions of the > software. > >> >> -- >> Philip J. Koenig >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Electric Kahuna Systems -- Computers & >> Communications for the New Millenium >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Linux-users mailing list - >> http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the >> above URL. > > -- Brett I. Holcomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] AKA Grunt <>< Registered Linux User #188143 Remove R777 to email _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
