KDE 2.2 Released

Well, we had covered it being tagged last week, and now, after a hardware problem with one of the main download servers, KDE is ready for download. Except that you'll probably want to go to the mirrors to actually get it. You can get more about it about it from Dre's dot.kde post, or you can read the KDE announcement - and have a good time!

Comments

Re:Site-specific popup policy

[Drone-X]

but what I'd really like to see is the ability to disable window.open on a site-specific basis as well.

Or even better, ignore window.open being used when loading or unloading a page but allow it when I click a link. Now that would effectively stop banners without having to keep going to the configuration dialog.

Work with the GNOME people (and vice versa)

[Nailer]

My suggestion: work closer with GNOME (and vice versa. Its entirely possib;le to have 2 seperate projects without the current incompatibility and lack of standards between the two.

Users don't pick their apps based on toolkit. They pick them based on quality. For almost all users, that's going to be a mix of KDE and GNOME apps.

Create a standard for:

* Component models. Really. We know its hard to agree on, but it must be done.

* File types - > application mapping database (some people call these MIME types).

* Launcher menus. Application developers and end users are tired of having to add new apps Mozilla to two different sets of menus. Nobody says `I want a QT app...oh, and by the way, can it be a web browser'?. They say `I want a web browser'. They don't care about toolkits and neither should the desktop menus.

* Panel applets.

* Icons. GNOME uses 48 x 48. KDE uses various sizes (which is probably a better way to do it - 48 x 28 icons do notRe:some notes not look pretty). Have a kind word to the GNOME folk and suggest they use the same approach as KDE.

* Package deployment. I'd love to download KDE via Ximian's Red Carpet, or a KDE interface for the same.

Re:KHTML & IE compatibility. Bah!

[A coward on a mouse]

You're absolutely right. And if, by adhering to a standard not adhered to by the browser used by the rest of the world, 90% of pages look like shit in Linux, well, fsck 'em, we didn't want to look at those pages. And if nobody uses Linux because 90% of all web pages look like sh*t, well, fsck them too, we don't want those kind of people using Linux. I'm sure that everyone will feel so bad that the colicky Linux users aren't participating that the world will change.

Seriously though, your hardline standards-compliance stance is an idea whose time has either passed or whose time is not yet come. Some facts:

1. The defacto standard *is* IE. If you don't believe this, you are in denial.
2. The vast majority of web authors are not interested in finding a "long term solution". Not only is finding long term solutions difficult, but doing so harms the web author's job security and besides, most clients expect a complete re-work of their site every once in a while, to keep it fresh.
3. As a result of the above, most of the web is optimized for IE.
4. Approximately 0% of average users give a good goddamn whether the web page they are viewing is standards compliant.
5. Approximately 100% of average users don't care if the browser uses black magic to render the pages as long as the pages be readable.

If Linux wants to attract users, Linux will need a browser that can render the millions of pages already written for IE somewhere near as well as IE can render them. On the other hand, if Linux is hoping to go down in history as a highly standards-compliant system that was too good for this world, then your way is the right choice.