Attempting To Reframe "KDE Vs. GNOME"

jammag writes "Setting aside the now tired debate about whether KDE or GNOME is the 'better' Linux desktop, Bruce Byfield compares their disparate development approaches and asks, not which desktop is subjectively better, but which developmental approach is likely to be most successful in the next few years. 'In the short term, GNOME's gradualism seems sensible. But, in the long-term, it could very well mean continuing to be dragged down by support for legacy sub-systems. It means being reduced to an imitator rather than innovator.' In contrast, 'you could say that KDE has done what's necessary and ripped the bandage off the scab. In the short term, the result has been a lot of screaming, but, in the long term, it has done what was necessary to thrive.'"

Comments

Gnome alienating users

[HvitRavn]

Instead of planning for a 3.0 release, GNOME is opting for a gradual, piece by piece updating that will culminate in a 2.30 release. The change in version numbers is significant: It indicates that, unlike with the KDE 4 series, there will be no major break with past releases. This philosophy was obvious long before it became official last summer, and has the obvious advantage of not alienating users.

In my opinion, despite Gnome's incremental approach, they are still highly successive in alienating their users.

Re:Both will stay relevant

[Hurricane78]

Hey, I heard Slashdot is a write-only forum. So I thought I write something completely unrelated to the article, summary, title and comments I'm replying to.

I even tried to not relate it to the site and reality on/in which I am, but it's kinda hard.

Am I doing well in blending in?

Re:Well, I think

[BadAnalogyGuy]

You could say it is an Open Sores project. So to speak...