Also you are naive to think that Microsoft can put out a Unix - with all the drivers and a minimum amount of available software - in less than 5 years.
I never questioned Microsoft taking Linux seriously. Obviously they do, but they can't do anything against it.
WHEN seting up a new computer, everybody uses the newest version, so in the Linux world bugs never appear on new installations. Contrary, on Windows, even WinNT is still reinstalled - and 8-year old bugs with it.
No, that doesn't force you to update your installation often, to the contrary: The newer your initial installation, the longer you can get by with it.
For example, and this is horrifying, imagine that M$ purchases SCO's 'rights' (whatever the hell those actually are) and produces a Unix clone and puts 20 THOUSAND engineers on it. Imagine they do it right. Everything written to be secure, everything modularized, the ultimate desktop, et cetera.
Wait a minute.
So essentially you are saying that Microsoft is too incompetent to make a stable, secure Windows which they have worked on for over 10 years (and I agree) but they will all of the sudden be able to produce a stable and secure Unix in no time?
Also why should anybody buy their Unix? It doesn't run any Windows games, it costs alot and it's closed source. It's like combining the disadvantages of Windows and Linux.
I'm as lazy as an admin can get, I update about 2-3 times/year and don't read any security mailing lists.
Yet I haven't been hit by any security problem despite running over 10 Linux computers of various types (servers, desktops).
Why?
Because:
With Linux, you use the newest version which is only a couple of months old when installing, with Windows, you get bugs that are years old because a) Windows isn't realeased nearly as often and b) you don't want to waste money on security upgrades.
Linux just doesn't have any comparable security problems. Since I don't have any untrusted users on my systems, elevation of privileges holes aren't that much of a problem. Sure I'll On Windows you have lots of REMOTE root exploits which are much worse.
The whole "servicepack"/"hotfix" system is horribly broken. With OSS, I just upgrade software package to x.y.z where x.y.z is larger than whenever the bug was fixed. With Windows you have to download servicepacks and hotfixes for your special version and language which can screw up your installation (for example an IE "service"pack removed Java. Not by accident, but on purpose.) and may include changes in the EULA or other "features". All this is hard to manage (I don't keep track what fixes I installed on every computer I manage, I'm sorry. Without the ability to check the version number it's damn hard to manage that mess.)
Linux doesn't hinder competing applications. While some bug in some Microsoft-software will endanger your whole operation, it's very likely that you have a last-resort alternative on Linux. For example sendmail/postfix or the many different mailing programs.
On Linux, competition between vendors is possible. When Redhat screws up I can go to Mandrake (or vice versa). But what do you do when Microsoft sais they won't fix the bug because it's too hard? (Like they didn't fix the IE "@"-bug for months) Or they fix it in a way that is unacceptable? (Like they finally fixed the "@"-bug by removing the functionality).
So yes, there are many reasons why Linux is indeed a lot more secure than Windows and will always be.
Why is it that the Winlots always put out arguments where Windows "could"/"should" be better than Linux, but in the meantime, in the real world, all mass-infecting webserver-worms target IIS (20% marketshare) and the only mass-infecting database-worm targets MS-SQL (13% marketshare)?
Why is Windows always just great in theory, but but a crappy piece of junk in real life?
Or between development and release. Granted, Sony may have the clout, but don't forget there are plenty of ways to mess up when it comes to releasing a new console.
You mean like not making it backwards compatible? Or changing development platforms?
Microsoft promised that WinNT/2K/XP was more secure than Win9x. Well the biggest worm epidemies ever all have stricken WinNT/2K/XP, so while in theory it might contain some nice security features, it's a lot less secure than Win9x in real life.
Microsoft also promised that Win2K could run headless (without graphics card and monitor), it doesn't. Then they promised that Windows.NET server aka Win2003 could run headless, it doesn't.
Now they promise that Longhorn will include so great features that it will set the world on fire. (and it will probably also run headless, although I haven't heard that promise from MS for a while), but in the end it will turn out to be a minor upgrade at a hefty price.
Just like there are lots of mentally slow people running around firmly beliefing that WinXP is more secure than Win98, there are lots who still believe Microsoft's proclamations. But some have stopped believing them.
The beauty of Linux is that it comes in so many flavours and variants, so nobody forces you to use Lindows.
If security on Lindows desktops will ever be an issue (so the user is running as root, so what? Right now there aren't any viruses or worms on Linux) then I'm sure Lindows will adapt and change the defaults to no longer run as root. But since there is much, much fewer piracy on Linux, I have my doubts that even if everybody would run as root, a virus could propagate. Because most distros ecourage the user not to run as root, the chances of a virus actually propagating is even slimmer.
But it's irrelevant because it won't be your problem anyway, so why should you be worried?
There is a need for extremely dumbed down Linux distributions, and Lindows fills that need.
The nature of OpenSource is that it can be customized to every need. If there is a need for a run-always-as-root distribution, then somebody will satisfy that need. That's the beauty of it. Nobody can force anything down the user's throats.
The most troubling issue with logic is that there are too many people so very bad at it.
If you reread my post, you will discover that I said that Microsoft being behind the SCO-campaign is the only logical thing.
Somebody forging that email doesn't change that statement in any way. Even if it's a forgery, it's still the only logical thing that Microsoft is behind the SCO-campaign, because many of SCO's actions are not explainable otherwise (OK, you could argue that SCO hopes to gain "license fees", however there is no way SCO can gain anything at all by attacking the GPL for instance and claiming it's unconstitutional or whatever. This doesn't make any sense without Microsoft being behind it.)
Nonsense, the BSA audits, sues and fines companies all the time about Microsoft software.
Of course, unlike the SCO-stuff, it's not news, it's just "the normal run of things".
Also, it's about CSS vs. OSS. With proprietary software, you are forced to agree to a thingt contract which can easily violated because many things are unclear or bound to interpretation. (Like "Am I still allowed to use my OEM license when I change the CPU, then the motherboard and then add a harddrive?" or "Is the company liable for pirated software installed by an employee?") Even if you want to be fully in compliance, it often isn't that easy.
On the other hand it's impossible to violate the GPL as an end-user (the very definition of end-user is that an end-user doesn't distribute software).
So realistically, any commercial software contract is a legal risk, while OSS isn't.
There is little doubt they will make their $86M back on additional because of the FUD the SCO crap has caused.
I'm not so sure about that.
So far all court-cases where because of violation of proprietary licensing agreements, as soon as people realize that (probably after the court-case) this FUD could do exactly what Microsoft doesn't want: Make proprietary sofware a legal risk while washing OSS clean.
Had the SCO-case any real-world effect at all? I seriously doubt that. Those few who actually believe the SCO-stories probably run Windows anyway and will actually get only interested in Linux because Microsoft is generating so much fuss about it. I don't think anybody can claim that 2003 has been a bad year for Linux, just look at Netcraft...
It's pretty logic that Microsoft is behind all that. Otherwise the anti-Linux FUD spread by SCO just doesn't make any sense.
However, Microsoft's efforts could backfire badly:
If people actually start to think (I said "if" okay?) and realize that it's proprietary software that got people into legal trouble:
IBM was sued because of their agreements around project Monterey and their licensing of proprietary SCO IP.
Autozone was sued because they used the proprietary SCO Unix and SCO claims that they continued to use it after their contract expired.
The suit against DaimlerChrysler is similar, they dumped SCO and SCO claims they continue using it
If any of those firms would have used 100% open source software from the start neither would have been sued.
Isn't the whole SCO-mess the biggest pro-OSS argument imaginable?
If you look at SCO: First you buy software from a seemingly honest Unix-vendor, a couple of years later their management changes and you get sued for it! SCO proves how dangerous proprietary sofware can become.
You winlots are a funny bunch. No matter what Microsoft does, in the end it turns out to be some kind of accident in which Microsoft is just an innocent victim.
The reason SVG isn't included in the default build is nothing to do with "politics" unless you have a very broad definition of the term, it's not in because it's not complete.
Well, HTML and CSS support isn't complete either, so I guess you would throw them out of Mozilla, right?
Supporting such huge standards like HTML, CSS or SVG takes decades to really complete. And there isn't really any problem in including a subset of a standard as long as the renderer and infrastructure are stable (and from my experience they were half a year ago.)
So, until Mozillas SVG support matches a W3C standard, it won't be switched on.
If that is the case, then let's kiss SVG-support in Mozilla goodbye forever. It will never reach the needed testers and developers as long as it is hidden in a special build.
I don't know how Konquerors SVG support matches against Mozillas, but I'd be surprised if they'd implemented the whole thing (with the required KHTML/DOM integration). If they haven't done the whole thing then I'd not suggest they switch it on, it's that simple.
Nonsense. Konqueror has all the SVG support I personally need which makes me happy. Why should I not be happy just because of BS-politics?
And again, HTML and CSS aren't fully implemented either. In no browser. Mozilla comes very close for HTML and CSS, but it's still not 100%. So if every browser-maker would be as closed-minded as you, we would still have no web at all because everybody would wait for the one true standard to be fully implemented. Of course without the web there wouldn't be any real incentive to implement that standard anyway.
i want a browser that will remember its state between sessions. if i close the 15 windows i've got open, i want them all back again, same site, same position, when i re-open it again!
Me too, that's why I use Konqueror.
Actually that feature was the reason why I used Konq years ago even when it was still named "kfm" and had no Javascript support and very bad HTML support...
SVG is already a big standard. There are numerous converters from tens (if not hundreds) of formats. For example I've seen many converters to and from CAD-formats.
But to make it a standard on the web, Mozilla has to want it.
It doesn't matter if only a part of it is implemented, html or css isn't 100%ly implemented either, so include SVG in the default build
SVG support is already good enough for most uses.
I can tell users to "download Mozilla version x.y or above", I can't tell them to "download that special SVG-build, but you won't get any localization and everytime you upgrade you will lose SVG".
So the sad state of affairs is that solely because of political reasons SVG in Mozilla is completely worthless and I would advise users to download the Adobe plugin instead.
Konqueror comes with SVG-support out of the box in the default build and it's what I already use for some admin interfaces (where I am the only user) to rotate text (a real shame that you can't do that with HTML. But it's currently the only use I have for SVG and Mozilla could do it if they wanted to.) - because even I am too lazy to mess with specialized builds for Mozilla.
I've tried the SVG-build half a year ago and it was at that time working really well and was technically probably better than Konqueror's current implementation. But because of moronic politics, SVG in Mozilla will continue to rot away completely useless in real life while Konqueror will have lots of SVG users (and bug-reporters) and will improve fast and overtake Mozilla soon.
There were times when Mozilla was really leading development, unfortunately the Mozilla project got obsessed with the idea to dumb everything down and even throw out advanced features (like MNG support!). The future belongs to KHTML and Konqueror, that project has dynamics, the will to improve and is not hindered by politics. Apple has seen that and that's exactly the reason why they chose KHTML over Gecko, IMO.
That all said, I really hope that Mozilla wakes up and proves me wrong. Mozilla is currently the only real cross-platform browser, which is a great advantage over KHTML. Gecko is also a great rendering engine. Include SVG in the default build. NOW.
This kind of crap is exactly why Linux has had such trouble gaining traction among nontechnical users
How is this not generalizing from one distro to all? Even worse, CUPS' config wizard is merely an add-on, a nifty extra feature, it's still the distro's responsability to manage printer configuration. Fedora fails at this while other distros do it fine.
Then GODDAMN do it!. But please only verifyable things.
So far the only thing on this subthread is complaining about startmenu structure and other stuff which isn't a core issue and has been fixed in KDE 3.2 anyway.
The last poster even complained about bad usability for Konqueror's tabs. Well, d'oh, but neither Explorer nor Internet Explorer use any tabs at all. It's really funny to complain that Windows is better because a feature isn't perfect that isn't even in Windows. If you use Konqueror like Explorer, you would never even see the problem. But of course it was a problem and it was fixed in KDE 3.2. The tabs now shrink just like in Mozilla.
The other complaints are equally moronic. How can multiple desktops be "confusing" when the user doesn't use them? You can use KDE for years without ever knowing that there are multiple desktops. Nobody is forcing them, so that complaint is just idiotic. But for many users it makes much sense and is very valuable.
These are things that KDE does the way you like. They're not examples of KDE superiority. Don't make the mistake of claiming that everybody likes the same things you do.
KDE doesn't force multiple desktops on you. You can use just the first desktop and never know there are others.
KDE doesn't force Unix copy/paste on you, you can use MacOS-style without ever realizing that there is a better way.
The same goes for all the other examples I've brought. And that's why it is superior because you can use the features you like but are not forced to use them.
I've used KDE, and while it's a decent desktop, there's no way in hell I could say that it has no usability problems.
If that is so, why can't you come up with just one real example?
Example: The menus all have "More Programs" submenus. Why can't all the programs for a group be on the same level?
That's really the best you can come up with? Complaining about startmenu structure? And even an invalid complaint because desktop distributions like SuSE were never using that structure and were using their own instead (which makes sense because there are some non-KDE programs in the distro, too.), and in KDE3.2 stock it isn't even valid anymore.
But even if it were still there, you can't compare fundamental usability features like Unix-style copy-paste with a startmenu-structure which can be changed by configuration.
KDE allows you to use the "Alt"-key combined with the mouse. Alt+LMB let's you "grap" a window everywhere, making moving more comfortable and flexible (you can move windows off the top of the screen which is impossible in Windows), Alt+RMB let's you resize windows more easily because you only have to aim near the border/corner of a window.
7th example:
KDE doesn't force the active window on top of all others. This way you can simultaneously use overlapping windows.
Look at how much more polished and usable Windows XP is than any OSS desktop.
Or OS/X. They took an OSS platform and layed a slick, highly integrated and very stylish UI on top of it. In about a quarter of the time that various linux desktop projects have been around. What's the difference?
Marketing.
I HAVE tried WinXP and MacOSX and both leave a lot to be desired.
There is just no good substitute for multiple desktops with good session management like KDE has. Also Unix-style copy/paste is much faster and more comfortable than MacOS-style (which was copied by Windows) because you don't have to switch nearly as often between keyboard and mouse. Of course KDE supports both copy/paste schemes, so you are not forced to use Unix-style. Real 3-button support is another thing. For example I can open a folder in the filemanager in a new tab with the MMB, or I can jump to a position on a scrollbar with the MMB, or I can push back a window with the MMB.
But of course, marketing has told you that all those features are "for geeks" only and Windows/MacOS is the best there is - so often that people started to believe it. You don't even need examples, facts or reasons!
KDE doesn't have any usability problems, period. I've seen newbies pull hairs because of the numerous single-click/double-click inconsistencies in Windows (why do I have to single-click an icon on a toolbar but double-click an icon on the desktop? What moron invented that scheme?) which don't exist in KDE, at least not in the default configuration.
I have now presented 5 examples of KDE superiority (multiple desktops, session management, copy-paste, 3-mouse button support and single-click consistency), you have prestented nothing, zero, nada. Probably because you have never used KDE and have no idea what you are talking about.
What indeed is a problem is missing and incomplete documentation. Another is missing Win32 binary compatibility especially for games. That and that alone is keeping Linux/KDE off the masses desktops.
What nonsense. If you define quality as "doing what it is intended to do", open source is doing an excellent job. Just look at how many bugs and security leaks IS had and still has and how few Mozilla had. (I still have to witness a single Mozilla security hole that could be exploited with realistic chances success.) Just look at the great work the Apache-Team has done compared to IIS which it's many holes and bugs.
Slashdot Mirror
Also you are naive to think that Microsoft can put out a Unix - with all the drivers and a minimum amount of available software - in less than 5 years.
I never questioned Microsoft taking Linux seriously. Obviously they do, but they can't do anything against it.
WHEN seting up a new computer, everybody uses the newest version, so in the Linux world bugs never appear on new installations. Contrary, on Windows, even WinNT is still reinstalled - and 8-year old bugs with it.
No, that doesn't force you to update your installation often, to the contrary: The newer your initial installation, the longer you can get by with it.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Wait a minute.
So essentially you are saying that Microsoft is too incompetent to make a stable, secure Windows which they have worked on for over 10 years (and I agree) but they will all of the sudden be able to produce a stable and secure Unix in no time?
Also why should anybody buy their Unix? It doesn't run any Windows games, it costs alot and it's closed source. It's like combining the disadvantages of Windows and Linux.
I'm as lazy as an admin can get, I update about 2-3 times/year and don't read any security mailing lists.
Yet I haven't been hit by any security problem despite running over 10 Linux computers of various types (servers, desktops).
Why?
Because:
So yes, there are many reasons why Linux is indeed a lot more secure than Windows and will always be.
Why is it that the Winlots always put out arguments where Windows "could"/"should" be better than Linux, but in the meantime, in the real world, all mass-infecting webserver-worms target IIS (20% marketshare) and the only mass-infecting database-worm targets MS-SQL (13% marketshare)?
Why is Windows always just great in theory, but but a crappy piece of junk in real life?
You mean like not making it backwards compatible? Or changing development platforms?
In the console business, actually it does.
Everybody wants to get the "winning" console, because it will have the best games and games earlier.
The PS2-hype killed Dreamcast, seems as the PS3-hype will kill XBox2.
Microsoft promised that WinNT/2K/XP was more secure than Win9x. Well the biggest worm epidemies ever all have stricken WinNT/2K/XP, so while in theory it might contain some nice security features, it's a lot less secure than Win9x in real life.
Microsoft also promised that Win2K could run headless (without graphics card and monitor), it doesn't. Then they promised that Windows .NET server aka Win2003 could run headless, it doesn't.
Now they promise that Longhorn will include so great features that it will set the world on fire. (and it will probably also run headless, although I haven't heard that promise from MS for a while), but in the end it will turn out to be a minor upgrade at a hefty price.
Just like there are lots of mentally slow people running around firmly beliefing that WinXP is more secure than Win98, there are lots who still believe Microsoft's proclamations. But some have stopped believing them.
Why are you concerned?
The beauty of Linux is that it comes in so many flavours and variants, so nobody forces you to use Lindows.
If security on Lindows desktops will ever be an issue (so the user is running as root, so what? Right now there aren't any viruses or worms on Linux) then I'm sure Lindows will adapt and change the defaults to no longer run as root. But since there is much, much fewer piracy on Linux, I have my doubts that even if everybody would run as root, a virus could propagate. Because most distros ecourage the user not to run as root, the chances of a virus actually propagating is even slimmer.
But it's irrelevant because it won't be your problem anyway, so why should you be worried?
There is a need for extremely dumbed down Linux distributions, and Lindows fills that need.
The nature of OpenSource is that it can be customized to every need. If there is a need for a run-always-as-root distribution, then somebody will satisfy that need. That's the beauty of it. Nobody can force anything down the user's throats.
The most troubling issue with logic is that there are too many people so very bad at it.
If you reread my post, you will discover that I said that Microsoft being behind the SCO-campaign is the only logical thing.
Somebody forging that email doesn't change that statement in any way. Even if it's a forgery, it's still the only logical thing that Microsoft is behind the SCO-campaign, because many of SCO's actions are not explainable otherwise (OK, you could argue that SCO hopes to gain "license fees", however there is no way SCO can gain anything at all by attacking the GPL for instance and claiming it's unconstitutional or whatever. This doesn't make any sense without Microsoft being behind it.)
Of course, unlike the SCO-stuff, it's not news, it's just "the normal run of things".
Also, it's about CSS vs. OSS. With proprietary software, you are forced to agree to a thingt contract which can easily violated because many things are unclear or bound to interpretation. (Like "Am I still allowed to use my OEM license when I change the CPU, then the motherboard and then add a harddrive?" or "Is the company liable for pirated software installed by an employee?") Even if you want to be fully in compliance, it often isn't that easy.
On the other hand it's impossible to violate the GPL as an end-user (the very definition of end-user is that an end-user doesn't distribute software).
So realistically, any commercial software contract is a legal risk, while OSS isn't.
I'm not so sure about that.
So far all court-cases where because of violation of proprietary licensing agreements, as soon as people realize that (probably after the court-case) this FUD could do exactly what Microsoft doesn't want: Make proprietary sofware a legal risk while washing OSS clean.
Had the SCO-case any real-world effect at all? I seriously doubt that. Those few who actually believe the SCO-stories probably run Windows anyway and will actually get only interested in Linux because Microsoft is generating so much fuss about it. I don't think anybody can claim that 2003 has been a bad year for Linux, just look at Netcraft...
However, Microsoft's efforts could backfire badly:
If people actually start to think (I said "if" okay?) and realize that it's proprietary software that got people into legal trouble:
If any of those firms would have used 100% open source software from the start neither would have been sued.
Isn't the whole SCO-mess the biggest pro-OSS argument imaginable?
If you look at SCO: First you buy software from a seemingly honest Unix-vendor, a couple of years later their management changes and you get sued for it! SCO proves how dangerous proprietary sofware can become.
Oh, you mean like XBox, right?
Please make up a theory why "XFree86" gets the porn warning, but "XFree86 sex" doesn't.
Oh, yeah, now gasgesgos will say that Porn sites plaster "XFree86" all over, but never use the word "sex"...
Well, HTML and CSS support isn't complete either, so I guess you would throw them out of Mozilla, right?
Supporting such huge standards like HTML, CSS or SVG takes decades to really complete. And there isn't really any problem in including a subset of a standard as long as the renderer and infrastructure are stable (and from my experience they were half a year ago.)
So, until Mozillas SVG support matches a W3C standard, it won't be switched on.
If that is the case, then let's kiss SVG-support in Mozilla goodbye forever. It will never reach the needed testers and developers as long as it is hidden in a special build.
I don't know how Konquerors SVG support matches against Mozillas, but I'd be surprised if they'd implemented the whole thing (with the required KHTML/DOM integration). If they haven't done the whole thing then I'd not suggest they switch it on, it's that simple.
Nonsense. Konqueror has all the SVG support I personally need which makes me happy. Why should I not be happy just because of BS-politics?
And again, HTML and CSS aren't fully implemented either. In no browser. Mozilla comes very close for HTML and CSS, but it's still not 100%. So if every browser-maker would be as closed-minded as you, we would still have no web at all because everybody would wait for the one true standard to be fully implemented. Of course without the web there wouldn't be any real incentive to implement that standard anyway.
Me too, that's why I use Konqueror.
Actually that feature was the reason why I used Konq years ago even when it was still named "kfm" and had no Javascript support and very bad HTML support...
But to make it a standard on the web, Mozilla has to want it.
It doesn't matter if only a part of it is implemented, html or css isn't 100%ly implemented either, so include SVG in the default build
SVG support is already good enough for most uses.
I can tell users to "download Mozilla version x.y or above", I can't tell them to "download that special SVG-build, but you won't get any localization and everytime you upgrade you will lose SVG".
So the sad state of affairs is that solely because of political reasons SVG in Mozilla is completely worthless and I would advise users to download the Adobe plugin instead.
Konqueror comes with SVG-support out of the box in the default build and it's what I already use for some admin interfaces (where I am the only user) to rotate text (a real shame that you can't do that with HTML. But it's currently the only use I have for SVG and Mozilla could do it if they wanted to.) - because even I am too lazy to mess with specialized builds for Mozilla.
I've tried the SVG-build half a year ago and it was at that time working really well and was technically probably better than Konqueror's current implementation. But because of moronic politics, SVG in Mozilla will continue to rot away completely useless in real life while Konqueror will have lots of SVG users (and bug-reporters) and will improve fast and overtake Mozilla soon.
There were times when Mozilla was really leading development, unfortunately the Mozilla project got obsessed with the idea to dumb everything down and even throw out advanced features (like MNG support!). The future belongs to KHTML and Konqueror, that project has dynamics, the will to improve and is not hindered by politics. Apple has seen that and that's exactly the reason why they chose KHTML over Gecko, IMO.
That all said, I really hope that Mozilla wakes up and proves me wrong. Mozilla is currently the only real cross-platform browser, which is a great advantage over KHTML. Gecko is also a great rendering engine. Include SVG in the default build. NOW.
This kind of crap is exactly why Linux has had such trouble gaining traction among nontechnical users
How is this not generalizing from one distro to all? Even worse, CUPS' config wizard is merely an add-on, a nifty extra feature, it's still the distro's responsability to manage printer configuration. Fedora fails at this while other distros do it fine.
Then GODDAMN do it!. But please only verifyable things.
So far the only thing on this subthread is complaining about startmenu structure and other stuff which isn't a core issue and has been fixed in KDE 3.2 anyway.
The last poster even complained about bad usability for Konqueror's tabs. Well, d'oh, but neither Explorer nor Internet Explorer use any tabs at all. It's really funny to complain that Windows is better because a feature isn't perfect that isn't even in Windows. If you use Konqueror like Explorer, you would never even see the problem. But of course it was a problem and it was fixed in KDE 3.2. The tabs now shrink just like in Mozilla.
The other complaints are equally moronic. How can multiple desktops be "confusing" when the user doesn't use them? You can use KDE for years without ever knowing that there are multiple desktops. Nobody is forcing them, so that complaint is just idiotic. But for many users it makes much sense and is very valuable.
KDE doesn't force multiple desktops on you. You can use just the first desktop and never know there are others.
KDE doesn't force Unix copy/paste on you, you can use MacOS-style without ever realizing that there is a better way.
The same goes for all the other examples I've brought. And that's why it is superior because you can use the features you like but are not forced to use them.
I've used KDE, and while it's a decent desktop, there's no way in hell I could say that it has no usability problems.
If that is so, why can't you come up with just one real example?
Example: The menus all have "More Programs" submenus. Why can't all the programs for a group be on the same level?
That's really the best you can come up with? Complaining about startmenu structure? And even an invalid complaint because desktop distributions like SuSE were never using that structure and were using their own instead (which makes sense because there are some non-KDE programs in the distro, too.), and in KDE3.2 stock it isn't even valid anymore.
But even if it were still there, you can't compare fundamental usability features like Unix-style copy-paste with a startmenu-structure which can be changed by configuration.
KDE allows you to use the "Alt"-key combined with the mouse. Alt+LMB let's you "grap" a window everywhere, making moving more comfortable and flexible (you can move windows off the top of the screen which is impossible in Windows), Alt+RMB let's you resize windows more easily because you only have to aim near the border/corner of a window.
7th example:
KDE doesn't force the active window on top of all others. This way you can simultaneously use overlapping windows.
Marketing.
I HAVE tried WinXP and MacOSX and both leave a lot to be desired.
There is just no good substitute for multiple desktops with good session management like KDE has. Also Unix-style copy/paste is much faster and more comfortable than MacOS-style (which was copied by Windows) because you don't have to switch nearly as often between keyboard and mouse. Of course KDE supports both copy/paste schemes, so you are not forced to use Unix-style. Real 3-button support is another thing. For example I can open a folder in the filemanager in a new tab with the MMB, or I can jump to a position on a scrollbar with the MMB, or I can push back a window with the MMB.
But of course, marketing has told you that all those features are "for geeks" only and Windows/MacOS is the best there is - so often that people started to believe it. You don't even need examples, facts or reasons!
KDE doesn't have any usability problems, period. I've seen newbies pull hairs because of the numerous single-click/double-click inconsistencies in Windows (why do I have to single-click an icon on a toolbar but double-click an icon on the desktop? What moron invented that scheme?) which don't exist in KDE, at least not in the default configuration.
I have now presented 5 examples of KDE superiority (multiple desktops, session management, copy-paste, 3-mouse button support and single-click consistency), you have prestented nothing, zero, nada. Probably because you have never used KDE and have no idea what you are talking about.
What indeed is a problem is missing and incomplete documentation. Another is missing Win32 binary compatibility especially for games. That and that alone is keeping Linux/KDE off the masses desktops.