Funnily enough, influential people seem to think that there can only be one desktop for linux (eg Miguel de Icaza et al) This eliminates the biggest advantage of Linux: CHOICE!!. With respect to this "crippling" of KDE where is the choice if you remove all the advatages and niceties of one alternative?
Personally I don't like either Gnome or KDE. I prefer Enlightenment. But that doesn't mean I think KDE or Gnome should go away!
Isn't it funny, it seems people think choice is important only if you want to choose something else
It seems to indicate that workers should be removed from the company.
It reminds me of an ever present impression I get from the various jobs I have had:
Justify your existence.
Less employees == more profit for me (and shareholders.)
It seems to me people forget the reason why we work. I work to earn a living so that I can live. Doesn't everyone else?
After that the body of the article starts out diplomatically. The author is complaining about the apparent increase in proportion of IT workers (nerds?) to other staff brought on by the increase in complexity of the IT infrustructure. He is heralding the software as a way of hopefully maintaining balance.
Then he starts talking about people losing their jobs as if it is a good thing for people like him. Doesn't he know that he is a worker to.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes an _alternative_!!! Not the replacement!!!
Funnily enough, influential people seem to think that there can only be one desktop for linux (eg Miguel de Icaza et al) This eliminates the biggest advantage of Linux: CHOICE!!. With respect to this "crippling" of KDE where is the choice if you remove all the advatages and niceties of one alternative?
Personally I don't like either Gnome or KDE. I prefer Enlightenment. But that doesn't mean I think KDE or Gnome should go away!
Isn't it funny, it seems people think choice is important only if you want to choose something else
My god! look at that title
It seems to indicate that workers should be removed from the company.
It reminds me of an ever present impression I get from the various jobs I have had:
Justify your existence.
Less employees == more profit for me (and shareholders.)
It seems to me people forget the reason why we work. I work to earn a living so that I can live. Doesn't everyone else?
After that the body of the article starts out diplomatically. The author is complaining about the apparent increase in proportion of IT workers (nerds?) to other staff brought on by the increase in complexity of the IT infrustructure. He is heralding the software as a way of hopefully maintaining balance.
Then he starts talking about people losing their jobs as if it is a good thing for people like him. Doesn't he know that he is a worker to.