Re: The main point is being missed
[Author here]
> It doesn't really matter if "this vulture" doesn't get on with the KDE philosophy. This is all about the power of choice.
I beg to differ.
My choice is: can I please not have so many choices?
I do not want my file manager to also be a web browser. I want clean lines of separation between my apps. I want smaller simpler apps.
This is an uncomfortable truth that people do not like, but it remains the case:
1. Most Linux desktops today are copies of the Windows >= 95 desktop, taking some or all of that GUI as their template.
2. (Aside: the ones that aren't are either copies of something else, or are just trying to be different to avoid corporate lawsuits.)
3. However, the Windows desktop has gone through several major versions: 95, then 98 "active desktop", then Vista/7, then 8.x, then 10.x, then 11. Many Linux folks are not familiar with the precise differences but they explain a lot of how and why different Linux desktops work the way they do.
4. This implies that which Windows desktop (or, indeed, other OS GUI) you preferred influences which Linux desktop you prefer.
So, to give some specific examples:
* Xfce, LXDE, and GNOME 2 model themselves on Windows 95, with changes.
* KDE was clearly modelled on Windows 98 instead.
* Cinnamon looks to me to be aiming for Vista/7.
* Now meta-desktops like DashToPanel in GNOME >= 3 clearly model themselves on Win 8 or Win 11.
As it happens, I like the Win95 model. No intermediate rendering formats in the filer; a simple desktop/file manager that doesn't do anything much else.
Win98 makes it all HTML and the filer has an embedded web browser, so you can have web content on the desktop or in filer windows, you can have background wallpapers in filer windows and things like that, which I personally consider pointless bloat.
But I know some people like this stuff. Good for them.
I really liked KDE 1.x. I thought it looked good and worked well.
KDE 2.x was getting a little bloated, but Xandros tuned it up better than anyone.
KDE 3.x was so big it was too much for me, and Xandros gave up, too.
KDE 4.x is perhaps best forgotten. ;-)
KDE 5.x is still a bloated mess, but it's at least it's a streamlined one now. Going flat relieved the visual horrors of KDE's long history of overcomplicated visual themes.
KDE 6... well, we will see.
I appreciate that some like specific versions, but it's not OK to say "you should like this because it's so customisable" when it's not customisation that I want. I want fewer options to twiddle. I want fewer settings. I want smaller simpler components with less customisability, and that is a choice that KDE and TDE deny me.