KDE SC 4.4 is here

The KDE SC team has finally announced the much awaited 4.4 release, dubbed “Caikaku.”

KDE SC 4.4 Desktop

The sleek modern desktop environment from KDE SC has finally arrived. I’ve been waiting a long time for a solid, complete version and now I can finally delve right in and see all the goodies that KDE has to offer (although 4.3.5 was also very good, in my mind 4.4 is “it” and marks a most important turning point in the desktop).

Update: Renamed the title of the post so as to not appear to be dissing GNOME (which is also a brilliant desktop).

13 thoughts on “KDE SC 4.4 is here

  1. Because celebrating the release of one FLOSS project always has to involve some lame comparison with another… instead of focusing on what we are all competing with.

    When (and why) did you turn into such a lame hater, Chris? All this crap about Mono, dissing GNOME… should be utterly beneath you.

  2. Hey Jeff,

    It’s not about hating or dissing GNOME at all. I run several machines with a GNOME desktop and will continue to do so. However, KDE 4 has really sucked until recently and now it’s finally time to be able to really get into it and experience it’s wonderfulness.

    So this post is really about me being able to switch desktops for a while and have fun with KDE, because it’s finally in a state where that is possible. Rest assured that when GNOME 3.0 is out there will be a similar post.

    Speaking of “what we are all competing with,” we’ve already had several discussions on Mono, so..


  3. Re: your last sentence — Mono is not proprietary software, and I don’t find the conspiracy theories about it (or what comes across as outright protest, even hatred) remotely interesting, convincing, or even reflective of the people or facts.

  4. Well then you’re choosing to ignore reality and the history of the IT industry. Have you read the European Commission’s report?

    The whole “embrace, extend, extinguish” mantra isn’t just made up over nothing. It’s an internally used Microsoft phrase (just like “jihad”). They have used this policy time and time again to maintain control over the industry. That’s what they do! We should be setting ourselves free from their clutches, not embracing them. Building our software with their technology is not the way to achieve that.

    Even if there is no threat, why are we helping Microsoft’s programming framework to become more popular anyway? It’s being pushed by companies like Novell which generate revenue by selling licenses to Microsoft’s technology. What makes free software projects think they are exempt?

    Microsoft isn’t that desperate yet, so they aren’t attacking the projects themselves. Actually, doing so would be counter-productive for them. They need free software to infringe on their patents so that they can collect their licenses. If the Linux kernel adopts Tridge’s VFAT patch then Microsoft can no longer collect royalties from every company who ships a Linux based device using VFAT. The fact that they are collecting licenses for their “intellectual property” from companies who ship Linux based products is wrong. Why don’t you have an issue with that?

    They paint the picture that Linux infringes on their “intellectual property” and that anyone who uses it should acquire a license. The use of Mono just perpetuates Microsoft FUD about requiring licenses for Linux and we shouldn’t be helping them.


  5. According to the letter submitted to ECMA for standard approval, Microsoft and HP are the patent holders of C# and CLI.

    I don’t agree with any software which violates software patents, copyright or other licenses. I don’t believe that KDE or GNOME deliberately infringes on patents, but I’d be keen for some information on that. Feel free to forward.

    I’m not damning interoperability at all, but free software should be free. If there are patent issues, they should be worked around, avoided or nullified via irrevocable agreement.

  6. Mono isn’t a Microsoft project. Why are you telling me all this stuff about Microsoft’s behaviour and policies? It’s not relevant.

    In this case, it’s Mono developers embracing and extending (though perhaps not extinguishing) Microsoft’s work.

    I’m not on board with the *strategy* of cloning the .NET stack, but then, I’m also not using ridiculous arguments (and personal attacks) against it or the people involved.

    It’s a bizarre list of completely unrelated and irrelevant issues you bring to the table after I mentioned Mono, dude.

    You’re smarter than this.

  7. It is entirely relevant. The VFAT module in the kernel is also not a Microsoft project, but that doesn’t stop Microsoft from collecting royalties, right?

    Mono is an implementation of the Microsoft controlled .NET programming framework, primarily C# and CLI, but also other component outside of the standard spec, such as Windows.Forms and ASP.

    If Mono is implementing any of these, then it is at risk. Just like Samba was.

    It’s plain as day. Novell has licensed .NET from Microsoft to pass on protection to their clients who use Mono. Hello?

  8. Ooh yeah, ‘cos we all went absolutely nuts about the risks of SAMBA and how much of an arsehole and sympathiser that Tridge guy was before that whole problem was sorted. Uh huh.

    None of this hysteria has any basis in reality. Every major FLOSS project weighs the risks of the patent threat — and plenty of non-patent related competitive issues to boot. For a long time, we have disregarded some of these threats as less important than our other goals. There are plenty of examples.

    … and Chris, if you’re going to make such a big deal (largely due to demonisation of one particular vendor more than anything else) about a relatively low risk threat (yeah, once you get past the hysteria, it’s at most low risk), do you practice what you preach?

    How many items of software on your computer are in some way encumbered? More than you think. More than you know. More than you care about, when there’s an apparently easy target available.

    The hysteria about Mono is intellectually lazy, your arguments are intellectually lazy, the kind of personal remarks you’ve made about people who actually care about Mono (ie. neither of us) are intellectually lazy, and the repetition is terribly boring.

    Your opinion is plain as day, and that’s about it.

  9. The difference is that we know that .NET is patent encumbered. That’s a completely different issue to using something which we don’t know is encumbered.

    Without C# and CLI, Mono is nothing. It cannot exist without technology created by Microsoft. If it was or could, then I wouldn’t have an issue with it.

  10. Yes. We also know that most of the patents encumbering .NET are not owned by Microsoft. 🙂

    We also know that plenty of software we use every single day is patent encumbered. GNOME, KDE, practically any multimedia related software you’d use, etc.

    Are you not up in arms about those? Are you not protesting the short-sightedness of people involved in developing those? Are you not suggesting a conspiracy among companies who are using or support those?

    Oh, and when you say, “cannot exist without technology created by Microsoft”, you know you’re also damning practically all operability efforts across the FLOSS community? Simply because they “cannot exist without technology created by X”?

    There’s also the whole issue of Mono not depending on Microsoft technology but documentation, but hey. Why split hairs or worry about facts when we’re having so much fun demonising Microsoft, hey?

  11. Oh, weird.. that’s why it kept telling me “You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down.”

    I’ll go into the back-end to fix.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *