APR
4
2002

KDE 3.0: A New Era In Desktop Choice

Today the KDE Project proudly announces the release of KDE 3.0 (fully mirrored below), a release which marks a new era of choice on the desktop. Every advance opens the door to a group of new adopters, and KDE 3 is set to tear the doors asunder. In celebration of the release, the KDE League has posted the text KDE: The Complete Enterprise Desktop Solution, a work-in-progress but already something useful to show those who are considering the migration to freedom. Enough talk, time to download.

 


[Full Announcement Available Here]

Comments

I was a bit disappointed to find that the debian scripts are too out-of-date or just plain broken and can't generate working packages. Building arts, and kdelibs isn't much of a problem, but kdebase doesn't build all the packages properly. Looks like they were intended to build rc2 or something... :(


By Chad Kitching at Fri, 2002/04/05 - 6:00am

Where will these debian-packages be found anyways (when tehy are ready)?


By Johannes Wilm at Sat, 2002/04/06 - 6:00am

Hi

Is there a projected date for Debian (Potato/Woody) packages for KDE 3?

If it is far off, is it worth trying to build the KDE 3 myself, or are there likely to be problems with GCC/GLIBC ?

In the past, when using RH, I built KDE several times without any problems, but I now use Debian (Potato and Woody) and I am aware that the versions of GCC/GLIBC used are old, but very stable.


By Simon Windsor at Mon, 2002/04/08 - 5:00am

I'd be real suprised if you see KDE3 in Potato, and woody will most likely be a long time. As you probably know, Woody is mainly frozen pending a release soon. I keep checking hoping I'll see sid packages, and the rumor was that there'd be debs floating around RSN, though not from the official sites. I can't speak to compiling KDE3 myself.

HTH,
Erik


By Erik Severinghaus at Mon, 2002/04/08 - 5:00am

first of all,

thank you for the beautifull kde 3 release. this made me switch from gnome 1/2 to kde 3. i was a contributor to gnome for a couple of years now. always followed the troll and crap others mentioned like QT or KDE sucks etc. then one day. i was playing with gnome 2 installation and i said 'jesus is this gnome ? this is what we all have waiting for ? where is a gnome 2 suitable webbrowser, where is a gnome 2 suitable email client... without having to install gnome 1 and gnome 2'.. anyways thats how may days until then looked. then one day i said myself 'hey lets try kde 3 cvs... play for 5-10 mins and then remove that again' ... but then 10 mins passed, 20 mins passed..... 3 days passed after the 4th day i removed gnome from my system and realized that i was totally wrong hooking up the gnome road. the functionality in kde 3 really impressed me. the cool framework, the cool applications, the way you can use your desktop a REAL desktop. i must say that i never used a DESKTOP under linux the way i am using kde now. its stupid if people say things like 'gnome beat kde' since its not true everyone who really tried kde will realize it. to say the truth i cant wait for kde 3.1 now.. i want that keramik theme :-) so far good work kde people. you did a really cool job and thank you for openening the eyes of a ex-gnome user/contributor. i wasted my time for sooooo long with that shit. thank you.


By Largo at Thu, 2002/04/04 - 6:00am

Amen. Thanks for the insurmountable desktop.


By Hude at Thu, 2002/04/04 - 6:00am

Dude, I'm having the idea that you are a troll yourself... KDE isn't made to kill GNOME and neither is GNOME made to kill KDE. Even if KDE 3 is so great that's no reason to make stupid negative comments about GNOME.

> always followed the troll and crap others
> mentioned like QT or KDE sucks etc

Oh? I've always seen more anti-GNOME trolls than anti-KDE trolls on Slashdot.
Heck, there are even more anti-Linux trolls than all the anti-GNOME/KDE trolls together!


By Stof at Thu, 2002/04/04 - 6:00am

oh please excuse me. since i was used to gnome for all the long time i was only able to compare gnome with kde and i was speaking of myself only. no need to place me into the troll category. you are a pissed off gnome user right ? pissed because someone care to say the plain truth.


By Largo at Thu, 2002/04/04 - 6:00am

But you are behaving like a troll, _right now_. Irregardless of the fact that you're making the common troll error of thinking KDE and GNOME are enemies, you're also (seemingly) :

- Placing yourself in a position of being undebatably correct ("pissed because someone care to say the plain truth.").
- Not even bothering to use proper capitalization, grammar, or even line breaks.
- Being really sarcastic ("oh please excuse me." and "you are a pissed off gnome user right ?").
- Ranting and raving against the commentor instead of replying to the comment.


By Carbon at Fri, 2002/04/05 - 6:00am

Never complain about someone's grammer in a post where you use the word "irregardless".


By Peter Kasting at Fri, 2002/04/05 - 6:00am

Irregardless is a word, though, and a valid one at that. English isn't a self-consistent language, look at 'flammable' and 'imflammable'.


By Carbon at Fri, 2002/04/05 - 6:00am

Irregardless is a word, albeit one that any good dictionary will list only to tell you it's wrong. Kind of like 'burglarize', 'administrate' and 'object orientated'.


By cosmo at Sat, 2002/04/06 - 6:00am

I believe that in a debate that one can use this word to comeback with in rebuttal.Example... regardless of what people think "irregardless" is not a word. (rebuttal) Irregardless of what they think ,this word can be used against the first "regardless" in a debate. Contrary to thier belief. Example #2... "Father ,regardless of what they say...I did not chop down the cherry tree!" then the father say's "Irregardless of what anyone say's ...I saw you chop down the cherry tree!"


By Jeffrey Shane L... at Thu, 2003/04/03 - 6:00am

Jeffrey Shane Linneman, you are wrong. The ir- and the -less are redundant. They constitute a double negative, which, in English, is never necessary. "Regarding" (or the phrase "with regard to") and "regardless" are all you will ever need, as they succinctly express the only two possible states of existence of "regard:" the positive and the negative.

Not only do you defend this stupid word, you argue that it is proper in debate, the setting where it is perhaps least acceptable. I don't know if you have ever won a debate, or debated at all, but using nonsensical words such as "irregardless" will do nothing but make you look (more) foolish.

How is one to respond to your rebuttal in a debate, "unirregardless?" Followed by "nonunirregardless?" At this point, I think even you can appreciate how wrong this is. When is the addition of affixes to stop?

Let's look at Example #2. A son, apparently the young George Washington, wishes his father to ignore the testimony of unnamed third party witnesses (they) so he uses the word "regardless," to indicate that his father is to consider his claim of innocence WITHOUT REGARD for "what they say." His father counters with an argument that is not dependent on the testimony of others, thus, it stands without regard to "what anyone says." In this case, he should use the word "regardless," which, of course, means without regard. Instead, Jeffrey, you give him the meaningless word "Irregardless," adding to poor George's guilt the shame of his father's linguistic idiocy.


By Edward Ballister at Tue, 2003/05/27 - 5:00am

I think this debate is rediculous, and I feel that you could be spending your time doing something meaningful. Volunteer, visit the sick, help a old lady acorss the street. If irregardless wasn't a word then Webster would not have put it in his book. Irregardless is a word.


By T Burt at Wed, 2003/06/04 - 5:00am

Rediculous...and how does Webster spell that word?

Help a old lady, or help an old lady? ...acorss the street? Come on now, where the hell did you go to school? Or is it skool?

And in case you did not know, you can help other people and still be smart. Who were you helping when you entered your comments? I am sure someone was being ignored by you for the moment...


By M at Wed, 2003/06/11 - 5:00am

Irregardless is not a "real"word. Sorry.


By Mike at Sat, 2003/12/06 - 6:00am

I think this debate is rediculous, and I feel that you could be spending your time doing something meaningful. Volunteer, visit the sick, help a old lady acorss the street. If irregardless wasn't a word then Webster would not have put it in his book. Irregardless is a word.


By T Burt at Wed, 2003/06/04 - 5:00am

you cannot make a fair judgement if u ur self cannot spell, this is how u spell 'ridiculous'. and if we can't all go to visit old people, or visit the sick,a debate (no matter how rIdiculous the subject) helps us to understand things better, and to apprecitae others points of view. Think again before you ruin others moments.


By alesha at Wed, 2003/11/12 - 6:00am

this is silly. first of all, who cares about helping old people? they're going to die irregardless of whether we help them. in many ways the death of old people is an appropriate metaphor for this little battle of symantics and small dicks. like old people exposed to asbestos or kryptonite, language is alive and mutates. it's democratic in that sense--it's constantly changing, evolving, developing, and dying. deal with it. irregardless might sound retarded to you but it's a word and it's become synonomous with regardless. if everyone started spelling school with a "k", then soon skool would become a word and an acceptable one at that. can't you see Edward the Queef? this is linguistics in action; it's happened before and will (hopefully) continue to happen. Eddie, get over yourself and stop being such a snob.


By JNCESQ at Tue, 2003/11/25 - 6:00am

i meant semantics and queef-fart, not symantics and queef. my b


By JNCESQ at Tue, 2003/11/25 - 6:00am

It always amazes me, when I see this kind of rhetoric about anything, especially the elderly. THIS simply shows the ignorance and simple mindedness of the writer , in regard to life in general.

IGNORANCE......."lacking in knowledge of either general information or a specific field".

The IGNORANT ALWAYS "reveal themselves in their own vernacular".......smile

God help us all.
*******************


By ben at Wed, 2006/05/10 - 5:00am

Irregardless isn't a word. It is as much a word as ain't. Even if irregardless was a word most people would still be using it incorrectly. Irregardless would mean with regard however people use it in place of regardless which is pretty dumb.


By Joe at Sat, 2003/12/06 - 6:00am

a useful article on this subject may be found at

http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-irr1.htm

What I would like to bring to peoples' attention is English is full of words with double negatives that have been used as intensifiers and not to cancel each other out.

Although I must concede the fact that irregardless is not YET a word which is accepted as part of the English language; it may well be soon enough.


By Tim at Wed, 2004/03/24 - 6:00am

It is extremely frustrating to see people debate something that has already been defined by greater minds than those that are doing the debating.

In the future perhaps we should look in a dictionary before we say a word does not exist. Just because it is not in the one that we have on hand, does not mean it does not exist, or that it has not been recognized as a word.

Found in Merriam-Webster online.

One entry found for irregardless.

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Find something else to do.


By Ashvini at Tue, 2004/03/30 - 6:00am

The American Heritage® Book of English Usage.
A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996.

3. Word Choice: New Uses, Common Confusion, and Constraints

§ 184. irregardless
Irregardless is a word that many people mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. The word was coined in the United States in the early 20th century, probably from a blend of irrespective and regardless. Perhaps this is why some critics insist that there is “no such word” as irregardless, a charge they would not think of leveling at a nonstandard word with a longer history, such as ain’t. Since people use irregardless, it is undoubtedly a word. But it has never been accepted in Standard English and is usually changed by editors to regardless before getting into print.

My take on this subject is that I WILL NEVER USE IT. If you are trying to appear to be a stupid person, this is one of the quickest ways to reach that goal.

It is a not a standard English word...period. Just because someone uses a word does not make it correct English. Your proof here is actually doing more to prove the other side. The last sentence of your statement shows that the dictionary advises to "Use regardless instead" which of course is the correct, Standard English word. Everyone agrees it is a word, it's not a dirty sock. But the question here is "To use, or not to use". I believe the evidence clearly shows "Not to use".


By scissorfight at Sat, 2005/06/04 - 5:00am

Irregardless, wizzle thugz tizzell me it isn'ta word, thugz often git tha word wrizzle. Stuped thugz try'n ta look important use dis word. Itz a word for shizzle, but its b-to-da-izzest not ta use this shizzay, if yo wanna b intelligizzle.
For reazzle.


By Snoop Dogg at Wed, 2006/01/11 - 6:00am

Irregardless, wizzle thugz tizzell me it isn'ta word, thugz often git tha word wrizzle. Stuped thugz try'n ta look important use dis word. Itz a word for shizzle, but its b-to-da-izzest not ta use this shizzay, if yo wanna b intelligizzle.
For reazzle.


By Snoop Dogg at Wed, 2006/01/11 - 6:00am

hmm... Computer...

Let's consider someone from 1753 and ask them what the word computer means.

Words are created, irregardless of what is correct, logical or even useful.

To me, irregardless adds emphasis to regardless. A double negative in logic does in fact cancel into a positive. However, this is language, not logic. Logic has no meaning, it is abstract. Language has meaning and is not the same type of abstraction. One may refer to Latin roots to diminish this argument, but consider that

Investigate the French interest within the contents of dictionaries...

Consider this oxymoron (IMHO):
Military Intelligence
Do the words means something different alone than when placed together?

Well I suspect those that acknowledge the word irregardless exists and is used for "humor" derive this position from considering the existence of oxymorons.

In the context of an oxymoron, albeit irregardless is a single word, one can see how meaning is relevant....

At any rate... that's my opinion... (not justified as well as I would like)


By Josh at Thu, 2005/09/15 - 5:00am

"Ain't" ain't a word either. If you're going to use apostrophes at all, why not use them as required? You shouldn't feel compelled to limit yourself to one. If that's the case, don't use them at all - "aint" is much better. You could try "ai'n't", but the "a" doesn't belong there...so why make such a futile effort? Instead, write "isn't". If you wish to put "aint" in prose, only do so when illustrating a person's speech habits (this will not reflect well on stated person). It seems that a common rebuttal to the claim "irregardless is not a word" goes something like: "it's in the dictionary - look it up". Expletives are in the dictionary too, but we don't commonly argue for our freedom to use them whenever and wherever we want. In the end, it is not about what is or is not a word, but which words you should avoid so as not to sound like a moron. Besides, who on earth is Webster? And who is he to tell me when something is widespread enough to be considered a word? If I think it sounds ridiculous, I will not use it. If you use it, I might laugh a little. Incidentally, "burglarize" is not a word in my vocabulary either. It's "burgle", back-formation or not.

P.S. anyone wishing to critique my use of punctuation marks may go ahead - I don't care.


By Jon at Wed, 2006/06/07 - 5:00am

Ain't was a word. It was a contraction for am not. "I ain't going to stop using the word ain't in spoken language." At one time would have been correct usage. "'Ain't ain't a word." Would never have been considered correct because ain't was never appropriately associated with ‘is not’ because the word isn't already, more appropriately, fills that usage.

Back to point on the word Irregardless. Is it a word?
"A unit of language that native speakers can identify; “
~ wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Apparently it is a word by the very definition of a word.

What is its meaning? Being that it is a double negative then no meaning could ever truly be agreed upon and thus it is non standard and should NEVER be used in writing unless it is to obtain a humorous absurd effect. Why bastardize our own language to a point where the intelligent and the ignorant can not effectively communicate?


By Festerius at Sun, 2006/06/11 - 5:00am

I've got no recogknowlwdge of what irregardless means. Must be time to unthaw my brain.


By Anonymous at Fri, 2009/01/09 - 6:00am

To funny. God bless grammer.

On the lighter side. Hours pass by as I try to compile Gnome1.4 and Gnome2.0. My LFS box is working overtime trying to place a hand on the whole idea of trying to
make Both versions of G work together. On one hand I can opt for a straight Gnome2.0 with no extra Gnome packages. Just a pretty window manager. Or waste time and hard drive space by adding both versions of Gnome. I roll with option two. In the end I find out that my two window mangers dont play nice together; yet they are Gnome. I feel like a true cobler. Putting many little applications together to make some type of functional window manager with some bells and whistles. Integration whats that? Gnome skipped out on that word. Then kde3.1.1 came to mind. My modem fired up and grabbed the packages. The compiler went to town. Then when kde was all said and done the first login was attempted. A warm glow opened on my lcd. I thought for a second I could hear angles singing in the background. A tear trickled down my eye. For there in Konqueror was a simple menu link saying send to a friend.


By Aaron at Wed, 2003/04/30 - 5:00am

my apologizes then.


By Largo at Fri, 2002/04/05 - 6:00am

A real troll would never apologize, so you are now officially an ex-troll. Congratulations :-)


By Carbon at Fri, 2002/04/05 - 6:00am

> you are a pissed off gnome user right ? pissed
> because someone care to say the plain truth.

Look, at first I take you serious. But these sentences make you really look like a troll...

OK, you think that it's the truth that GNOME sucks. I disagree, and unless everybody agrees that GNOME sucks, it simply is NOT the truth.
Even if it's the truth, it's not polite to go all out and spreading "GNOME sucks" messages everywhere.


By Stof at Fri, 2002/04/05 - 6:00am

What's your point?


By Stof at Sat, 2002/04/06 - 6:00am

"Aged Person", don't you ever give up trolling? Your old "I used to be a GNOME contributor and have now switched to KDE" troll is getting really tired now. What's the matter? Now that Gnotices won't print your crap anymore, you have to troll on KDE.news and Slashdot?


By Talua at Fri, 2002/04/05 - 6:00am

hehe, did you see me posting things like 'kde suck' or something ? i compared gnome vs. kde and find myself saying that kde is more usable to me and that i am thankfull to those who made it. by the way you must be a lucky person to get rid of me from your gnome section. oh and not to forget. i never made any trolls of gnome iirc i was only fed up about the way it went (full controll through sun/redhat/ximian) totally commercialism, totally capitalism etc. and i am fed up about the shit people shouting out when saying 'gnome wants to be this, gnome wants to be that, gnome will be this and that' and nothing of it came true. KDE is GNOME done right and better. eat this.


By Largo at Fri, 2002/04/05 - 6:00am

Come on, no one believes you were ever a GNOME developer. You have a long history of trolling, under many different aliases, writing different fictitious stories about yourself and GNOME.
Certainly, the time and effort you devote to trolling is impressive, but it would be better spent contributing to KDE in some way, rather than attacking another free-software project.


By Talua at Fri, 2002/04/05 - 6:00am

excuse me. its people like you that make other people look like trolls because of captious argumentations. gnome people are really pettish when it comes into these things. specially if there are people. maybe people like me that have more or less problems in explaining things correctly in a clean fine oxford english etc. i mean i was long enough with you guys to know what kind of evil assholes you people could be in certain situations so dont dump your shit on me. you are specialists in turning things, wiping other peoples eyes, itching on things that are none. etc.

now all i pointed out here is how much i like kde over gnome and i think it is nothing bad. i am speaking here from my personal opinions, my personal sight of things etc. somehow i must have done something negative to you otherwise you wont react like this now.

a last one, your 2 sentences above dont tell me much, specially 'long history of trolling under many different aliases' what do you mean by this ? where is the troll ? can you prove anything or are you only up to make one out of it ? but hey, if i was really that asshole you want to make me look like then in your situation i would shut the mouth and be happy to get rid of that person. instead picking the needle over and over again into that person.


By Largo at Fri, 2002/04/05 - 6:00am

Largo, don't waste your breath debating with a troll.


By ac at Fri, 2002/04/05 - 6:00am

Largo/Aged Person/Whatever, your language is unique and unmistakable. Changing aliases can't disguise that.
Remember this message from 8 months ago(one of many):
http://news.gnome.org/gnome-news/998345737/998408528/index_html
You said you were "a developer for a bunch of gnome projects" and had decided to stop using GNOME. Apparently you must have taken it up again, so that you could again quit because of GNOME 2!


By Talua at Fri, 2002/04/05 - 6:00am

Quit trolling yourself?

How do you know he is the same guy? Largo's grammer actually seems worse than this Aged Person guy.

Anyways, imho, both desktop environments are great. :)
I used kde 1.x, then gnome 1.2, then kde 2.1, then kde 2.2 (didn't care for gnome 1.4). Right now I'm using kde 3.0, but I'll definatly look at gnome2 when it's released. I urge all trolls (Talua, aged person), and supposed trolls (largo), to do the same :).


By fault at Fri, 2002/04/05 - 6:00am

I am not a troll; I am an anti-troll. :)


By Talua at Sat, 2002/04/06 - 6:00am

Will you please stop that nonsense? What you say is impolite and very insulting to those who use GNOME (or both GNOME and KDE) and to GNOME developers.
OK, so you don't like GNOME, but that's no reason to act like that.
Don't say trollish things such as "KDE is GNOME done right and better", say "I prefer to use KDE" or something.
Or better: don't mention anything about GNOME at all and just say how wonderful KDE is.


By Stof at Fri, 2002/04/05 - 6:00am

hey! it's still a free country. (at least where i am)
I u don't like what he's saying, don't read his posts.

This is a kde site. expect to read some GNOME Sucks posts. (cause it does)
if u don't like that, go hangout at gnotices.


By me at Fri, 2002/04/05 - 6:00am

Yes, but even in a free country one does not have the right to insult others.
And no, I don't expect to read some GNOME Sucks posts. Is this how you KDE guys want to behave?
I never wanted to believe that there's a war between GNOME and KDE, I've always thought that the "Gnome Sucks"-people are childish trolls. But people like you really start to make me think that KDE's reason to exist is to destroy GNOME.

What's your purpose? To tell everybody how GNOME sucks or to create a great desktop environment for Unix?


By Stof at Fri, 2002/04/05 - 6:00am

now show us who the real trolls are - troll!

by the way: i reviewed all my 'Largo' posts here on dot.kde.org and i was not able to find one line that said 'gnome sucks' written by me. so please shut up and stop turning things and words. you grab things out of nowhere and that is not fair. not fair for you gnome people and not fair for kde people and of course not fair for certain individuals. please stay at the facts.


By Largo at Fri, 2002/04/05 - 6:00am

Pages