Well, this is one of the Aaron-style “explain to the unbelievers why they are wrong”. This is in response to http://blog.kov.eti.br/?p=19 (or you can see the [translated version]( en&hl=en&ie=UTF8))

**Disclaimer: **I have nothing against Gnome, I am mentioning it since it was used as a comparison in the original post.

Well, as all trolls on the internet, you have a couple of things obviously not clear to you.

  1. Delusion 1. KDE is vapourware because Lancelot is not finished

First of all, Lancelot is project in the late phase of development (like amarok2) - usable but not finished. See the definition of vapourware if you don’t see where you are mistaken.

And, not to mention, that Lancelot was not intended to be a part of KDE’s base packages. It’s like saying that Gnome is vapourware because Gimmie is not finished.

  1. Delusion 2. KDE is copying Windows (again, example is Lancelot)

Well, as I see it, you either haven’t used the Windows’ menu, or you haven’t used Lancelot (I bet on the later). Apart from being a /menu/, what are the similarities? Comparing Lancelot to Kickoff or Gimmie (for Gnome) would be more accurate… although still incorrect.

Besides Lancelot’s “copying” Windows what arguments do you have that other parts of KDE’s desktop are copying it?

  1. Delusion 3. KDE stopped focussing on the desktop, and went to develop frameworks

Developing a complete desktop environment (with a lot more high quality applications than Gnome has for instance) have to begin with building a solid set of frameworks so that later development of actual applications would be easier, and that applications reach new levels of integration. (compare the so called Gnome Office with KOffice)

KDE 4.0 had most of the frameworks finished, and 4.1 is being built on that. If you are saying that KDE is still ignoring the desktop after the improvements in Plasma that will be in 4.1, than you’re either blind or just don’t want to see.

**Conclusion: **I was hoping that Aaron will be the only one that has to deal with persons like you, but, apparently (and unfortunately), I was not right.