Fri13 Fri13 Lahti, Finland

Smooth KDE icon

Individual Icons Mar 10 2014
Score 56%
44 Dislikes

Volcanic Zen Garden

Wallpaper Other Sep 09 2010
Score 63%
37 Dislikes

Grass v2

Wallpaper Other Sep 05 2010
Score 63%
37 Dislikes

Linux on Wall (Red)

Wallpaper Other Sep 05 2010
Score 58%
42 Dislikes

Linux on Wall (Blue)

Wallpaper Other Sep 05 2010
Score 66%
34 Dislikes

Linux on Wall (Green)

Wallpaper Other Sep 05 2010
Score 57%
43 Dislikes

Burner (fire edition)

K3b Themes Aug 26 2010
Score 81%
19 Dislikes

Burner (wall edition)

K3b Themes Aug 26 2010
Score 68%
32 Dislikes

Ubuntu heroes

Wallpapers Ubuntu Nov 23 2009
Score 52%
48 Dislikes

Gray and Plain

Plasma Color Schemes Oct 20 2009
Score 63%
37 Dislikes

Gray and Plain

QtCurve Themes Oct 20 2009
Score 60%
40 Dislikes

Burner (water edition)

K3b Themes Jan 19 2009
Score 70%
30 Dislikes
No supported products.
Cool Effect Kwin Effects
Mar 03 2014
Skanlite Graphics Software
Sep 24 2012
Virus Recordings Wallpaper Other
Feb 19 2012
iKons 0.6 for KDE2/3 Individual Icons
i cant tell if you're trying to be funny, or if you really do have such a wacko take of the situation. that^s probably just trolling, but incase it's not, i shall respond.

I am dead serious about history and technological facts. People who dont know OS history and OS architectures thinks it is trolling, joking or something else.

linus made a kernel, he and some others might call it an opperating system, but i think the majority of us call an opperating system the combination of all the parts of the... operating system. not just the kernel.

Majority does not know technology, they dont even know the OS history. Majority does not even know that Linux is a monolithic kernel. Majority does not even know what is a web browser. It is just plain stupid to say "Majority knows" and keep it as a argument point, while a majority does not have a fainthest idea what operating system by technology way is. They only have a ideas what marketing has given them. Majority idea is what some clever marketing guys invented to sell their product instead competitors and others started to compete with same manner.

Are you one of those who would agree that it is OK if now someone would go and start selling to Amazon Jungle People a car, saying that it is a engine and its parts are rear mirrors, seats, wheels, all of it. And then those AJP would come to modern civilization where people are driving and manufacturing those cars and they say "No, it is not a car, but a engine what you are driving"? Which one would be correct, a manufacturers who would base things to technology history and development, or those who does not have a clue how the technology works?

Right now, majority believes that car is the engine. That people drive a engine and they sit inside a engine and then buy a engine.
While they dont have a idea that the engine is under the hood and that the whole thing is a *car*.
Now, that is the situation on computer markets. Majority does not know that Linux kernel is a whole operating system. They believe that what they see on screen is the operating system. They believe that the marketing brand is a name of their used operating system.

it is the GNU opperating system. and the Linux Kernel. and the HURD kernel ~ which itself is broken up into smaller components, including a micro kernel. ... and you get the BSD opperating system, and it uses the BSD kernel.

There is no GNU operating system. That is a myth... a twisted myth of twisted illusion. There neither is a HURD kernel, that is myth and twisted lie as well. As HURD is not a kernel. It is a whole operating system whats architecture is server-client. If HURD would be a kernel, it first should need to be a monolithic. And if it would be a monolithic kernel, then it would be a operating system. While we have two totally different architectures for operating system, the definition what is what is not same for both. Other has a microkernel, other does not. Other is monolithic (still being modular in binary level) while other is bunch of servers operated by microkernel (modular by architecture and binary level).

Linux, or whatever kernel you use, is almost certainly only a very small portion of your complete opperating system.

Linux is not a microkernel. Linux kernel is whole operating system. Not a small portion. Linux would be a small portion of operating system if Linux would be a microkernel like Mach, what is microkernel what is used in HURD operating system.
BSD were a monolithic operating system. It wasn forked to multiple different OS's. Example of FreeBSD is a monolithic operating system same way as is Linux. But the problem what even there is that people mistake the operating system and distribution names as both carries the same names, even that there are multiple distributions from the FreeBSD, like FreeBSD and PC-BSD.

just because we so often use the word "linux" as shorthand for GNU|Linux, doesnt really mean the opperating system is called linux, in a strict sense.

Ah, that stupid argument from "Oh it is so hard to say so we just call it as Linux OK?". No, the operating system name is Linux. Linux and Linux kernel does not mean different things. There is one software, a single project what is called as Linux. That is the name of the operating system. When a majority of people are ignorance and lazy to use correct names and definition, it is not a valid argument to use them as fact.
With same argument, we could say that Internet Explorer (IE) is the Internet. Because for majority it was so. They didn't open a IE but they opened internet.
Majority thinks that PC means Windows (or that PC is synonym for personal computer). So it must be so that there is no PC without Windows, right?
Just because majority are ignorant and lazy to know that Internet and WWW are two totaly separate technologies, it does not make those beliefes as facts. Majority does not know that WWW use Internet. And that Internet is just global network and specific network protocols (what operating system handles, like TCP/IP) what other higher level technologies (like WWW, what use application protocols what are not part of the operating system) use.

to further clarify the point, about gnu or bsd being the name of the opperating system and the words linux and hurd being the kernels, my favorite main distro is gentoo. i could go for gentoo with a hurd, bsd, or linux kernel. or even some others (but lets not confuse things further).
i could do so with all the same stuff to interface with, just a different kernel (and a few compatibility changes). same opperating system install, different kernels.

You can swap operating system but you need to reboot for that. You can swap your text editor but you can do that on the fly with just copying text from editor to other. Gentoo is just a distribution. It is a collection of software, distributed by specific means by specific goal in mind by group of people for other people. The same software comes "in many packagages". When you install HURD and you add it to your bootloader and you reboot your computer and you select HURD instead Linux, you start your system with different operating system. No, you didn't change kernel (HURD is not kernel but operating system with Server-Client architecture and its microkernel is Mach) but OS. If system software is ported to operating system in use or it is otherwise compatible, you can run your chosen software as nothing has changed. The low level change does not necessery affect at all your higher level software or even your hardware, as long as the OS has support for your hardware and the middleware software.

kernel != opperating system.


Kernel == Operating System
Microkernel != Kernel
Microkernel != Operating System

they're not synonymous.
... unless you're the unique breed of "kernel developer". ;p

Why I should care more what you and majority thinks about technology and history when you are all ignorant?
Should we re-write OS histories and re-invent technologies how operating systems works so they would apply to majority ideas of "operating system" as marketing people want to sell it?

if you want to put this to the test further, try running your "opperating system" without everything but the kernel, and see how well the system opperatates. :P XD ;D

The system operates just fine, problem is just that I dont then have programs (and what those programs needs) to solve my problems.
The operating system is not system what you operate. It is a software what operates the hardware and the software. Operating system is between hardware and all other software. It operates both and all. The hardware and other software are responsible to do a different jobs for user and offer a user interfaces for them. Example. A keyboard is not part of your CPU. Your monitor is not part of your RAM. A bash is not part of operating system. A system programs like cp, ls, mv... are not part of bash. A glibc or gcc are not part of operating system. They dont work without operating system. You can always run just the operating system, but you dont do anything with just it. You need always something else to do your work. You need programs, programs needs libraries, programs needs other programs. And piece by piece, you have very complex system what is 50% of hardware and 50% of software. And between them, is software what operates both of them.
You don't do anything with just a microkernel. It is just a part of operating system. But you need the servers (OS servers, not system services) what includes rest of the operating system. Example you can not get GCC, glibc and bash (etc) run with just microkernel like Mach (what is in HURD). Because you dont have filesystems, memory management, process management, network protocols and so on, what are located on servers separated from microkernel for modular structure on architecture level.

You just have false beliefe that "Operating System" is system what YOU operate. That Operating System is a system what you use directly to browse WWW clicking images and URL's, edit text using text editor, changing what music plays by clicking track on playlist.... Those are totally different softwares and involves lots of different kind softwares and hardware to work together making lots of mathematical calculations and all operated by the small specific software - a operating system, like Linux, HURD, Minix, FreeBSD, NT...

Or should I just make a argument with your same logic.... Pull CPU off from its socket on motherboard and try running your "operating system" and see how well the system operates? :-D
By your logic, the CPU is part of your operating system.
And if going even further with your argumental logic, pull a power plug from wall and try running your "operating system" and see how well the system operates? :-D
And lets cut the chase... Lets shutdown the power plant and then try to use that your "operating system" and you see how well the system operates :-D
As by your logic, the power plant is part of your operating system. Without it, your "operating system" does not work. Was it then a powerplant, power plug, CPU or Linux kernel, your "operating system" would cease to work. So they definetely are part of your "operating system".

Operating System is not there to be used, it is there to run other software on the different kind hardware with easy development. That is the only purpose for operating system to exist. Every software and hardware has their purpose to exist. And like web browser is one software among thousands on your computer, as is operating system just one software among those same thousands. They both just have totally different purposes and the other needs the other one, but that one does not need the other (Your computer needs that power plug and it needs power plant, but the power plant does not need your power plug or computer).

so anyways, when i said gnu, i didnt mean hurd, as you seemed to interpret it. i meant gnu. as in GNU|Linux, *AND* GNU|HURD, and whatever else is on the go too. it was a conscious decision to use the word gnu alone, because not all distros i had used, used the linux kernel. some used hurd, some used xen, and i think there were even a few that used other stuff too... after about 300 you kinda start to loose track of it all.

GNU is a project, if you want to talk about GNU's (GNU project own) operating system, it is a HURD. Linux is not part of GNU project.

i hope that makes sense to you now, you probable jester you. ^_^

You are just running around propaganda and marketing loops without any sense or logic with computer science and technology what is used to get computer work to solve different problems.

amen for the freedom to interchange ALL components of our free software opperating systems. ... on that note, oh for more alternatives to gcc and xorg. ;D

The GPL is a great license. GCC is nice compiler. And Xorg (what is not part of GNU project) is nice windowing system.
But do not mistake the ethics of Free Software to technology. Or ideas that "because I need compiler and if I use GCC it means it is part of GNU hence name GNU/" or because if something is licensed with GPL, it would become a member of GNU project....
Computer technology is science. It is pure science how they work by mathematical means. They are pure electronicy science how a signals are used to make a mathematical calculations in binary system. How 1's and 0's, a ON or OFF makes computer work. How a pressing a single key on keyboard generates a signal what is understood to be specific kind and how operating system takes that input and sends that to programs to run different algorithms what returns as input to OS what then sends it as output to other round and after many loops, that single input gets as output to computer screen as a letter, what is group of pixels in specific RGB color codes. And everything happens so quickly, that it is like magick in black box.

GNU/Linux is a fat lie. Saying that Linux (aka Linux kernel) as means else than a monolithic operating system, is a lie.
Freedom can not be build base of fat lie. No one can be free, if their freedom is based to lie. They live in illusion of freedom, as they dont have the truth to make correct choices for their lifes and others lifes.
Protecting a lie, is not protecing a freedom.
Feb 16 2012
iKons 0.6 for KDE2/3 Individual Icons
Feb 05 2012
iKons 0.6 for KDE2/3 Individual Icons
Feb 05 2012
iKons 0.6 for KDE2/3 Individual Icons
Feb 05 2012
iKons 0.6 for KDE2/3 Individual Icons
Feb 05 2012
Icon Tasks Plasma 4 Extensions
Nov 06 2011
Flouressence KDE 3.x Color Schemes
I love multiple wallpaper on multiple desktop, with scroll button.

So do I, thats why I use KDE SC 4.6

Q love Quicklauncher,and all the quick drag and drop functions.

So do I, thats why I use KDE SC 4.6

I love superkaramba with all the simple functions.

I did not like superkaramba as it did not have good themes. But superkaramba applets can be ran by Plasma Desktop, so there is no reason to not use KDE SC 4

I have a top computer but kde4 is so slow.... The menu is so unperspicuity.

Neither all my computers are such. My most "powerfull" is X2 4000+ with 4GB RAM. KDE SC 4 feels snappier than KDE 3.5.10 did when last time tested. I have many 1.2-1.5Ghz Pentium 4/AMD Duron computers with 512-768 RAM and KDE SC 4 just flies on them as well.

Kde4 have many spectacular visual effect, but for what?

To make computer usage faster, simpler and more intuitive. Shadows under window is huge bonus, Desktop Grid + Presentation is required feature for multidesktop system. Presentation effect is required if wanting to do multiple window operations (example document writing with 5 sources open)

During work, after 10 min, I shot down all effect, since too slow, and too embarrassing (or too ugly).
I love all the Ctrl+scroll functions,on kde3.5, and all the clocks....

What did Ctrl+Scroll do and on what?

Résumé: not everyone have a hyperspace computer, and new distros, with kde, must
have alternative for kde3.5 AND kde4.

Well, I dont know what is counted as "hyperspace computer", but 1.2Ghz AMD Duron, 512 RAM and GF5 card with 19" LCD display is very old already and KDE SC is snappy. Or how about 7 years old laptops? Very old already.

It depends a lot about distribution what you choose, example Kubuntu is as slow as Ubuntu is, not well compiled and packaged (or any other variant of it). Debian is fast, but Slackware and Arch just flies.
I would never again go back to KDE 3.5.x series, it was great at that time. But KDE SC has gone much further ahead from it since 4.2 release and that is 2 years ago...

May 15 2011
Got the look? Wallpaper Other
May 15 2011
Got the look? Wallpaper Other
May 10 2011
CurveDomina-Respin QtCurve theme QtCurve Themes
Mar 10 2011
Ksplash = Return to Castle Wolfenstein KDE 3.x Splash Screens
Feb 18 2011
Ksplash = Return to Castle Wolfenstein KDE 3.x Splash Screens
Feb 18 2011