What the Inquirer is not is the whole, complete, and unvarnished truth. It's a tabloid site, and includes speculation, rumour and "we heard $foo from $bar". It holds gossip; some of which is correct and some of which isn't.
One says that there is no factual basis to ANY of the INQ stories: the other says that, in common with the rest of the world's media, that some of it may not be "the whole, complete, and unvarnished truth". I don't think the latter creature exists ( and I know of no fossilised remains, either).
I don't see an equilvalence here. The first is merely silly, the second, a rational approach to what is offered on the INQ site.
Why on Earth are you guys arguing about a stupid news blurb site that is a 50/50 hit and miss, with controversy and speculation! SUSE 9.3 has already received many,many good reviews; I for one love it and it's feel. KDE is not leaving and GNOME will not rule the SUSE brand. They gave us choice as to which one we want. It's not really based on any false pretense arguments you guys are producing amongst one another. It's just says Mr. Seibt left Novell. Are we not human and not have family and functions to attend to? Are we not allowed to choose which direction we should go? Let's get over this thread and start helping people with their Linux problems. JD