Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo
Kevin Bowling takes a look at
KDE 4.2 on a Gentoo Linux box. KDE 4.2 is currently in beta, set for
release on January 27. "Much needed features such as changing the
panel height, auto-hide, and screen edge selection have been added. The
task bar is highly configurable in typical KDE fashion, allowing you to
define task grouping, sorting, filtering based on current desktop or screen
or minimized windows only, as well as allowing manual grouping. The system
tray also now allows hiding of unwanted tray icons."
(Log in to post comments)
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 9, 2008 14:53 UTC (Tue) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793) [Link]
Until I have my Desktop back is still as broken any other 4.x version.
There seem to be many people who think the Desktop should not be treated as a folder, but I'm still waiting for someone to come with a better way that works for me.
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 9, 2008 15:08 UTC (Tue) by vapier (subscriber, #15768) [Link]
so add a Folder View widget and tell it to "Show the desktop folder" ...
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 9, 2008 15:30 UTC (Tue) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793) [Link]
Does 4.2 save icon positions and allows for the full-screen desktop?
If it does, then I take it back, but I am yet to ear/read someone say that, and neither Kubuntu 8.10 nor Fedora 10 (KDE flavor) would let me do it in a sensible way (off course it could be me that just doesn't know how to setup it, but I also used by "google-power" and nothing come out).
I have no use in my day-to-day life to plasmoids (at least haven't seen any really worth it), while I have a decades-old habit of working with my desktop folder as my workspace.
It could be that 4.2 fixes this, but if it does then it should be "front-page" news, not some 4.2 "changelog" entry.
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 9, 2008 17:33 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]
"does 4.2 save icon positions and allow full-screen
desktop"
Yes and yes. Although the desktop has always been
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 9, 2008 18:32 UTC (Tue) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793) [Link]
Great! Finally! Why isn't that a front page on LWN as the first usable KDE 4.x version!?
Although your answer to the second question makes me wonder if you are answering the right question (you could be only nitpicking, off course).
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 9, 2008 18:48 UTC (Tue) by aseigo (guest, #18394) [Link]
maybe because you are in the minority of people who care about that, noise
volume (and cantankerousness) of complaints aside? which is to say, perhaps it's not actually something which makes 4.2 usable or not usable for most people. something to consider.
in any case, that feature set has been mentioned i don't know HOW many
there's even a screenshot of it in the official beta 1 announcement:
http://www.kde.org/announcements/announce-4.2-beta1.php
Wolf? Posted Dec 9, 2008 19:38 UTC (Tue) by mgb (guest, #3226) [Link]
The problem is that people no longer trust KDE announcements. Far too many people have wasted far too many days testing beta and even alpha quality KDE 4.x releases with massive feature loss that were misleading touted as being suitable replacements for KDE 3.5.
Wolf? Posted Dec 9, 2008 20:25 UTC (Tue) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link]
Yeah, right. Maybe people should actually read the announcements before
reaching for their keyboards? Like the 4.1 announcement -- either on the dot (http://dot.kde.org/1217341401/) or on kde.org itself (http://www.kde.org/announcements/4.1/). What's not honest or unclear about those?
Wolf? Posted Dec 10, 2008 10:57 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Take a look at 4.0 announcement and it doesn't give any such indication. 4.1 added it, after a lot of complaints.
re: Wolf? Posted Dec 10, 2008 11:34 UTC (Wed) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link]
This has been discussed thousands of times and yes, it clearly could have been communicated a lot better, but then again - this is still free software and the press releases are part of that. In my opinion they should have added "developer release" or something like that to the release name, but that's all old news.
However, if you've followed the development of KDE4 just a bit, you'd know that the 4.0 release wouldn't be ready for use for most users.
Furthermore, a lot of the applications (especially the bigger ones) hadn't been ported yet and still haven't though they are getting close (Amarok, Digikam). The 4.0 release was a huge multi year effort and it'll take some time before it'll show.
From what I've seen about 4.2 until now (haven't tested it myself yet), it seems KDE 4.2 could be what some people expected 4.0 to be and I'm looking forward to trying it.
Wolf? Posted Dec 11, 2008 13:13 UTC (Thu) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
We didn't add it to 4.1 'after a lot of complaints', it was there from the beginning. And yes, we did not add such a thing to the 4.0 release. We should have, we learned from it, and we've done better since then.
We thought the fact 4.0 was a real .0 release would by clear by versioning, strong focus on "cool for developers" and all the blogs, articles and other stuff about it. We thought wrong. Sorry for that, but can we please move on now?
Wolf? Posted Dec 12, 2008 7:07 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
To be clear, I meant it was added to 4.1 announcement after a lot of complaints about 4.0 announcement having no such indication. I did not mean that 4.1 announcement was modified retroactively.
It is just a bit misleading that some people point to the 4.1 announcement and claim that communication was perfectly alright when it clearly wasn't. That had nothing to do with the confusion about whether it was a .0 release or not but what the target audience for the release was. It should have been made clear in plain text instead of assuming that everyone is supposed to derive some implicit value out of the versioning alone. I am just explaining why KDE 4 met with the reaction it did. There is no reason to be so defensive about it and I think developers did learn the lesson as seen from 4.1 announcement. As long as you don't continue claim that it was a confusion over versioning but a communication and marketing mistake, we can certainly move on.
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 9, 2008 19:40 UTC (Tue) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793) [Link]
It's possible I am the minority. Can't say for sure, as my statistics would always be considered anecdote evidence. But you should also consider that minorities are very important in any sane democratic model.
I may got too much "grumpier" that my usual self, but that has to do with the fact I felt "betrayed" 2 times in a row by KDE 4: first with 4.0 (obvious reasons, even if not by direct fault of the KDE developers) and then with 4.1 (the desktop as a folder thing).
I have been reading the KDE communications posted on LWN, but somehow I missed that feature on the beta 1 announce. Had read/eared (can't remember) that the desktop as a folder was already implemented for the whole screen (please, let's not nitpick on the technical definitions), but that it still didn't save icon positions (and the screenshot seems to support that idea). For my needs/use case, it was the same as not being implemented in the first place.
As has been written before, it seems all my earlier problems are finally solved, but at this stage I still feel a need to be skeptic as a way to not feel fooled again.
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 9, 2008 20:20 UTC (Tue) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link]
Er... Sure, the 4.0 release announcement was very much an expression of
developers being really happy with having reached the big milestone, the one from which it becomes possible to build and build and build. It failed to mention that -- but that doesn't mean anyone tried to "betray" you.
But the 4.1 release announcement went out of its way to declare that 4.1
On a more practical note: if you currently manually group icons on your
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 9, 2008 18:49 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]
"Great! Finally! Why isn't that a front page on LWN as the first usable KDE 4.x version!?"
Because lots of people are already using 4.1 and liking it? It's quite arrogant to assume that your wants and needs apply to everyone. Many people find 4.1 perfectly usable already.
"Although your answer to the second question makes me wonder if you are answering the right question"
Your second question makes me wonder that you do not know the terminology. KDE-desktop is full-screen. Always has been. What you are probably calling "the desktop" is the area that shows files and folders. In 4.2 that area can either cover part of the screen (so you could display contents of several folders) or it could cover the whole screen.
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 9, 2008 15:13 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]
You can have your desktop set up exactly the way it is in 3.5. (with icons and all) What exactly do you feel is missing? Or do you think that if even one pixel is different from 3.5, it's somehow "broken"?
I for one don't understand why people insist on using less powerful and functional system. When they are presented with something that is more powerful and flexible, they complain that it's "broken".
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 9, 2008 15:36 UTC (Tue) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793) [Link]
How can you say something with less features than the original is more powerful and flexible?
Going with the usual bad car analogy, just because a new car model has a better engine you cannot say it's better if you're a smoker and it lacks the ashtray.
(also, see my previous comment response)
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 9, 2008 17:39 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]
The original is more powerful and flexible? Huh? In 3.5 you could display contents of just one
folder on the desktop. The contents of that folder could not be filtered in any shape or form. In 4.1 and onwards you could display contents of several folders and you could filter what gets shown (so it only displays images for example). So how exactly is 3.5 "more powerful and flexible"? It lacked filters, it could only work with one folder...
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 9, 2008 18:42 UTC (Tue) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793) [Link]
And why do you want to filter files on the Desktop!? Do you know a KDE application by the name of Konqueror? (and dolphin sucks, BTW, even if it allows to do the same thing)
And also, why do you want to show more than a folder on the desktop? Again, do you know of a KDE application called Konqueror?
I have a method that I intend to apply for a patent with the abstract: "Using hierarchal trees as a method to browse and search efficiently a large quantity of computer files".
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 9, 2008 18:46 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]
"And why do you want to filter files on the Desktop!?"
I might not want to, but the added power and flexibility that such filters give to the user is hardly a bad thing, now is it?
"And also, why do you want to show more than a folder on the desktop?"
Why wouldn't I? Because the old and crappy system only allowed one folder to be shown on the desktop?
"Again, do you know of a KDE application called Konqueror?"
What does Konqueror have to do with the desktop?
It seems to me that you have this weird idea that a system that lacks features and flexibility is somehow more "powerful" than a system that does NOT have those limitations. That's a weird idea to be sure....
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 9, 2008 18:50 UTC (Tue) by aseigo (guest, #18394) [Link]
"And why do you want to filter files on the Desktop!?"
because people point it at a folder with lots of things in it and for a
people are actually *using* their desktops for real work again.
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 9, 2008 22:05 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Exactly. I noticed this: after years of seeing a desktop and
thinking 'what a waste putting anything there', I'm actually leaving one desktop empty of apps so I can see the desktop, because it's not completely useless anymore.
I was really used to desktops being a useless waste of pixels and memory.
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 9, 2008 19:00 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]
"And why do you want to filter files on the Desktop!?"
OK, let's answer this in more detail, shall we (although I don't understand why you are using exclamation-points...):
For example, you could have two folders in your desktop: "Inbox" and "Outbox". Those folders could reside on a network-share. You co-worker could save files in the "Inbox" from his computer, and they would then appear on your desktop. You could work on them, and then place them in the "Outbox", which could be another network-share. So you could use those folders as drop-boxes.
Or you just might want to categorise your files in specific folders and then display those in your desktop. In the old system you would have to store all those files in the same folder, since you could only display one folder on the desktop. In the new system you could keep your filessystem tidy by using separate folders for separate files.
Or, you could use the desktop exactly the way you use it today.
That's just from the top of my head. Point is that the desktop is no longer limiting you on how you can use the desktop. In 3.5 (and just about every other desktop out there) the system is telling you that "you can use only one folder on the desktop!". The new system is telling you that "you can show as many folders as you want, and you can filter the results".
The fact that you are not capable of thinking of any uses for this feature is a clear demonstration that the crippled nature of the "old system" has limited you in such way that you are totally lost when you are presented with more features, power and flexibility. Fact is that the new system offers everything the old system did, and more. A lot more. And that is why I find it so strange that people complain about it so much. It's like they WANT to use their computer with one hand tied to their back. And that's because for some reason they believe that it's more "powerful" that way....
Could you now tell me how the old system is more "powerful"? Why is it more "powerful" to be limited to just one folder, as opposed to being able to use several folders? Could you please tell me how lack of filters is more "powerful" than being able to filter the files if you want to?
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 9, 2008 20:12 UTC (Tue) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793) [Link]
Your case is a perfectly valid example, but in practice I would never follow it. But I can accept it may make sense for other people way of work.
The desktop is most of the time partially or fully obscured by other application windows, so it makes more sense to have a konqueror window just for that, which we can make visible or even "top-most" on all desktops if it's that important (there are many things we can do with that windows we can't do with the desktop folder).
You may be one of those that don't like to have your most accessed files and folders stored on the Desktop, but for me it's just the best way I found over the years, and have them positioned in groups to know where to look. To each his own way of doing things.
You could say I'm the typical "confusion drawer man", where everything important goes to the same drawer, but what seems a mess of icons to other people makes complete sense for me.
Regarding the "closed mind" accusation, as said before, any of those examples just don't make sense to my way of doing things, so it's a feature that doesn't add nothing to my use of KDE.
As I said earlier, I can't say a system is more powerful and flexible than an older system when it lacks features on the older system I use most. You can use the definition you like most, but that doesn't change the fact I see that new system as a crippled system (read again my random car analogy).
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 10, 2008 7:02 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]
"As I said earlier, I can't say a system is more powerful and flexible than an older system when it lacks features on the older system I use most. You can use the definition you like most."
What feature was 4.1 missing that you so desperately needed? Because the fact is that everything you said you wanted to do, could be done in 4.1. The end-result would look a bit different than it did in 3.5, but functionally it would be identical, and it would give you MORE features and flexibility than you had in 3.5.
Just about only thing 4.2 brings to the table as far as this thing is concerned, is that now it can look identical to 3.5. But the functionality and features was already there in 4.1. So are you complaining about lack of functionality (which is weird, since the new system has MORE functionality than the old one had) or are you complaining about the fact that in 4.1 it would look a bit different?
So what feature did 3.5 have that 4.1 did not have, as far as this thing is concerned?
workflows Posted Dec 10, 2008 10:02 UTC (Wed) by sebas (subscriber, #51660) [Link]
> You may be one of those that don't like to have your most accessed
> files and folders stored on the Desktop, but for me it's just the > best way I found over the years, and have them positioned in groups > to know where to look. To each his own way of doing things.
An interesting thing is that we've looked at exactly this usecase and made is easier. The folderview is a means of grouping a set of files on the desktop (pretty much what you're explaining, if I'm not mistaken). With the folderview, you group files, define in the folderview itself which files to show, and possibly hide them if you want that.
Another workflow we wanted to make easier is one, we've often observed. In the real world it's "take a file (in the traditional sense) from the closet, put it on your desk, work on the files, close the files and put it back". In KDE4, you can do exactly that. You drag a directory onto the desktop, it expands to a folderview, you work on the files, afterwards you just close the folderview". Then you choose your next project, ...
We've also implemented a dashboard, so it's easy to pull your desktop in front of you, in case window are obscuring it.
For the confusion drawers, this approach helps as well. Tag your files as important, and have the folderview show only files with this tag (or any other one, or more than one, or ...). You don't even need to sort your important files into a folder called "important/", you can leave them in the same place other files belonging to this project are. That's more "messy-friendly" than moving the files itself around.
But yeah, if you prefer your desktop simply as one static fullscreen folder, that's supported as well in 4.2.
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 9, 2008 20:21 UTC (Tue) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793) [Link] I don't understand why you are using exclamation-points...Probably not correct in English, although it can be used in my native language as a way to give emphasis to a question, or mark it as a rhetoric question.
Why did KDE do a "Netscape"? Posted Dec 10, 2008 3:03 UTC (Wed) by Richard_J_Neill (subscriber, #23093) [Link]
I'm curious - can someone explain to me why KDE repeated exactly the same mistake that killed Netscape? Namely, doing a fundamental re-design, at the same time as a major porting effort (from QT3 to QT4), and thereby having no functional flagship product for several years? Wouldn't it have made more sense to port 3.5.x over to the new QT, then add piecemeal all the new features, in a compatible, incremental way? As it is, I don't expect KDE 4 to be truly usable for another year. In the meantime, KDE3 has been dropped, so there are no more bugfixes (except critical security bugs).
Why did KDE do a "Netscape"? Posted Dec 10, 2008 7:09 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]
"As it is, I don't expect KDE 4 to be truly usable for another year."
Lots of users are finding it perfectly usable at this very moment. Some users might never be happy with KDE4 for some reason, but such is life. You can't please everyone. There were lots of users who found KDE3.5 to be un-usable as well.
"In the meantime, KDE3 has been dropped, so there are no more bugfixes (except critical security bugs)."
How do you know? 3.5.10 (which was released in August) contained updates that were related to functionality, instead of just fixing security-holes.
This kinda reminds me of what GNOME went through in GNOME2. It was a radical change when compared to GNOME1 and LOTS of people complained. But looking at GNOME now, they don't seem to be that much harmed by their decision back then, quite the contrary.
Why did KDE do a "Netscape"? Posted Dec 10, 2008 11:51 UTC (Wed) by fb (subscriber, #53265) [Link]
(Yet another anecdote(!)) But I would like to point out that Gnome lost
loads of loyal users during that period. In the department I worked at the time, most people using Gnome (including me) just quit it for something else. [...]
My personal impression as an observer of this whole KDE4 transition is
MHO is the same as the GP poster, KDE has remained for far too long
In my perception, an even bigger problem with the KDE4 process is how
One thing is to make mistakes. Another is to not being able of publically
Why did KDE do a "Netscape"? Posted Dec 10, 2008 13:16 UTC (Wed) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742) [Link]
From the technical side, 4.0 was important to mark the point from which
on we want to stay compatible. That was about it. On the communication side I agree some things could have gone better, but I don't want to go into detail because there's a lot of personal opinion involved.
Looking into the future, still it may look very bright for us (KDE). We
Alex
Why did KDE do a "Netscape"? Posted Dec 10, 2008 13:20 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]
"In my perception, an even bigger problem with the KDE4 process is how
bitterly defencive KDE developers and enthusiasts have sometimes gotten regarding criticisms."
That might be because they get faced with same false accusations over and over again. Should they smile and say "yes sir, may I have another?" when users complain that "KDE-developers hate their users! KDE-developers are arrogant! KDE4 is broken and it should be killed! You can't have desktop-icons in KDE4!".
After that goes on for a while, you are bound to get pretty "defensive".
"or the fact that yes, indeed, it *is* taking far too long for the KDE4 branch to replace 3.5's."
is it, really? KDE4 is now about 11 months old. Do you expect that in those 11 months KDE4 should have completely replaced KDE3? Vista is nowhere near replacing XP, It took OS X YEARS to replace OS 9! And hell, I have still seen some distros that still ship product based on KDE 3.4, so it seems that 3.5 itself hasn't totally replaced it's successors yet! And 3.5 has had three YEARS to pull that off, and it couldn't do it, and now you expect KDE4 to do it in under one year? And if it can't do it, it means KDE4 is a "failure"? I guess 3.5 is ever bigger failure by that count.
KDE4 has now had two major releases (one of which was the initial release) and it hasn't even celebrated it's first anniversary yet. KDE4 is still VERY early in it's lifecycle.
I think that quite a few people are lacking perspective here. KDE3 is a fine product that works for many. Completely replacing that product with a brand-new product in less than a year would be VERY major feat indeed. Vista has now had about two years to replace XP, and it's nowhere near replacing it (Vistas market-share is about 20%, XP has about 66%), even though it's being force-fed to users.
"One thing is to make mistakes. Another is to not being able of publically
And what "mistake" would that be? KDE 4.0? Is it REALLY that big of a deal? I tried 4.0, found it lacking, and moved on. What I didn't do was to spend humungous amount of time and energy complaining about it. I just shrugged my shoulders and thought to myself "I guess it still needs some work", and moved on.
What we have now is that the complaining about 4.0 has been going on for 11 months. 11 months. 4.0 is not even the current version anymore. So 4.0 was not really suitable for end-users in it's vanilla form (the version OpenSUSE shipped seemed to work pretty well). Well, too bad. But maybe it's time to move on? 4.0 is history, 4.1 is the current version, and 4.2 is right around the corner. Is it REALLY useful at all to complain about 4.0`anymore?
Should we flame OS X because version 10.0 (and 10.1, and 10.2 to some extent) was crap? Should we flame MacOS because all versions before 10 were crap? Sure, we could flame those OS'es for various reasons, but basically saying "they are crap because these older versions of it weren't that good!" doesn't really fly. You should base your judgment on what the system is like now, not what it was like in the past.
So what if KDE 4.0 was bad? Should the developers flagellate themselves, roll in dust and ash and beg for forgiveness? What exactly would that achieve? What I would much rather see them do, is to get coding and improve the software. And luckily that is exactly what they have been doing for the past months.
No, I'm not a KDE-developer, nor am I associated with KDE, so I don't speak for the project.
Why did KDE do a "Netscape"? Posted Dec 10, 2008 16:04 UTC (Wed) by fb (subscriber, #53265) [Link] When I talk about developers and enthusiasts getting overly defensive. It is about posts like yours that I am talking about.is it, really? KDE4 is now about 11 months old. Do you expect that in those 11 months KDE4 should have completely replaced KDE3?"" For one, KDE4 is 11 months since a release that wasn't truly usable. As far as I am concerned, the age of KDE4 should be counted from the moment from which it became the main development branch of KDE. Which was when KDE-3.5 started being not as actively developed. That is how long it "takes" for it to replace the previous "flagship". Vista is nowhere near replacing XP, It took OS X YEARS to replace OS 9! Do you really think this comparison is appropriate? Users of closed source software will "upgrade" when they buy new hardware. So I can't see how this applies. And 3.5 has had three YEARS to pull that off, and it couldn't do it, and now you expect KDE4 to do it in under one year? And if it can't do it, it means KDE4 is a "failure"? I guess 3.5 is ever bigger failure by that count. For one: I did not use the word failure. I said the whole thing was mismanaged. So I can't see why you keep putting it that way. And what "mistake" would that be? KDE 4.0? Is it REALLY that big of a deal? I tried 4.0, found it lacking, and moved on. Well, the whole point was someone mentioning that KDE spent too long lacking a flagship, and I stepped in saying that I agreed with that. Not that big of a deal, just discussing software development. But yes KDE still lacks a flagship, 3.5 is old (the software didn't go anywhere but people's expectations went up). Stable Linux distributions officially supporting KDE4.2 are still at a minimum some 4 to 5 months away. I also mentioned that I found frustrating how some developers and enthusiasts were overly defensive regarding KDE.4 and you seem to have decided to reinforce my point. So what if KDE 4.0 was bad? Should the developers flagellate themselves, roll in dust and ash and beg for forgiveness? What exactly would that achieve? Roll in ash? Flagellate? Beg for something? Do you really need to bring the discussion to this? For what is worth I expected some of the devs to step in, and in a very public manner say "oeps, our bad. We miscalculated how much it would take, and tried to rewrite too much". What this would achieve? It would probably buy them a lot of good will, and earn them a lot of professional respect for being able to, well, acknowledge, what many perceive as, a big project mismanagement.
Why did KDE do a "Netscape"? Posted Dec 10, 2008 18:48 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]
"When I talk about developers and enthusiasts getting overly defensive. It is about posts like yours that I am talking about."
So, when someone says something like "Product X sucks!", and I basically say "I disagree", I'm being "overly defensive"? Although both sides have spent quite a bit more words than just the ones I used in my example.
"For one, KDE4 is 11 months since a release that wasn't truly usable. As far as I am concerned, the age of KDE4 should be counted from the moment from which it became the main development branch of KDE."
How come? Surely the age of KDE4 should be calculated from the moment it became available to the public? We don't count peoples ages from the moment of conception, we count it from the moment of birth.
"Do you really think this comparison is appropriate? Users of closed source software will "upgrade" when they buy new hardware. So I can't see how this applies."
Sure it's valid. Why wouldn't it be? Because it's closed software? That makes no difference in this case.
But want to talk open software? It seems that Firefox 2.0 still has 4.8% market-share (about quarter of all Firefox-installations out there). And that's even though Firefox has built-in updater and updating a single app is a lot easier than updating the entire desktop.
"KDE.3 was better than its predecessor, and it got to that state pretty fast, so users could appreciate it."
KDE3 was largely based on KDE2. The move from 2 to 3 was nowhere near as big as move from 3 to 4 is. Comparing the two moves is not really valid. How about KDE 2.0? That released sure had it's share of "issues"....
There was no major new technologies introduced in KDE3, It was KDE2 that saw the introduction of the technologies we now take for granted (KIO, Kparts, DCOP, KHTML). KDE4 introduced a lot of major new technologies to KDE (Plasma, Phonon, Solid, DBUS etc.) KDE3 did not.
"So yes, in that sense I believe that the initial release of the 3.X series was much better executed than the 4.X one. "
That's because most of the hard work was already done in KDE2...
"But yes KDE still lacks a flagship"
No they don't. The flagship is called KDE 4.1. Having to use KDE3.5 and 4.1 in a row makes 3.5 look and feel clumsy and awkward. In short: it feels _old_.
"I also mentioned that I found frustrating how some developers and enthusiasts were overly defensive regarding KDE.4 and you seem to have decided to reinforce my point. "
Could someone explain to me how this works? If someone complains about KDE4, and disputing that complaint is "being overly defensive"? Should I and other just sit back in silence while some other people complain about KDE4? If we dare to say something like "it's not really that bad", we get accused of being "overly defensive"...
By that logic, couldn't I accuse you of being "overly aggressive"? But I'm not going to do that, because I HAVE seen people who are "overly aggressive" about various things, and I don't think that you fit the description.
"It would probably buy them a lot of good will, and earn them a lot of professional respect for being able to, well, acknowledge, what many perceive as, a big project mismanagement."
Was it "mismanaged"? I think that KDE4.0 benefitted KDE in the long run. Some people think it was mismanaged. And some people think Windows is the greatest OS on the planet *shrugs*. We all have different opinions.
I think that most of the KDE3-releases were confusing messes, UI-wise, but I don't expect developers to apologize for any of that.
Why did KDE do a "Netscape"? Posted Dec 11, 2008 7:12 UTC (Thu) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742) [Link]
Yes, by trying to respond to each single point you are quite defensive.
Alex, KDE buildsystem guy
Why did KDE do a "Netscape"? Posted Dec 11, 2008 8:20 UTC (Thu) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]
If I have something to say about some comment, I usually say it. If I'm discussing something and I have an opinion about a point that is raised, I don't think that there's nothing wrong in voicing my opinion.
Why did KDE do a "Netscape"? Posted Dec 11, 2008 16:51 UTC (Thu) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
I must say I enjoyed your comments, as they were spot-on. Keep that up, we (KDE) need people who explain things to ... - well, let's say the slightly more ignorant.
Why did KDE do a "Netscape"? Posted Dec 10, 2008 14:26 UTC (Wed) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link]
"One thing is to make mistakes. Another is to not being able of publically
acknowledging it. Perhaps there have been some acknowledgements, but somehow the bitter answers to unhappy users have been /much/ more prevalent."
What bitter answers? I honestly haven't seen many of those.
Why did KDE do a "Netscape"? Posted Dec 10, 2008 14:33 UTC (Wed) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link]
I did not "conveniently ignore the 4.0" announcement -- in another reply I wrote just before that
one I mentioned it.
Why did KDE do a "Netscape"? Posted Dec 10, 2008 16:32 UTC (Wed) by fb (subscriber, #53265) [Link]
My bad. I had missed that one.
Since it displays (at least in my thread-comments config) after the one I
Why did KDE do a "Netscape"? Posted Dec 11, 2008 16:45 UTC (Thu) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link] [i]I have yet to see a KDE developer acknowledging the communication problems[/i] That is bullshit. You can find suck acknowledgements all over the place. We are totally willing to acknowledge we should have put a warning in the release announcement like we did in 4.1 (we do learn!). We don't want to acknowledge that we should've delayed the release even more, or should've continued 3.5.x, or should have called it "4.0 developer release" or something - simply because each of those suggestions is equally silly in a different way.
Why did KDE do a "Netscape"? Posted Dec 10, 2008 8:42 UTC (Wed) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742) [Link]
> Wouldn't it have made more sense to port 3.5.x over to the new QT, then
> add piecemeal all the new features, in a compatible, incremental way?
No, for a technical reason: porting from Qt3 to Qt4 would have been
But, maybe your analogy is really true. This would mean that while
Alex
Why did KDE do a "Netscape"? Posted Dec 10, 2008 11:47 UTC (Wed) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link]
That question has been answered more than once, search for it and I'm sure you'll find it (pretty sure aseigo has answered it).
It's true that most work is now being done on KDE4, but that doesn't suddenly make KDE3 unusable. It certainly still works perfectly fine for me.
Usable Posted Dec 10, 2008 16:51 UTC (Wed) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]
Others have answered your "why". I want to answer your couple sentences.
First, I'm still running KDE3. 3.5.10, specifically, which KDE released
Personally I'm a little disappointed that Konqueror 3 is lagging behind
However, unlike you, I expect KDE4 to be "truly usable" when 4.2 is
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 10, 2008 5:16 UTC (Wed) by MarkWilliamson (guest, #30166) [Link]
I'm liking KDE 4.1 on my desktop system already, although I find that some
of the applications still need some work compared to their 3.5 counterparts (although some of them are very good - Okular is amazing, for instance). I'm really looking forward to KDE 4.2 for giving more of the same but better.
I've heard rumours that there's some work on tiling window management too
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 10, 2008 11:05 UTC (Wed) by sebas (subscriber, #51660) [Link]
> I've heard rumours that there's some work on tiling window management
> too but I don't think that's going into 4.2. If something like that > were available in a major DE I'd be beyond "hooked"!
I know that at least one developer is planning to get on this, but nothing of that has materialized yet. We'll see :)
KDE 4.2 beta 1 on Gentoo Posted Dec 10, 2008 20:36 UTC (Wed) by bitreaper (guest, #55528) [Link]
</lurk>
I think if I were to add my quarter-byte's worth, it'd be to say I'm disappointed that KDE4 was crammed down my throat by my favorite distro (kubuntu 8.10) and not the KDE team. I like where 4 is heading, and I"m happy and thankful every day for the work these guys have put in. My work and computing life is 10x better because of it. However, I felt that with some of the settings missing on the version they included, life was pretty hard just to get some of the simple customizations done. It was painful enough that I reverted back to 8.04.1 (which has 3.5.9).
I think one of the biggest issues that nobody here has put their finger on is really changing the metaphors in which people interact with the system. Changing metaphors is what most people have the most pain with. When it comes to the desktop that I rely on for my daily bread, learning new metaphors is not something I want to do much of just to get my work done. I don't mind if something changes for the better, but sometimes (and this is as much the distro's fault as it is developer) a metaphor changes, and there's no visible way to return to the prior functionality, or if it does exist, I have no way to know necessarily the words to put into Google's wonderful little search box to tell me how to "put it back". A good example of this is when I had been using multi-head and the default behavior for alt-tabbing between windows changed to be only able to alt-tab between apps in the current head not across all apps open on the current desktop. A small change, but one that hampered my workflow. It took a most of my Google-search-fu to find anything related to how to change that setting back. I believe the only way I did find an answer was to submit a bug.
Sometimes, yes, it's a wonderful thing that the metaphor changed, because things are easier, better. And yes, sometimes for things to get better, they must be broken. Maintaining the old way isn't always feasible, because then you have bloat and inefficiencies (*cough*xp*cough*). The real pain comes in when the metaphor breaks and there's no transition period. For my recent experience, I blame Kubuntu for that, for pushing onto me a release of KDE 4 that I felt didn't have enough of the functionality and maturity that it needed for average use.
Alrighty, back to lurking...
<lurk>
|
|||||||||||||