| |||||||||||||
The cake, it was a lieThe cake, it was a liePosted Sep 25, 2012 3:14 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: The cake, it was a lie by sebas Parent article: GStreamer 1.0 released
Mix ∧ Match of KDE3 and KDE4 application is possible without problems. We've been doing that for a long time, especially as it took applications some time to port from Qt3 / KDE3 to Qt4 / KDE4. Unported applications are less of a problem. It's when you run "latest and greatest KDE4 app, find out that it's removed half of the features you need and then try to fund KDE3 version of it only to find out that all configuration is destroyed you understand that everything is not as it seems. We'll be able to provide the latest GStreamer to our users without them having to install new versions of their applications. It's a little tempting to now say "told you so". Yup. Just one tiny question: how many of these applications actually benefit from a new versions of GStreamer? It's not as if old versions of GStreamer suddenly go bad if new version is released. If you don't use new features then what's the point of upgrading?
(Log in to post comments)
The cake, it was a lie Posted Sep 25, 2012 10:07 UTC (Tue) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
Distro's don't want to have to ship the older versions as it is a lot of work to keep that all packaged.
The only KDE 3 app I still run is krecord, there's no port of that - works fine. Other stuff I've tried but the KDE3 apps are so much behind in functionality these days it isn't funny :(
The cake, it was a lie Posted Sep 26, 2012 4:37 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Distro's don't want to have to ship the older versions as it is a lot of work to keep that all packaged. Yet another place where distributions are a problem not a solution.
The cake, it was a lie Posted Sep 27, 2012 11:17 UTC (Thu) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link]
>Yet another place where distributions are a problem not a solution.
Given that this is in a discussion about KDE and that the KDE projects shipped quite a few immature technology at the start of KDE4.x enabling them by default which meant that if a user wanted a stable KDE desktop he had to find a distribution which disabled those things (or do the work himself) I cannot help but finding this sentence funny.
The cake, it was a lie Posted Sep 27, 2012 13:05 UTC (Thu) by Jonno (subscriber, #49613) [Link]
>> Yet another place where distributions are a problem not a solution.
> Given that this is in a discussion about KDE and that the KDE projects shipped quite a few immature technology at the start of KDE4.x enabling them by default which meant that if a user wanted a stable KDE desktop he had to find a distribution which disabled those things (or do the work himself) I cannot help but finding this sentence funny. Well, given that the KDE project explicitly told distributions to stay with KDE 3.5 for their stable releases and only offer KDE 4.[01] as an option for the unwary, and the problem you described resulted from distributions choosing to ignore the upstream advice, I cannot help but find your statement ignorant ;-)
The cake, it was a lie Posted Sep 27, 2012 13:36 UTC (Thu) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link]
You assume that KDE4.[01] is the only one to have troubles, but PCLinuxOS still disabled Nepomuk much later than this..
The cake, it was a lie Posted Sep 25, 2012 10:13 UTC (Tue) by sebas (subscriber, #51660) [Link]
It means that we don't have to support all versions of GStreamer since 4.0 (or stick with the very old ones, which had their fair share of problems), we can transparantly upgrade. That's something very important for distributions, and in turn for users. If apps would not benefit from a new version of GStreamer, the GStreamer team likely would've stopped working on it a long time ago. Old version don't suddenly go bad, they just get left behind by everything else moving on.
Your assumptions that KDE4 applications generally (paraphrasing) have less features than their KDE3 counter parts is a fallacy. We've made the UI smarter in many places, so they *look* less crowded. Most applications are *much* more powerful then their KDE3 counterparts. You'll surely find the odd app that has removed a feature, and often that happened for very good reasons. Overall, however, newer apps are easier to use, in the vast majority of cases more powerful and on top of that more integrated with the rest of the system (DBus, other standards we adopted with KDE4) and better looking.
The cake, it was a lie Posted Sep 25, 2012 11:44 UTC (Tue) by jackb (subscriber, #41909) [Link] Your assumptions that KDE4 applications generally (paraphrasing) have less features than their KDE3 counter parts is a fallacy. We've made the UI smarter in many places, so they *look* less crowded. Most applications are *much* more powerful then their KDE3 counterparts. You'll surely find the odd app that has removed a feature, and often that happened for very good reasons.Perhaps you aren't including these two in your definition of "KDE4 applications", but the KDE4 versions of Kaffeine and Amarok lost a lot of features in the transition and only recently have begun to approach feature parity.
The cake, it was a lie Posted Sep 25, 2012 12:08 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] You'll surely find the odd app that has removed a feature, and often that happened for very good reasons... and sometimes it didn't, e.g. binding actions to sequences of more than one keystroke (something I used *heavily* in KDE3).
Benefits Posted Sep 25, 2012 23:34 UTC (Tue) by Tester (subscriber, #40675) [Link]
GStreamer 1.0 offers lots of benefits for embedded systems and it was one of the key goals as older versions were very desktop centric in their design. But it also offers some nice improvements for desktops users, first and foremost, it has much better performance (see http://luisbg.blogalia.com/historias/71646). If you look at the graph, GStreamer 1.0 uses the least CPU, VLC uses the most. It is also easier to write dynamic pipelines, which should make applications like PiTiVi more stable and make it easier to develop new features.
Benefits Posted Sep 26, 2012 4:36 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I've asked very specific question: how many application which don't use GStreamer directly and get new version automatically when KDE upgrades benefit from said upgrade. GStreamer 1.0 may be nicer than GStreamer 0.10, but then you have this abstraction layer on top of it which negates most of benefits. Smaller CPU usage is nicer, but are we really sure it's not then eaten up by Phonon? IOW: will GStreamer1.0+Phonon will still be less resource-hungry when you compare it with GStreamer0.10 without Phonon? Dynamic pipelines are great, but is it something old application can use without recompilation? And so on. What exactly is the point of upgrade (besides the ability to say that "yes, we now use shiny new toy under the hood")?
|
|||||||||||||