Slashdot Mirror
KDE 3.1 Alpha1 is Here
navindra writes: "A brand new alpha of the breath-taking KDE 3.1 development branch has been announced. This release sports everything from wonderful new eye candy to tons of popular new features including new and exciting "easter eggs" (aka bugs) just waiting to be discovered. Remember, this is not a stable release -- those of you concerned with stability should use KDE 3.0.2, whereas those of you who want to help KDE 3.1 be the best KDE ever should use this alpha. Kudos to Dre for writing the announcement and to the tireless Dirk Mueller for coordinating this release. Party!" On a related note, pAlpha writes: "Over the past years a large amount of myths has built up around KDE. Recently Aaron J. Seigo released a page about the KDE myths and facts." Good for convincing the boss.
KDE fucking sucks goat balls. Know why?
It's slow. GNOME rules. Death to all niggers and jews!
yeah fucking end users suck :)
I like things that are sweet and not things that are lame. --
The Kde developers have admitted on the off-topic kde mailing list that they are anti-jewish and socialists. Hmm..anti-jewish and socialist..oh yeah, NAZI!
Is it just me or is this remind any of you of MS Win XP! Sorry but IMHO this looks like Win XP where most of the stuff hasn't changed it just looks "Prettier" every body knows that XP was just a pretty GUI and it looks like this is too. Plus the way I see it is that the only real reason they put this out is b/c they want more money and the only way to get that is by putting out prettier versions with no real reason too... Just my $0.02
because my friend works for KDE, and he leaked me the code. In anycase, while it does do the things that we expect, it has trouble with some of the little things.
I mean, when I click on the menu, I expect the menu to either cascade or appear, but sometimes it just pops up like a tool bar on the top of the computer. That isnt very intuitive and it gets quite annoying. Luckily there are some options you can select to turn off the Auto-Tool settings.
I think the worst thing they did tho was their blatent ripoff of MS XP. THat is sad. I use XP at work, and Alpha is just like it. Including the split start menu and the GREEN start bar. Sure there are options to change its colors, but i mean, come on, I want a Linux machine not a windows clone. I guess its true about LINUX Gui, they are trying to look just like MS.
I am very dissappointed in the anti-aliasing as well. We were led to believe that it would be EDGE only, by their websites claim, but I have seen very little proof of edge only AA. Instead, my desktop at 800x600 looks awful, everything is blury and out of focus, because of the AA. I have to move my desktop to 1280 before things crispen up enough for me to read.
I guess what I am saying if you dont mind relearning how to use the KDE Gui, because the previous versions were very easy to learn, but this new one will take some time to master(even for a Linux master like me) and dont mind ultra tiny text or ultra high resolutions so things do not look like ass, then Alpha is the way to go. Id rather stick to using Gnome or a previous version of KDE.
pogmeister
suggestions:
- make Konq not core every five minutes (this is with KDE3 on a vanilla Red Hat 7.3 install)
- get rid of that godawful ARTS audio daemon which injects incompatibility into every non-KDE audio-using program
- play nice with Mozilla
- make you desktop look as good as Win2K or WinXP, or maybe half as good as OS X
these suggestions are just a starting point. discuss.Confronting the KDE propaganda machine.
The KDE project is famous for its funded and organised trolling of weblogs and message board associated with Linux and Free software/open source. Outrageous newbie impressing claims are made for the software and huge quanities of FUD are spread to destroy competitors. If this sounds familiar, then you are correct, most of these tactics were lifted straight from Microsoft's arsenal of dirty tricks. The Windows look and feel is not the only thing the KDE project has copied! In this short article I will address some of the lies and FUD spread by the KDE trolling teams. It is my hope that this, in some small way, will redress the balance and re-introduce two things almost eradicated by the KDE project: Honesty and facts.
Myth #1 - KDE is more integrated than GNOME
The oft-heard cry of the noisiest KDE advocates. No explanation is given, the reader is expected to simply grok the wholesomeness of KDE and the lack of this mystical quality in GNOME. It is nonsense of course. Neither desktop is particularly "integrated" compared to Windows XP, and certainly not compared any version of the Apple Mac. Whatever "integrated" actually means.
Myth #2 - KDE is easier to use
Again, such nebulous arguments are never explained, and the reader is expected to simply understand the truth of the zealots statement. Both KDE and GNOME have user-interface irritations (all systems do), but "ease of use" is not a simple thing to measure. KDE has never been subjected to detailed user testing, unlike GNOME, and the claims of user-friendliness are from crazed supporters and not average users. Furthermore, the KDE faithful rarely look beyond simple-minded copying of Windows, and forget that administering a desktop system is just as important as having widgets in the correct place on the toolbar. For example: What about application installation and removal? GNOME has the excellent RedCarpet by Ximian, which makes the installation, removal and updating of applications trivial. KDE users are expected to fend for themselves with brutal command line driven systems. GNOME also has the excellent Ximian setup tools to handle various tricky cross-platform and potentially risky system configuration operations. KDE offers none of this, only a few small and lame Linux-only tools, which make no attempt at check-pointing to return to known working configurations.
Myth #3 - KDE is more popular
In what sense? Arguably more people use KDE, but it is a close run thing. Most KDE zealots use the results of online polls as proof of their superior userbase - which is, quite frankly, complete and utter nonsense. Online polls are the joke of the century; it doesn't even require a motivated script kiddie to render then worthless. A single post alerting the faithful on a zealot-ridden site can skew the result so much it makes American presidential elections look fair and well organised. Popularity is also difficult to measure when *both* GNOME and KDE are frequently installed on the same system. The systems can co-exist and even run at the same time, except for certain applications such as panels. Many KDE users actually run GNOME applications for their superior features and stability, not realising that by doing so they are barely running KDE at all.
One of the few solid measures of popularity is commercial use of a desktop, and here, GNOME is far ahead with both Hewlett Packard and Sun committing to using GNOME as the desktop for their Unix systems. This also ties in with the previously mentioned ease of use. Sun's major contribution to the GNOME project is in the areas of user/developer documentation, testing, accessiblity and user-testing. Three of the less glamourous parts of desktop development. The arrival of the GNOME 2.x series will see these contributions reach fruitition and allow GNOME to make a quantum leap ahead of KDE in most of the basic computer/user issues.
Myth #4 - Konqueror is the best Linux browser
Oh for a penny every time this lie is told in any KDE story! Konqueror not a bad piece of software. It's authors deserve praise for the work done on it. However, the sheer amount of orgasmic gushing by the KDE faithful is completely out of proportion to its actual quality. It is quite unreliable and even simple standards compliant pages can crash it quite comprehensively. It is also lax in its support of basic web standards compared to either Mozilla or Opera. It is also extremely slow - much slower than the latest incarnations of the GNOME Nautilus filemanager/browser (a target of much KDE FUD during its development).
Myth #5 - KDE applications are better/more advanced than GNOME ones due to the ease of developing in C++ using the Qt toolkit
This is the most common wail heard by KDE developers, and yet it is easily disproved by looking at the actual applications for GNOME/GTK and KDE/Qt. KDE applications often have larger version numbers than GNOME ones... an old trick played by commerical software developers. Most KDE apps seem to jump for 1.x releases long before they are ready - KOffice being the best example. None of the components in Koffice are worthy of a 1.0 release, let alone 1.1 or 1.2.
GNOME applications get a good deal more testing in their 0.x stages, and despite shorter development phases they mature and reach stable featureful release versions much more quickly. Some examples of this are: the superb Evolution (groupware/email), Gnumeric (spreadsheet), Pan (newsreader), The GIMP (image manipulation), Abiword (word processing), RedCarpet, X-Chat (IRC client), XMMS (media player), Galeon (web browser), and for developers: Glade and Anjuta. All of these packages ooze quality, and far outclass their KDE counterparts. It is no understatement to say that GNOME is at least 18 months ahead of KDE in applications, and pulling still further ahead.
It's not just in the area of user applications that GNOME is vastly more advanced. With the forthcoming 2.x release, a number of impressive behind the scenes technologies will finally mature: component technology (bonobo), media (Gstreamer), internationalisation (pango). As a developement platform, GNOME 2.x is, conservatively, 2-3 years ahead of KDE. And what is more, because it is not tied to a lowest common denominator cross-platform bloat-fest like the Qt toolkit, the lead (as with applications) can only increase further.
It is also worth noting that GNOME also develops code for use outside the project (see the XML libraries as one example) - the KDE project rarely (if ever) engages in this kind of work. KDE developers ensure that all software must link with Qt, and hence tie it closely with the Qt toolkit preventing re-use and enhancing the value of TrollTech intellectual property.
Yet despite all this, we are still regularly fed the lie that Qt and C++ makes application and desktop development easier. Judge for yourself.
Myth #6 - KDE is faster and takes less memory than GNOME
KDE is written in C++. While this is not necessarily a problem, it can be when Visual Basic reject programmers (which the KDE project is overrun with) do not know enough to avoid important pitfalls that plague C++ software projects. Stupid use of autoincrementing operators and iteration with C++ objects; and masses of unnecessary allocations and deallocations of memory are two of the most common. KDE suffers badly from both problems.
Perhaps the most cretinous of all problems is blaming the extremely slow startup times of KDE apps on GCC. The GNOME 1.x releases were hardly svelt (2.x fixes many of these issues - in fact, GNOME 2 is significantly faster with fewer resources than previous version, a feat quite beyond the KDE project), but GNOME is a fashion cat-walk superwaif when compared to KDE's 500lb fat-momma cheese-burger scoffing trailer trash. One need only look at the recent fuss over ugly KDE hacks (such as prelinking) used to bandage up the design and coding flaws in the decrepit KDE architecture to see the truth.
Myth #7 - GNOME development is slower. KDE releases faster.
Fundamental misunderstanding. The KDE project releases as one big lump of code due to its use of C++ and the many problems this causes with libraries. The project bumps the version number of the entire KDE system for the smallest modifications. GNOME, on the other hand is componentized and each component releases on a (almost) separate schedule, bumping it's own version number but not the main GNOME version (1.4, for example). Occasional releases of the entire GNOME system happen, and that's when the GNOME version number is bumped (currently it is at 1.4). To see this in action, use RedCarpet and you will regular updates to GNOME components. GNOME development is not slower, it is in fact faster and more advanced. Lamers and newbies, however, fail to understand the advantages of this method and just see KDE 1.1.1 followed a few weeks later by KDE 1.1.2. Wow! KDE roolz.
Perhaps the greatest example of KDE release games occured with the recent KDE 3.0 release. In a desperate race to beat GNOME 2.0 to, the KDE team did not put back their schedule in the middle of a late release freeze when they suddenly added lots of new features - and, as expected, this has proved to be disasterous. KDE 3.0 is the worst KDE release yet in terms of reliablity - and is essentially early beta software put out as a stable release. Compare this with GNOME, which has had a number of betas and quality assurance procedures leading up to the eventual release of GNOME 2.0. The difference in approach is obviously due to the ultimate destinations of the systems and the vastly more experienced developers behind GNOME. GNOME is heading for commerical use on Sun and HP desktops, and hence requires commericial release quality. While KDE is destined for the porn and MP3 boxes of noisy advocates who don't mind huge numbers of crashes while waiting for KDE 3.0.0.4 to fix issues overlooked in the mindless rush to release. Quality control is an afterthought to the KDE project - the version number and releasing first are everything.
Myth #8 - The Qt toolkit is cross-platform and yet takes advantage of each individual platform
The Qt toolkit (the software at the heart of KDE) is supposedly a cross-platform toolkit allowing the lucky developer the opportunity to write Windows/Linux/Mac software all at once. And yet, among the magical mythical claims made, the most nonsensical is that it makes applications which take advantage of the distinct features of the different platforms. This is of course, nonsense. Qt is a bloated, slow layer that is slapped over a native system's APIs in an attempt to make all the systems look alike. It no more takes advantage of Linux/Windows/Mac than Java does - in fact it offers many of the disadvantages of Java with few of the advantages. If you have ever wondered why the KDE desktop looks so much like Windows... you need look no further than Qt. Qt is a lowest common denominator toolkit, and that LCD is Windows - Trolltech's, the creator of Qt, real market.
Myth #9 - TrollTech is a friend of Free software
To Be Written. Ideas: Qt started out as non-Free. KDE developers knew this violated the GPL, didn't care, stole others' GPL code by porting it to link (in violation of the license) with Qt and are therefore untrustworthy. KDE core developers work for TrollTech. Expensive per developer licensing for writing closed-source with Qt, and hence KDE. Trolltech only moved towards the GPL because of the success of GNOME. Labyrinthine licensing nightmare (3 licenses to deal with). Gradual migration of features belonging in KDE into Qt (and so into TrollTech's IP portfolio), allowing easy porting of apps to the revenue generating Windows world (see TheKompany for a perfect example), thereby making KDE an irrelevant launcher of Qt applications. Claims made that Qt is GPL, while true, hide the real truth. There cannot be a real fork of Qt for the KDE project: Core developers work for Trolltech; any fork would need to be full GPL and hence ban any closed-source apps from KDE altogether (all KDE apps must link with Qt); Any commerical licensees of Qt (non-GPL) would and could only follow TrollTech. KDE is stitched up good and proper.
Myth #10 - KDE is more than attractive, but GNOME/GTK is ugly
To be Written. Ideas: Mosfet liquid theme is an ugly and unstable hack. GNOME GTk icons are better thought-out and of a far higher quality than the poorly drawn and cartoonish and confusing KDE ones. Qt is basically a Windows-look on a Unix platform.
Did anyone notice the desktop sharing "feature" in KDE?
Is this VNC compatible? Or did the KDE developers go do their own thing?
If the latter, they should be shot. Of course, such an action would be typical of them given their history of such things. (Such as blatantly ignoring the Qt licensing issues - It would have taken a simple exception in the GPL on their part, which is allowed, but they refused to do it. c'mon - ONE SENTENCE to eliminate a whole lot of controversy. Oh well, at least GNOME was born out of that fiasco...)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I've been using SciTe editor for about two months now and I the new Kate sure looks a lot like Scite.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
What happens if the underneath changes when the menu is up? As I said, bullshit fakery being passed off as the real thing - the KDE project in a nutshell.
Too many gnegroes use GNOME. That's why I'm a KDE fan.
KDE now wants to look like a cross between XP and OSX.
Which is fine if you like that I guess.
When most of its bugs are quashed. Until then, it's more of a pain in the ass than it is half the adjectives you used to describe it, and not worth the pain trying to install.
"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog!" - a dog
Um, I thought that eye candy was a waste of processor cycles. And alpha channels caused users to have to buy the biggest video cards around, and were evil because the guy with a ten year old machine under his desk would have to buy a seven year old machine.
Or is that just when the operating system that you can't have does it that's a waste and stupid?
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
How many excuses can KDEers think of (yes I know this will be moderated to oblivion cause I do not worship at the alter of KDE)
I never found the windowlist thing before, dunno why. Seems to work just fine though, so I at least got my answer ;)
Anyway, when 3.1 is released, or at least in beta, I'll give it a try again. FWIW, I do have KDE 3.0.x installed on my work machine, along with Gnome 2.0(which I find to be somewhat problematic, but has potential). I like to use my office machine to test stuff out on, no sense wasting my time at home ;)
KDE is looking better and better, so the reasons I stopped using it are getting fixed (at least IMO). However, one thing I dislike about KDE is that it's built on the QT widget set, which I have no interest in using at it's GPL, instead of LGPL like GTK. I want the freedom to be able to develop commercial software for my desktop of choice, but to be honest I have more interest in developing free(beer and open) software...
I'm rambling, I'll stop. FWIW, I wasn't complaining, just griping... or something.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden