Slashdot Mirror
What To Expect In KDE 4.1
andrewmin writes "Recently, Gnome's been gaining a lot of ground on its KDE counterpart in the desktop environment wars. The KDE developers were hoping to change this with KDE 4, the new radical release of KDE, but it was not to be. KDE 4.0 was buggy and unstable, leaving everyone except the hard-core KDE lovers. Mainly, this was because it just didn't work most of the time. However, the developers were not without hope. They promised that KDE 4.1 would be more stable and fix all the holes and problems with KDE 4.0. That time is coming soon: in just four days, K Desktop Environment 4.1 will be released to the Linux masses." A release candidate for 4.1 came out just over a week ago, with binaries available "for some Linux distributions, and Mac OS X and Windows."
That's true, KDE 4.0 was supposed to have stable core libraries, so major applications such as Amarok, Koffice and Kontact could be ported at KDE 4.1. The big issue was this numbering schema. If KDE staff have numbered in the classic way people wouldn't have created so many expectations, and thus there wouldn't have dissapointments.
I have used KDE for almost 10 years now. Tried Gnome many times, but always go back to KDE. In looks there is no comparison, gnome is and always has been plug ugly.
Until KDE 4, KDE was superior in functionality as well. However, KDE4 suffered from multiple problems :
1. It was never meant for everyday users. For instance, a lot of indispensible KDE applets/widgets never made it on release date and some of the simplest tasks (plugging in a USB key) became needlessly complicated. It became good at obfuscating the essential and hyping the beautiful. It should never have been released - or perhaps released as KDE4-CODE which targeted developers alone. I understand that the open source development process depends on people trying out new software and reporting bugs, but this was too big a leap.
2. The developers paid too much attention to the looks of the interface and not much to the interface itself. I have used windows 95/98/NT/2000/XP over the years as well OSX in its many reincarnations, but KDE was always a relief to return to. With KDE4, that is no longer true.
I am not dissing the ideas behind KDE4. Perhaps many of them are overdue improvements if linux is to make it to the average desktop user (an outcome in which I haven't the slightest interest), but it was released too early. It gave an impression of being pre-alphaware and has ruined many people's opinion of the project.
Hopefully 4.1 will win people like me over and give us a compelling reason to upgrade from KDE 3.5.7.
QT 4 and thusly KDE 4 use XRender quite a bit, and Nvidia's driver has horrible XRender support. You could go to the OSS Nvidia driver, and lose 3D acceleration, or stick with KDE 3.
Ideally, I'd like to see the Slashdot effect channeled. This site has tons of users. We bring down sites accidentally with our massive numbers, but I've never seen the Slashdot Effect channeled for good.
Can you imagine CmdTaco posting a story tomorrow asking every to pepper Nvidia with petitions all on the same day, demanding an improved driver?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I typically enjoy reading your comments and I'm not trying to start a flamewar here, but I've just seen so much piss poured on KDE4 here on Slashdot that I've got to reply to someone or I'll blow my damn stack. So bear that in mind, because I'm gonna go off a little here. Nothing personal.
KDE had no credible reason for releasing it as 4.0
The KDE development team elaborated very well their reasons for releasing 4.0.0 on the schedule and in the manner that they did. This topic has been covered at least 5409 times in the last two weeks on Slashdot. Can we please move on now?
Where's Katapult? Where's Kmail/Kontact? Where's Amarok? Why is Konsole huge? Why's everything huge, including the panel, with no way to reduce it? Why is the menu so weird -- and if this is a replacement for Katapult, why can't I open it with a keystroke?
In order:
Katapult's not there anymore.
Kontact is there. I have it open on another desktop right now.
Amarok is also in the middle of a development cycle. The development version is there, the stable version hasn't magically disappeared either. It's not easy to rewrite an application to not only a new version of the DE, but a new version of the underlying frameworks and a new version of the widget set. It's hard hard hard hard work. You could help. Or at least shut up and let them work.
Konsole looks pretty much the same to me as it always has. Yakuake, btw, has improved dramatically.
You can change the panel size, this functionality has been there now for months.
If you don't like the new menu, use the old one. It's still there.
The new menu is not a replacement for Katapult. Alt-F2 is the replacement for Katapult. Which is good. Katapult had more bugs than a badger's asshole.
major apps like Konqueror, Kopete, and Amarok simply crash, and frequently.
I don't use Konqueror, so I can't speak to that. I have had Kopete open on this machine for weeks on end, it has not once crashed out on me. Not once. The development version of Amarok is just that, a development version. Expect it to crash. On the flip side, Kontact puked all over the place on a daily basis for me on KDE 3.5, and it's much more stable now. The crashes I do get regularly are KTorrent (when exiting the program, and also when trying to remove >3 torrents from the list), and sometimes Plasma when I log out. Bugs have been filed. I have no doubt that they will be fixed. Have you filed bugs on your crashes?
Listen, I'm not trying to get bitchy here, but seriously, can we all tone down the vitriol here? Considering that KDE4 is a complete break on all levels from KDE3 (both in the sense of "a break from the paradigm" and "compatibility break"), I'm thrilled with how quickly problems have been spotted and fixed (sometimes to the point where the problem I noticed in the morning has been fixed by dusk).
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Oddly (apparently), I found KDE 4.0.x to be quite stable. For me, its problem was that there wasn't anything implemented other than some "shiny bubble icon" eye-candy. It's not really "polish" that KDE4 needs - it's had THAT from the start. It's actual functionality that it has really been needing.
I've been using the current SVN builds for the 4.1 series, and it's looking much better in terms of actual functionality than the 4.0 series was. There are still a few irritating missing bits (like metadata display [duration/bitrate/etc. for mp3 and ogg-vorbis files, for example] and a fully working version of K3B for KDE4, etc.) but from my perspective they've done a very credible job of addressing many of the major shortcomings from the original KDE4(.0) releases.
I think the whole "plasmoids" thing that they've been frantically laying the groundwork for will probably make dealing with the remaining missing functionality pretty quick.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
you make a lot of good points but you show the same lack of intelligence that the devs displayed. It doesn't matter what your/their "rationale" or "explanation" is. Those are excuses. nothing more nothing less. I'm a huge kde fan dont get me wrong... but that's very amature and a good way to piss off your user base and new comers.
If its not a stable usable release which is a functional upgrade from your prior version then DONT put it in STABLE REPO's, dont release it out as a 'finished' product.
KDE is an open source project. Any sense of a timeline for a release is a purely abstract thing. The only 'project deadline' was self imposed. There are no money paying customers who are going to complain that your product is late.
Furthermore as ubuntu demonstrates time and time again the fact that something is a RC or alpha/beta doesnt mean people wont use it and submit patches; it means those who have NO ABILITY TO USE IT OR SUBMIT PATCHES won't use it.
It doesnt matter how much of a complete break on all levels it is, if anything thats just even more of a reason of how obvious it should be that you need to do more testing.
Do you think a consumer cares if version 2.x is written entirely different than 1.x; they dont care if its compiled in different languages, written backwards, upside down on typewriters by monkeys and midgets. They care about one thing only, that it works BETTER; and that if it is not complete and ready for stable use that it wont be presented in anyway to allow them to believe as such.
They take a lot of effort to say that "4.0" is not ready and not a full desktop and not for real use... then don't release it and allow it to run around as a real release.
A lot of people are starting to nail this, clearly a release of some sort was needed; but not as KDE . expecting your user to be "know" that .0 means crap is stupidity. It's also something that most companies are trying to get away from... because in the money world if every one DID listen to that no one would buy version .0 and you'd never make enough to money to produce whatever comes next or you'd screw up your reputation so bad no one would come back.
so what if vista was a failure in that same regard; don't you think that's at least a part of the reason of the surge in linux's popularity, or microsofts reputatation of that in general? maybe if more projects put a little bit more emphasis on QC before releasing as a stable it would go a long way towards converting the masses; oh well..
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor