Slashdot Mirror
KDE 4.1 Released, Reviewed
StoneLion writes "After months of development and controversy, the KDE project announced the release of KDE 4.1 today. Linux.com (a Slashdot sister site) took a hands-on look at the new code, and reviewer Jeremy LaCroix says, 'KDE 4.1 simply rocks.'" Bruce Byfield's review is quite positive, as well.
Does anyone know where one can obtain Fedora 9 packages? I've been suffering through 4.0 for a while and I'd love to be able to upgrade, but I'd prefer to use fedora's package management rather than compiling it myself. It's just simpler.
Is Firefox 3 still looking like ass on KDE, and when you attempt to make it use KDE themes, the scrollbars disappear?
Does KDE still ignore any preferences about what you set your resolution to, then suddenly switch your resolution only when you open the resolution changer program?
What I would like to see includes better fonts and more useful and complete help files. I also miss Amarok.
I have had my disappointments too. My college website will not allow Konqueror. Plug-in installation still needs work so that it is as smooth as that on Windows XP.
I have nothing but praise for KDE developers who insisted that we needed a new way of doing things in KDE and therefore started developing KDE 4.0. At that time, I did not see any reason why we needed a new paradigm. Now I see the reason. Thank you so much.
For the adventurous that have been using KDE 4, which distros do you think have done the best job at packaging it? Also will they be releasing packages for KDE 4.1 shortly, or are they waiting for their next normal release cycle?
I've been having all sorts of kernel/Xorg headaches with Hardy Heron, and am looking to dump it. I'm planning on moving all my must-have software to another box running Debian stable which will free up my desktop to experiment with a new distro.
I've never been sure why there was much controversy. The various announcements around the time of the 4.0 release and in advance made it clear that KDE 4 was the entire new desktop (in all its future versions) with new core technologies like Phonon and Plasma, whereas KDE 4.0 was the very first release of said desktop, wherein the underlying technologies were frozen so that developers could start using them, but the apps and desktop were incomplete.
The controversy is that it redefines what .0 means to most computer users and has meant throughout the release history of KDE.
It only occurred to me today, but I actually think KDE should do it again for KDE 5. If consistently used, there's nothing wrong with the following version numbering:
[b].0[/b] is the [i]zeroeth[/i] release set of a new product or technology generation. It could be used instead of silly names such as alpha, beta, preview and technology release alltogether and would indicate incompleteness.
[b].1[/b[ would be the [i]first[/i] release and would be complete.
This would probably also be more intuative to end users because only developers use zero-indexed lists.
Then again, it would not have provided the KDE release team with a way to push forward their new platform the way they did now. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.
KDE is an operating system in the same sense of the word that Windows is. It's the graphical shell that runs on top of the kernel.
Technically Vista is a new shell and set of services that run on top of the NT kernel. Of course, the NT kernel has been badly wounded for Vista (DRM thrown in, existing driver infrastructure removed, etc.), and the services are slow, memory intensive, and basically worthless, but it's comparable to KDE.
Sure, KDE is only really comparable to some portion of Vista (and more than just the UI, you have to remember various background services), but it's still comparable.
Much of what's new in Vista is eye candy. Much of the instability has to do with changed user libraries and a changed UI.
Of course, more of the instability has to do with the kernel being screwed with and KDE hasn't changed the kernel. Vista is more analogous to a complete Linux distro, and as any long-time Linux user is aware, it's perfectly possible for a Linux distro to be buggy and crash-prone.
But analogies can be made between KDE and Vista, ESPECIALLY in the Aero and 3D desktop aspects. They're both implemented as services on top of existing infrastructure.
And Vista takes far, far more memory and CPU to do its eye candy than KDE does. I don't know about stability, but given my experiences with Vista, KDE would have to cause applications to crash routinely to be comparable.
I don't get it. Why all the fuss about the desktop background? It is just a background after all, and hidden by any windows you have open.
From observing 'ordinary users' running Windows, they use the desktop background for starting programs which have a shortcut there - because the Start menu is so congested with crap, they don't even look at it and are often incapable of running anything not on the desktop. Because of this most Windows application installers have taken to adding a desktop shortcut as well as a Start menu item. Of course in the long term this 'icon inflation' will make the background itself unusable and we'll have to think of something else. I can't help feeling that just making a usable Start menu would be a better answer.
The second use of the desktop background is because files get saved there by default from your web browser. Again, this seems to be because unsophisticated users have no idea of directories and if it doesn't go on the background, they can't find it. But on Unix everyone has a home directory and I'd expect KDE (or GNOME) to provide easy access to that directory, even for people who aren't aware that any other location exists.
The kind of technically skilled people who used to run Enlightenment probably enjoy having semitransparent widgets flip into shape in 3d on the background, but I don't see what usability advantages that brings. Would it not be simpler to make the background be a background - just blank? There is no difficulty in putting one application window _underneath_ another, so you will see it when the top window is moved or minimized out of the way.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Most of the KDE apps are just about integration, but there are a lot that I'd use, Dolphin, Amarok, K3B, Konversation, Dragon Player (Just in that it's very light and quick to use, not claiming it's "better" in any technical sense) and possibly KTorrent I would use a lot on Windows if I could.
:P).
Not to mention the KDE games are generally better than any other desktop games (although desktop games in general are only good for time-wasting
However I think the DE itself WILL be able to run on Windows, I've seen some screenshots ages ago and vaguely recall hearing about how it will change your startup screen to allow you to choose between KDE4 and Explorer.
Keep in mind that KDE 4.0 was meant to be used by developers. It was not user level. The hope was that by giving it a .0, that it would encourage app developers, but discourage regular users. After all that is what seems to happen in the windows world. But I think that Linux has more in common with Apple than with Window; That is that users put more trust in it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well no shit. You'd have to be a pretty big asshole to think otherwise.
Maybe not
Except that "folder view plasmoids" look retarded.
I want a desktop. I want a desktop that acts just like the desktop that all other relevant desktop environments on all other relevant operating systems. You know, like the one KDE3 has.
But no. This is just indicative of the future of KDE: "you want? Fuck you, we have a VISION." It pisses me off, because when I used a Linux desktop, KDE was always my choice. Can't say that anymore.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Not exactly on-topic here, but I just wanted to say that I really like that you take the time to read and reply to /. comments on your stories. When the /. crowd doesn't like a story it can turn into a shark-filled swimming pool real fast, with the story (and by extension the writer) getting shredded by the groupthink mafia, as indeed some of your past stories have been treated in this space. Thank you for braving the waters and taking the time to do this.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Can you provide a screenshot for comparison for what a decent default font should look like in your opinion?
(This is not a flame! I do use KDE mind you!)
I am not the OP, but if you want to see what decent fonts look like google for a Ubuntu (Gnome) screen shoot.
Here is an anecdote for you:
As a full-time KDE user, when I bought a computer for my parents (1 year ago) I installed Kubuntu on it. Since Kubuntu has been such a mess in the last year, upon my last visit, I installed Ubuntu on that computer.
My mother (~60 years old, has no clue whatsoever about what KDE or Gnome are) upon being presented to what I called a new Linux flavor, said, spontaneously, within some 5 seconds looking at the Gnome menus:
Oh, the fonts are much beter
You won't be able to sue them for it, but I'm sure if you called up the company behind KDE they'd be happy to negotiate a price.
I've actually seen some screenshots of plasma widgets and panels on Windows. Aaron Segio said he didn't personally plan to port plasma to Windows, but someone else was doing it.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Now that KDE 4.1 is using WebKit in place of KHTML, does this mean EOL of KHTML? For anyone using Konquerer in the new KDE, how does web performance differ from the previous version?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.