KDE 4.1 Beta 2 – Two Steps Forward, One Step Back? 431
jammag writes "Linux pundit Bruce Byfield takes a look at the latest KDE beta and finds it wanting: 'Very likely, KDE users will have to wait for another release or two beyond 4.1 before the new version of KDE matches the features of earlier ones, especially in customization.' He notes that the second beta is still prone to unexplained crashes, and goes so far as to say, 'Everyone agrees now that KDE 4.0 was a mistake.' I'm not too sure about that — really, 'everyone?'"
Shouldn't that be.. (Score:3, Interesting)
One step forward, two steps back? If the "old version" is better than the "new version" ???
well duh (Score:3, Interesting)
What ars said... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080702-the-critics-are-wrong-kde-4-doesnt-need-a-fork.html [arstechnica.com]
KDE4 will get better. There's a lot of promise in plasma. Until then, 3.5 is totally usable (I'm using it now). KDE has often put forward a lot of wacky ideas just to see what sticks to the wall. Good on 'em, I say.
Look about the full KDE3 installation, you can find all sorts of ideas that never really made it. Drag and drop stuff, little file servers, and so on. Some of these things are probably in use by someone now. It's all part of KDE's great flexibility.
Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (Score:5, Interesting)
and they still can't come up with something remotely polished as Win2k was years ago?
What is your idea of "remotely polished"? If you mean any modern Linux distro I would say that it is better than W2K. Lets start from the top...
1. Solid kernel.
2. Solid GUI base (X)
3. Solid GUI (take your pick, XFCE, GNOME, KDE, etc)
4. Lots of programs (just take a look at the Ubuntu repos)
Now look at all the things that Windows 2000 doesn't have that Linux has
1. Out-of-the-box driver support for just about everything (only exceptions are ATI/nVidia graphics cards, but some distros now include them)
2. Central package management system
3. 3-D effects
4. Support for all major filesystems out-of-the-box
5. Support for all major filetypes out-of-the-box
Your comments are nothing but trolling. Show me how Windows 2000 or any Windows is better than Linux and stop making up your "facts"
My only problem with KDE 4.x (Score:4, Interesting)
is the incredibly slow-ass file previews. What happened? I can now open up a folder of digital camera images and have Dolphin or Konqueror preview them, and 45 minutes later it will still be working to get all the thumbnails done.
Compare to the current version of Nautilus (or the KDE 3.x version of Konqueror) that previewed more or less instantly... What gives?
Other than that, I've not had any major stability issues or gripes with KDE 4.x (I'm using Fedora 9 and have switched from the new menu to the old "accordion-style" menu.)
Re:Open Source Developers vs Commercial Developers (Score:2, Interesting)
Good analogy, but you stopped too soon. A Linux/Windows comparison is like a comparison between a blow-up doll and a badly groomed transvestite.
You need to go elsewhere to find anything comparable to the sexiness of an actual woman.
Re:What ars said... (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. There's a new paradigm in desktop coming and IMHO, it is worth waiting for. I, too, use KDE 3.5.8. However, I have compiled KDE 4.0.4 so that I could preview and screencast some of the programs (such as the physics simulator, Step). It's not terribly stable [but it's beta, so I don't expect it to be], but I love it.
I suspect that the rants against KDE 4 are from people who are either impatient (think of the world we live in), are complaining because they are happy with KDE 3.5 and are concerned that they will lose productivity in moving to 4.x, or simply didn't read the fine print that it's in beta at the moment.
I am also unhappy with people who have not acknowledged that the the goal posts are moving. It seems that they are not hearing the complaints against the KDE marketing machine. But the bottom line for me is that I have a usable platform until the release is stable, and I'm perfectly happy to wait until it is. Hey, I'm getting it for free.
Re:Still very disappointed with KDE 4 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Unexplained Crashes (Score:5, Interesting)
But they were not due to us designing them out, it was due to the fact that they did not get ported over in time.
So, would it be fair to say that you haven't removed any features, you just haven't gotten them all working yet? If so, that would give KDE users something to look forward to, instead of something to complain about.
Well this is my personal feeling about features/configurability:
So yes, the idea is to make things that worked before work again if it doesn't work now. Of course the usual disclaimers apply, full refund if it doesn't work, patches always accepted, help always appreciated, etc.
Re:Perfect? (Score:2, Interesting)
KDE 4.0 and 4.1 are not meant to be perfect in every way. They are meant to establish a new scheme of APIs and a new design dynamic.
That's the realm of alpha, beta and RC releases. Even if you gently accept that KDE 4.0 is not all of KDE 4, you'll have to feel a bit cheated when now 4.1 isn't quite what we were used of KDE in the past.
I've written enough software to realise that an x.0 release comes with new technology that will contain some regressions, but it's really a bad sign when the x.0 is announced as "this is really just a preview" and then the x.1 still isn't meant to be mature.
A distro-timing faux pas vs a technical disaster ? (Score:4, Interesting)
The distros have had a big hand in the unpopular reception of KDE4.0.
I've been a Fedora user since Core1, followed most of the revisions, and recently upgraded to F9. I have found most all Fedora major releases to be more stable and usable than previous.
Upon installation of F9/KDE4.0, I thought something really bad had happened to my system (strange menu, taskbar screwed up, desktop icons weird). Only after some reading (yeah, should have RTFM first) did I learn it was all intentional - KDE4.0 !
Having used it for a while, I admit it has potential. Due to the independence on display resolution, KDE4 looks much nicer on my old 1024x768 laptop than KDE3.x ever did. The guts feel great, the skin is flaky (I humbly await your jokes).
But I wish Fedora (yes, I do realize that Fedora is a 'testbed' of bleeding-edge packages) had waited before including KDE4.0, perhaps giving an install option, or simply putting it off until F10/KDE4.x
Fortunately, I didn't upgrade my office machine to F9 - I would be really in a mess if I tried to used it as productively as I can with F8/KDE3.x
KDE4.x future looks bright, I'm more disappointed with the Fedora team that chose it as the only KDE desktop for F9.
I'm Writhing This In KDE 4.1 Now (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a little different but everyone on /. who runs kde3.x will figure it out in a day. Our office just "upgraded" to office 200X with the new gui and waste far more time sorting out some features on the new ribbon gui.
It's not rock-stable, but functional. A mix of 3.5 and 4.0 apps work pretty well. The newer Kontact isn't done and kmail works fine for me. YMMV.
I'm easily running a mixed testing/experimental environment with no issues. If you are running Debian testing, just add new repos with experimental instead of testing, I defined the pinning such that testing is preferred, but it pulls experimental packages as needed. I would copy -R .kde kde-3.x to be sure you don't lose anything valuable.
Re:Ignorance. Bruce needs to work harder. (Score:3, Interesting)
Well twitter, I can't take credit for finding this [wordpress.com], but your dislike of Bruce Byfield is well-known. Judging from your comment in that blog, I'd say he's not as radical as you'd like, thus probably diminishing the value of everything he says. You've made it clear once and again that you see everything in black and white, meaning anyone who doesn't hate Microsoft must hate free software and extremes of that nature. In this case, Bruce Byfield must be "ignorant", because he's saying something you don't like. As opposed to a well-researched opinion, which is what I thought after reading the article.
Opinions you disagree with are not "FUD".
By the way, I'm probably the last person you should be replying to with your sockpuppet accounts.
Re:Perfect? (Score:4, Interesting)
KDE 4.0 and 4.1 are not meant to be perfect in every way. They are meant to establish a new scheme of APIs and a new design dynamic. It is a big overhaul that is in its beginnings.
And Vista isn't? Are you new or just Slashdotted?
Vista comes with several new API sets are out of 'in theory' technology in other realms of computing, yet people look at it and think, oh, it isn't much different than XP. It looking and working as much like XP as it does is one of the things Microsoft got right with Vista.
Go read up on the Vista APIs that are not only a foundation in new technologies, but an entire new method of programming, based on some very advanced beyond 'object' programming principles.
Then take a look at the Vista WDDM. It is not just another driver model, but a new video subsystem model that goes from the hybrid kernel/user mode all the way up to the vector based composer.
If you look at the complexity of the WDDM and yet how applications, from GDI and Win32 to OpenGL/DirectX and even overlays look like they did on XP, yet are being processed and drawn by a very new engine and work virtually flawlessly it is quite a feat. As Vista isn't just taking bitmaps of the Windows like KDE is doing or OS X does, but the WDDM shoves a lot of old drawing technology through the 3D GPU, from some basic GDI functions to font rendering and even offers up the 3D GPU for decompressing bitmaps when older applications read and draw them.
Next thing to notice about the WDDM is the GPU scheduler (pre-emptive 3D), virtualization and multi-processor GPU inherent abilities that current no other OS even offers a close substitution.
I actually don't think KDE 4 is bad, and has started the open source world to push forward in thinking beyond clever code and start to think all the way to the end user.
Vista is supposed to be a workstation solution ready for every day production use right now.
It is more stable than XP, more secure than XP, easier for business to deploy (mind numbing easy even), and unless you are trying to get it to run on 512mb, outperforms XP.
Where has Vista failed in this?
I get the whole SlashDot we hate MS, but from a Window's user or business user standpoint, where does Vista fail? There are the mindless ramblings of several people's friend of a friend stories; however, outside of the 'we wish' slashdot world, most Vista users are more than happy and would fight over going back to XP.
You are not forced to upgrade to KDE 4.x, but Vista is required for some of today's games and applications because they don't run in earlier versions. This is the difference.
What games run KDE again? Short of a few desktop games, they are not running 'via KDE', therefore, how would the KDE version have any reference on this?
Vista has a new gaming API, and even in the non-DX10 area included things needed for Windows Live out of the newer networking APIs (i.e. Halo2 Vista only 'originally' release).
Outside of that, games that are Vista only are too few and far between, which is sad because game makers have pulled back full DirectX10 support and instead are delivering hybrid games that have a DX9 engine with some DX10 enhancements turned on. (XBox 360 games are closer to pure DX10 than most DX9/DX10 hybrids being released now.)
We have yet to see a DX10 game that is fully DX10, which will be Vista only.
If a game requires a 'new' version of OpenGL are you going to argue the game is bad?
The difference here is DX10 goes past the basic libraries of OpenGL and older DX9. Since, yes, DX10 does expect the OS to be Vista because it relies on the OS handling GPU scheduling, virtualization, etc.
OpenGL has no OS dependance it can rely on, and can be both good and bad. We know the good side of this, but on the bad side, the level of features or performance it can offer is limited as it can't expect anything from the OS in new technologies. Unlike DX10 that can expect the OS to handle GPU RAM for the application an
Re:KDE 4.1 has *increased* my productivity (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds interesting, any screenshot?
I could put it somewhere if needed, yes. What are you interested in exactly? Some people have already recorded features from KDE 4.1, so perhaps what you want is already out there. For example, here is a video which shows plasmoid embedding and moving in the panel [youtube.com] (I put this one because people have been asking for this feature for a long time). This will be in the upcoming KDE 4.1 RC1 (tagged on next Wednesday and released a week after that).
Oh, and let's make the usual disclaimer: I'm not a KDE developer, just a user and a (small) contributor for non-coding stuff.
Re:Perfect? (Score:4, Interesting)
You won't be seeing any DX10-only games for a few years.
Expect them to say "Win7" somewhere on the box, in other words.
Lots of people didn't upgrade to Vista. I didn't. It's one of the strange things about gamers -- they tend to be quick to adopt new hardware, but new SOFTWARE? Some are.. many aren't. Good lord, were you playing any Valve games when they upgraded to Steam? MONTHS went by and servers remained on the old VAC system -- people didn't want to fiddle with what worked.
Same goes for Vista. It launched and all the reports had awesome phrases like... driver issues, massive slowdown, not working, and oh can't play.
Probably only 1/4 of the guys I know who play games often, have Vista.... and some of them work for Microsoft, so that almost doesn't count.
There's also the fact that DX10 requires TWO upgrades -- a new video card AND a new OS. And not just any video card.. in order to really get any use out of DX10 for anything more than taking pretty static screenshots, it's gotta be a GOOD video card.
Very expensive.
Game companies realize this and have and will continue offering support for WinXP / DX9 until the market is saturated with DX10-able computers and video cards. It'll be a while.
Good rule of thumb? Assume someone bought a new computer 6 months before Vista was released.
When that computer plus a mid-to-top range DX9 card will need to be upgraded to play new video games, THAT is when games will start transitioning to DX10 -- though at that point they would still want DX9 support. Rather than DX9 games with DX10 support.
Game designers love new technology, sure -- but they like having an audience large enough to actually make money, too.
Re:Perfect? (Score:4, Interesting)
It is more stable than XP, more secure than XP, easier for business to deploy (mind numbing easy even), and unless you are trying to get it to run on 512mb, outperforms XP.
More stable, unless you're running certain very common drivers. Funnily enough they're the main thing which take out XP too. I've also seen vanishingly few benchmarks where Vista outperforms XP, even with SP1; their +5% performance gains after a year of tweaking have merely served to achieve a vague parity in most situations, and in some cases they needed way more than that. And woe betide you if you have any applications which actually used all your 2GB; game memory requirements don't shoot up for Vista just for the sake of it.
Vista has a new gaming API, and even in the non-DX10 area included things needed for Windows Live out of the newer networking APIs (i.e. Halo2 Vista only 'originally' release).
Heh, did you really mention Halo 2 just there? The game which looks like it came out of the early DirectX 8 era and who's Vista requirement was quickly evaded by a small third party loader application? You don't need a new OS for a couple of networking APIs.
which is sad because game makers have pulled back full DirectX10 support
Sorry, but what did Microsoft think was going to happen? That people would flock to Vista in their tens of millions because, oh, never mind all the DRM bollocks and increased system requirements for less real world performance, it actually has a decent IO system (which you probably won't see the benefit of with a single 7200RPM drive, especially with the hilariously slow file copying for the first 13 months), more userspace drivers and a really fancy hardware compositing graphics pipeline? Lets face it, anyone who would even slightly understand what any of that means will mostly stop at "DRM bollocks".
OpenGL has no OS dependance it can rely on, and can be both good and bad. We know the good side of this, but on the bad side, the level of features or performance it can offer is limited as it can't expect anything from the OS in new technologies
Erm, it sure can depend on OS features -- in case you hadn't noticed, OpenGL is a graphics API, and the way it's implemented can take advantage of whatever OS capabilities you like. The only difference with Vista is the driver developers have to work out how to make use of the new OS GPU stuff instead of being able to deal with it all themselves. And let's not forget, this is probably the number one source of system instability on Vista. I guess it's lucky (and fairly impressive) that at least some of the crashes are all in userspace and recoverable.
don't be pissed because a new game requires the new system.
Why not? I'm not "upgrading" for one game, especially when it's not doing anything it couldn't do in DX9. I'm especially not upgrading when Microsoft try to force the issue by artificially limiting crappy games like they did with Halo 2. Sure, feel free to go make your DX10-specific wondergame, just don't be pissed when it bombs because you cut out 90% of your target market.
Vista is a much larger shove forward in new technologies and APIs than KDE.
Sure, some of it looks rather nice, and it sounds good on paper, but from a user standpoint most of that's irrelevent even if it did translate into real world improvements (much of it, seemingly, does not). About the biggest thing most people will notice is slightly smoother window handling, the need for more memory and, oh, look, another video driver crash.
Vista, to me, feels something like the Windows version of FreeBSD 5; lots of things have changed, it's been ages since the previous release, things aren't really tuned especially well, and some stuff which looked awesome on paper is turning out to be more trouble than it's worth. Whether the same applies to KDE4, I can't say; I've never really cared for the big DE's :)
Re:Perfect? (Score:3, Interesting)
The key word in parent's statement was "technologies". From user's perspective, Vista might not offer much, but it certainly did plug a lot of old holes in Win32 API and gave developers a lot of new tasty things to play with as well (transacted file system and registry sure are nice). In that sense, comparing it with KDE 4.0 is pretty close - Vista is out now so that more shiny programs get written to run on Windows 7.