1 |
Andrew John Hughes posted on Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:33:55 +0000 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 23 February 2010 17:27, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
4 |
>> Andrew John Hughes posted on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:58:46 +0000 as |
5 |
>> excerpted: |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>>> KDE 3.5 |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> [R]emoval from the main tree is premature. Not only |
10 |
>>> is KDE 4 still an unstable resource hog, but [the koffice devs |
11 |
>>> say koffice for kde4 isn't stable yet.] |
12 |
>>> |
13 |
>>> Whoever removed it from the main tree has completely ignored this |
14 |
|
15 |
>> FWIW, I agree that it's premature, but it's not Gentoo's problem so |
16 |
>> much as KDE's and Qt Software's, as both kde3 and qt3 are unsupported |
17 |
>> upstream, thus, subject to security vulns[.] Why KDE refuses to support |
18 |
>> the previous stable version until the new version is generally stable |
19 |
> as well, I don't know, but they don't. (Qt I can see a bit more, as |
20 |
>> they're a commercial company, [and] supporting older versions costs |
21 |
>> real money. It wasn't their fault that kde decided to go for a full |
22 |
>> rewrite instead of a straight upgrade port[.)] |
23 |
>> |
24 |
> You're right that KDE's attitude is even worse - the choice of version |
25 |
> numbering being only the start. I just don't think the Gentoo position |
26 |
> helps things, especially when the opposite tact could be taken; provide |
27 |
> KDE4 in an overlay for those who want to try it and maintain KDE 3 in |
28 |
> the main tree. After all, they wouldn't be alone as Debian is also |
29 |
> maintaining it in stable. Instead, we are faced with a blanket mask out |
30 |
> of the blue and the 'upgrade -- it's so much better' fallacy. |
31 |
|
32 |
But there's a difference between gentoo and debian. Gentoo is a rolling |
33 |
distribution that very much depends on upstream to continue to maintain |
34 |
package viability in the face of continuing system upgrades and security |
35 |
vulns. Debian, OTOH, has a quite old stable version that basically |
36 |
doesn't get ordinary updates, with security fixes backported as |
37 |
necessary. Gentoo basically doesn't do backports, they kick out the |
38 |
packages when they're no longer supported upstream and they get broken |
39 |
(security or cruft-wise). |
40 |
|
41 |
So that's why the Gentoo choice was as it was. No backporting, no |
42 |
supporting what upstream has abandoned. We even have a dedicated tree |
43 |
cleaner project that removes stale and abandoned packages if they get |
44 |
forgotten. Thus, the kde3/qt3 removal is in accordance with general |
45 |
gentoo policy. |
46 |
|
47 |
But still, if there had been Gentoo devs that had wanted to maintain it, |
48 |
it may well have remained. But all the gentoo/kde devs are kde4 users, |
49 |
and actually, took quite some trouble going out of their way to maintain |
50 |
an ever more broken kde3/qt3 in the tree as long as they did. |
51 |
|
52 |
> I also approach this not so much for myself (I only use the odd KDE app |
53 |
> and not the desktop environment itself; I find even 3.5 too bloated) but |
54 |
> for other less tech-savvy users who just want to go about their |
55 |
> day-to-day tasks on the computer. For them, everything works fine wtih |
56 |
> 3.5. Why do they need to change? It gets worse when you then install a |
57 |
> few KDE 4 apps and see sporadic crashes and heavy CPU utilisation. I |
58 |
> used to find khexedit a useful tool for debugging data files when |
59 |
> coding. In 4, there is a complete rewrite called okteta with no |
60 |
> apparent additional functionality but which uses 100% CPU as soon as it |
61 |
> loads up and is basically unusable. And that's with 4.4 on x86_64! |
62 |
|
63 |
I'd file a bug about that, as it shouldn't be using 100% CPU... Do you |
64 |
have multi-core (or hyperthreading if on Intel)? Does it use 100% of just |
65 |
one core or of all of them? |
66 |
|
67 |
> I don't really put Qt in the same boat. Qt4 has been around for quite a |
68 |
> while longer than the equivalent KDE release (because of this huge |
69 |
> rewrite they decided to do) and I'd be happy to ditch it for the |
70 |
> superior 4 release if it wasn't for the loss of all those usable KDE |
71 |
> applications. If you compare the switch from Gtk+1 to Gtk+2, it was |
72 |
> also painful but developers tended to do the minimum required to get |
73 |
> their code building (making use of the deprecated symbols still |
74 |
> available) rather than throw it all away and do a complete rewrite. I |
75 |
> don't remember anything like this KDE upgrade with GNOME. |
76 |
|
77 |
You know what I think the problem is? I think too many of the KDE devs |
78 |
must be young and still think they can code the world in a day... They |
79 |
didn't realized how big a job they were setting out for themselves when |
80 |
they decided to go the full rewrite route, and obviously, many of them |
81 |
aren't trying to run a kde system in a production environment, on ordinary |
82 |
hardware, or they'd not have been even /thinking/ about calling 4.2 ready |
83 |
for such users. |
84 |
|
85 |
>> FWIW, I've been quite pleased with kde 4.4.[snip] |
86 |
> |
87 |
> I haven't used it as an environment much. I've seen it running on a |
88 |
> Debian testing box and to me, it just seems much the same with lots more |
89 |
> flashy gimmicks that slow the machine down. Of most disappointment is |
90 |
> the decision to copy Windows with the K button, a change I immediately |
91 |
> reverted. |
92 |
|
93 |
I can't say I know to what you're referring with that "copy Windows" bit, |
94 |
as I made the jump to freedomware the week eXPrivacy came out, as there |
95 |
was simply no way I was going to consent to having to go to MS for |
96 |
authorization if I upgraded too much of my machine. After having been a |
97 |
faithful MS user for a decade, one who liked the idea of Linux but |
98 |
honestly, might not have jumped without that extra push from MS because I |
99 |
/was/ leaving a decade of knowledge behind, the only other alternative |
100 |
would have been to start pirating the software, as doing the authorization |
101 |
thing was just somewhere I wasn't going to go, period. But luckily, |
102 |
Linux /was/ available, and now, I have MS to thank for giving me that |
103 |
push. I've never looked back except in increasing revulsion as I've |
104 |
realized what true software freedom is. |
105 |
|
106 |
Um... excuse me... where was I... Oh, yes... Anyway, I suppose that's why |
107 |
I haven't any idea what you're talking about with copy windows thing on |
108 |
the kmenu. |
109 |
|
110 |
FWIW, the kickoff menu remains, here, but I didn't use the kmenu much on |
111 |
kde3, and I don't use the kickoff menu much on kde4. I have hotkey |
112 |
assignments for the apps I use regularly, and often type commands into |
113 |
krunner, for stuff I know by name that's not hotkeyed. Thus, the only |
114 |
time I use the kmenu/kickoff, both back on kde3 and now on kde4, is for |
115 |
those apps I use seldom enough that I actually need to browse the menu for |
116 |
them. For that, the kickoff menu /is/ somewhat of an improvement from |
117 |
kde3's kmenu, or at least I find it so. But that's maybe a couple times a |
118 |
month to a couple times a week I do that at all. The rest of the time, I |
119 |
don't need and don't use that menu, at all. |
120 |
|
121 |
>> But realistically, konqueror as a web browser is falling |
122 |
>> behind and looking to be replaced by the webkit based rekonq browser |
123 |
>> after it matures a bit more |
124 |
|
125 |
> Yeah I wouldn't recommend Konqueror to anyone. It had little use with |
126 |
> 3.5 because it was unusable with so many sites, so I haven't even really |
127 |
> tried the KDE 4 version. |
128 |
|
129 |
I actually /do/ still use konqueror as my main browser. But I have |
130 |
firefox available for those sites that need it. Most of the sites I |
131 |
frequent with any regularity, tho, work fine in konqueror, even with |
132 |
scripting disabled most of the time as that's my default, as they're tech |
133 |
news sites and the like, generally targeted at Linux users. Slashdot, |
134 |
LWN, LXer, ArsTechnica, the KDE and Gentoo planet blogs, etc. Even my |
135 |
bank (Bank of America) works reasonably well with konqueror (tho I have |
136 |
scripting enabled there, of course). =:^) But both konqueror and firefox |
137 |
get filtered thru privoxy, here, which deals with the ads, etc, plus a |
138 |
bunch of my own custom filters (I prefer a "reverse" color scheme, for |
139 |
instance, light text on a dark background, and have a whole set of privoxy |
140 |
filters I've developed over the years, that do custom page rewriting to |
141 |
give me that, without killing the colors entirely.) |
142 |
|
143 |
> khtml has succeeded in being the basis for |
144 |
> WebKit, so they may as well just use that directly rather than trying to |
145 |
> continue developing a separate browser. Qt even includes a webkit |
146 |
> binding and I assume they are using that to some extent. At least, |
147 |
> building 4.4 required it. |
148 |
|
149 |
The plasma desktop uses qt4's webkit for various plasmoids, among other |
150 |
things. However, the qt4 webkit implementation was quite buggy and |
151 |
limited to begin with, and wasn't particularly suited to implementation of |
152 |
a full browser based on it. It's maturing and will be at some point, but |
153 |
kde was one of the first big users and uncovered many bugs as a result, |
154 |
which had to be fixed before it could be used for a decent browser |
155 |
implementation. As I mentioned, tho, rekonq is webkit based (I'm not sure |
156 |
if it's qt-webkit or something-else webkit, but webkit, anyway), and the |
157 |
general plan is that it will eventually officially supplant konqueror, |
158 |
when it's ready. But I don't expect that until at least qt 4.7 and kde |
159 |
4.6, basically a year from now. |
160 |
|
161 |
> koffice is the main issue with the one of the other users I mentioned |
162 |
> earlier. She uses kword just fine with 1.6.3. There's no particular |
163 |
> reason to try and use 2.2, and the website explicitly puts you off the |
164 |
> idea. If only they'd made that more clear by calling it 2.0 beta or |
165 |
> something. Gentoo seem to have taken the availability of some version |
166 |
> of KOffice that builds against Qt4 as a reason to dump the old versions. |
167 |
> It seems to me that they don't actually use said applications and just |
168 |
> want a reason to get rid of the old dependencies. |
169 |
|
170 |
Well, as explained above, that's not quite it. There really is no |
171 |
developer interested in continuing what they all see as the dead-end of |
172 |
qt3/kde3. And as it's a community distro, with all the devs being |
173 |
volunteers, it's not as if any of them are being paid to do it. If any of |
174 |
the folks now maintaining the kde-sunset overlay had put enough into it to |
175 |
be full Gentoo devs before this all happened... but of course they're |
176 |
volunteers too, and they may simply not have the time or energy to put |
177 |
into being a full Gentoo dev, or be uninterested in it for other reasons. |
178 |
|
179 |
|
180 |
> The new amarok was the first part of KDE 4 I tried, and probably still |
181 |
> takes the crown as the worst. They seem to have dumped everything good |
182 |
> about it, including MusicBrainz support. |
183 |
|
184 |
Seems we agree on that. FWIW, amarok's supposed to be gradually regaining |
185 |
many of those features, but it's too late for that here. Amarok always |
186 |
was a pretty heavy dependency app for my needs, as you said, they dumped |
187 |
many of the useful features while adding crap for the new version, and |
188 |
when they basically ignored the problems that had mysql-embedded broken on |
189 |
amd64 and switched to it anyway, therefore breaking things for that whole |
190 |
swath of their users, that was the last straw, here. Yes, they said that |
191 |
was while they weren't yet claiming the kde4 version was ready for |
192 |
primetime, but too bad, kde-core-3 support was already being dropped by |
193 |
the kde-core folks and by distributions, so ready or not, the kde4 version |
194 |
was what was available for many. And then to go breaking it for that |
195 |
large a segment of their users... |
196 |
|
197 |
Let's just say, same kde4 mess song, yet another verse. <shaking head> |
198 |
But unlike kde4 itself, I didn't rely on amarok enough to be worth the |
199 |
hassle of trying to stick with it, so it got dumped. |
200 |
|
201 |
> Strangely enough, users aren't that excited by knowing an application |
202 |
> builds against Qt4 -- that's pretty meaningless. What they generally |
203 |
> want is something that works and a few new features are a bonus. |
204 |
|
205 |
Well, being a Gentoo user/sysadmin, I'm perhaps beyond the level of user |
206 |
you're referring to. But when I saw that kde3 and qt3 were in the |
207 |
pipeline to be dumped, qt4 support DID mean a lot to me. As soon as I got |
208 |
a reasonably working kde4 system (thus after the 100+ hours I put into |
209 |
working around breakage, etc, see below), I dumped kde3 and qt3 as fast as |
210 |
possible. For one thing, keeping up with updates on both of them was a |
211 |
big chore, one I was eager to get rid of by eliminating all remaining kde3 |
212 |
and qt3 dependencies so I could eliminate them. For another, the kde3 |
213 |
build system especially, was irreparably broken in terms of parallel |
214 |
building. The cmake build system kde4 uses is MUCH more parallelizable, |
215 |
with the result being that kde4 upgrades are FAR more manageable on this |
216 |
dual dual-core (so 4 cores) system, taking only a third to a half the time |
217 |
they did with kde3. Spending all day upgrading KDE when an upgrade came |
218 |
out, is something I definitely do NOT miss now, and something I was |
219 |
certainly eager to do what I could to hasten its departure from my system, |
220 |
once I finally did get kde4 up and running in a halfway decently usable |
221 |
way, even if did take over a hundred hours of workarounds to get it there, |
222 |
time very few users have to spend at all, and even fewer are going to be |
223 |
willing to spend. No /wonder/ so many folks ended up dumping kde |
224 |
entirely. I would have too had I felt there was a reasonable alternative |
225 |
to kde for my usage. |
226 |
|
227 |
> Thanks again for maintaining the overlay, |
228 |
|
229 |
Just to avoid any confusion, I have nothing to do with the overlay. I'm |
230 |
simply a user who saw what was coming, and spent WAY more time than most |
231 |
would tolerate, 100 hours plus of researching and installing, or in some |
232 |
cases, scripting my own workaround solutions for stuff broken in kde4, |
233 |
that should have "just worked", as it did in kde3. That's on top of the |
234 |
time I'd have expected to put into upgrading, and this was the same kde4 |
235 |
they were claiming was working just fine, despite the open bugs saying it |
236 |
wasn't, while they were dumping the kde3 that /was/ stable and where |
237 |
stuff /did/ "just work". |
238 |
|
239 |
-- |
240 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
241 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
242 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |