Its handling of multiple accounts is very dubious. It insists on doing this whole identity dance but nine times out of ten all it ends up using the wrong SMTP server to send a reply, which drives me nuts. Other than that, last time I tried it, I've found it quite prone to crashing, corrupting its configuration and, occasionally, my IMAP folders .

I do have a lot of folders, server-side filters and work offline a lot, so it may be that I push it too hard. If Kmail works for you in KDE 4, I think it will continue to serve you well. I don't think it has evolved too much .

1 members found this post helpful.

Excuse me, but my experience with Plasma5 ran in Slackware made me to understand that it is obviously a complex beast, and depending on operating system features it may or may not present certain issues.

For example there was a long debate about graphical artifacts and OpenGL crashes present on Plasma5 prior to version 5.13.2 on Slackware.

I think these issues was also generated by certain parts of Slackware, i.e. I am aware that they manifests only with X.org 1.20 without certain patches, certain driver versions and certain hardware.

Hence, I believe too that just because a certain Plasma5 version works on Arch Linux or OpenSuSE, that does not make automatically it to work in same way on Slackware, then the usefulness of these tests may be questionable.

And finally permit me to ask you a question: why you do not just test Plasma5 on Slackware?

To be honest, I am not against comparing the Plasma5 builds for Slackware with the ones from other distributions, because that can be very useful when we find a certain issue in our own Plasma5 builds.

"Yeah, man! BUT on OpenSUSE that issue does not exists!" can be a very useful information to debug our own Plasma5 build.

BUT, recommending Plasma5 for Slackware just because it works on Arch Linux, well... I believe that's utterly exaggerated.

1 members found this post helpful.

Will be very nice if the Arch Linux users will keep their recommendations for their own distribution.

1 members found this post helpful.

Will be very nice if the forum posters would read the whole list of distributions under my username .

First, because I'm running a stable 14.2 installation without the KDE packages and which I have no interest in fiddling with. If I do something wrong on my Slackware machine I get to have a fun afternoon getting the machine I do my work on back on its feet. If I do something wrong on my Arch machine, oh well, it's not like it's the first time that happened, I'll do a reinstall when I'm too hungover for anything else.

Second, because after ten years of using Alien Bob's scripts and packages, I'm pretty sure the question isn't whether or not he can package them right. As far as I'm concerned, the real questions are about the development pace and state of KDE, and about whether or not Plasma 5 sucks or not. If it sucks, it's gonna suck on Arch just as much as it does on Slackware.

Edit: if your next question is "why do you have an Arch machine", trust me, it turns out it's a useful thing to have if you make a living out writing software that runs under Linux. I can elaborate on why if you're curious.

Now, have any of you people actually read all of my post, or just the part where I mentioned Arch? Because none of it has anything to do with any components that depend on systemd or distro-specific patches. It's mostly about the more questionable design choices vs. KDE 4, major changes vs. recent Plasma 5 versions (which would indicate "readiness") and the stability (in the development sense) of new features in applications and plasma-workspace.

At best, the two lines (in a multi-paragraph post) regarding performance may depend on a bunch of distro-specific things -- drivers, Xorg version and patches etc.. That information is actually useful if you do packaging work. You can either go zomg this is Slackware not Arch u n00b or, you know, you can go "Hmm, I wonder how our configuration differs". Yeah, it might be the magic patch dust that Arch is totally famous for sprinkling over upstream code (so famous, in fact, that "as vanilla as possible" is explicitly part of their development guidelines). OR OR OR it might be a couple of configuration issues that we can resolve as well.

4 members found this post helpful.

OR, a third part of the slackware-current should be downgraded, a third should be upgraded and the rest must to be patched.

Is not about Eric's abilities to build perfect packages, but rather the software (Plasma5) abilities to work together with Slackware. That's why we should talk exclusively over testing Plasma5 on Slackware.

Because this thread title may apply also as: Is Slackware Ready for Inclusion of Plasma5?

For example, WHAT IF the Plasma5 5.14.x introduce a hard requirement on systemd? Certainly will be a non issue for Arch Linux, but on Slackware community certainly will be riots.

Whether or not Plasma 5 is ready, and whether or not it can be packaged over Slackware's current infrastructure are pretty different questions. E.g. GTK4 can be packaged and deployed today (source: unfortunately for my mental sanity, I had to build it), but it's barely ready for general development use, let alone inclusion in Slackware.

Plasma 5 can be years of work away from being useful, and still be impeccably packaged by Alien Bob, needing nothing else than installing a bunch of packages (cool!). Similarly, it can be unbelievably stable and the packages might still need a little work. They're pretty different things.

Most of the concerns raised in this topic so far have been about new programs, old features that have disappeared, and the release cycle vs. LTS releases, which is what I was interested in figuring out, too. This is something that's worth examining with multiple packaging solutions, in multiple distributions, from multiple packagers in order to exclude "local" artifacts.

"Does Plasma 5 need a tokamak" may also apply but I'm more interested in the title that the topic does have.

(And it's about Plasma 5, not Eric's packages, as far as I can tell )

2 members found this post helpful.

BUT it is very important to figure out IF for proper running Plasma5 the Slackware users needs to buy tokamaks!

The price of a tokamak and its maintenance may be a non-issue for Mr. Richie McRich, but a prohibitive cost for the major part of Slackware community.

PS. For those who does not know yet what's a tokamak, I attached a screenshot of one (is a big and really expensive device that uses a powerful magnetic field to confine a hot plasma in the shape of a torus)

Attached Thumbnails

 

What I really don't have a contingency plan for is fitting one in my laptop's case .

Come on, stop fueling that fire with your FUD please. Your record has been broken for ages and it keeps repeating. Boring.

The KDE software does not require and will not require systemd to function, it is well-abstracted.
The Wayland implementation of KWin depends on the logind API for its session and seat management. Note that the logind API is implemented by systemd-logind but also by elogind, and in future also fully by ConsoleKit2. That is how KDE manages to evade a hard dependency on a certain piece of controversial software (systemd).

3 members found this post helpful.

When I read that "what if" I thought is just a rethoric to emphase the differences between Slackware and Arch, and why is important to focus on how Plasma5 works on Slackware.

But good to know that in fact he pointed to that something needed by Plasma5 is offered primary by systemd, then some other projects offering a compat API. Thanks!

Speaking of Plasma5 on Slackware, and not on Arch Linux or whatever, your 5.13.3 release behaves excelent until now. Congratulations!

So may we agree that it is pretty damn close if not ready with the 5.13 release?

it is actually unbelievable that people like Darth Vader that run a politic of continuously repeating their lies, FUD and disinformation are not blocked from this forum while people that fix the stuff they write ge critics for using unkind words.
Actually a total failure of the mods here, an an explanation why this place becomes more an more an echo chamber for people that no one in the real world and at a job can take any serious at all.

Yes, I can say that the 5.13.3 build offers "a feel of Slackware", in the sense that until now it offers a stable experience.

To be honest, I do not challanged the Plasma5 too much, but that 5.13.3 with the latest -current offers a good working in my opinion, on a several generations old computer and while using a budget Radeon video-card.

Darth Vader was right about that even a complex desktop environment like one of Windows 10 or Plasma5 should work with cheap graphics cards.

Was problems caused by drivers, was problems caused by X.org, was problems caused by Plasma5 itself?

Apparently this flow was tuned by now and we have a stable result. At least with the buget AMD/ATI graphics cards.

I would guess all of the above.