The official KDE 4 rant thread

So you tried KDE 4 and don't like it.
I respect your opinion, so I decided to do something about it.

Behold, the official KDE 4 rant thread

Originally Posted by forrest44 So you tried KDE 4 and don't like it. I respect your opinion, so I decided to do something about it. Behold, the official KDE 4 rant thread

I like the idea of a rant on bloated GUI's thread better.

Wouldn't the effort needed to 'rant' about KDE's future direction be more suited to actually do something about it if you don't like it? The fact of the matter is that KDE is designed to be an everything-including-the-kitchen-sink desktop environment. That means 'bloated' to some -- even KDE 3.5. KDE 4 introduces some new concepts and functionality -- while increasing the eye-candy. I have old hardware and new hardware. KDE 3.5 is too slow on my older hardware, so there's no way in heck I'm going to install KDE 4 on it. XFCE is just fine for that (or fluxbox or IceWM). However, my new box will run KDE 4 just fine (but won't until it's ready). I like the new 'look' of KDE 4 and enjoy some of the new functionality. That being said, no, it's not ready yet. Just think -- KDE 3 is on its .5.9 release. KDE 4 is only on its .1.2 release. Of course it won't live up to the same functionality we have come to love in KDE 3.5 -- especially since MAJOR code changes/rewrites have occurred in the switch from 3.5 to 4. Since KDE 4 is not included in Slackware and will evidently not be included in the next Slackware release, this thread does not belong on this forum IMO (at least not yet), and should probably be posted in a more general subforum.

The repetitive ranting about KDE 4 is much, much more annoying than the lack of functionality/bloatality (that's not a word, I know) of KDE 4. When KDE 4 is in Slackware (or gets included by default in -current), then a thread like this would make more sense. But not now. Plus, since there are SEVERAL threads with actual discussions in them, a thread devoted to ranting is kind of pointless.

But that's just my opinion, I suppose.</anti-rant rant>

Originally Posted by T3slider Wouldn't the effort needed to 'rant' about KDE's future direction be more suited to actually do something about it if you don't like it? The fact of the matter is that KDE is designed to be an everything-including-the-kitchen-sink desktop environment. That means 'bloated' to some

I think your right. I am trying to learn enough so I can do something about it. I think we can have a Windows manager that is "everything-including-the-kitchen-sink" that is both solid and relatively bloat free. To be more clear, I think we can achieve such an environment by implementing it with the least amount of code possible with a language as efficient or more efficient then C.

However my main complaint is... just because the hardware is getting more powerful does not mean its time to slack off get sloppy and use tons more power. What is the point of getting new hardware if all I get is relatively the same speed... the same or more Bugs ... for once I would like to see optimization be priority.

Since KDE 4 is not included in Slackware and will evidently not be included in the next Slackware release, this thread does not belong on this forum IMO (at least not yet), and should probably be posted in a more general subforum. The repetitive ranting about KDE 4 is much, much more annoying than the lack of functionality/bloatality (that's not a word, I know) of KDE 4. When KDE 4 is in Slackware (or gets included by default in -current), then a thread like this would make more sense.

It's been in -current since August 13, in testing/ (which is also part of a release like extra/ or pasture/). It will probably be present in the next stable release this way.

I think that this thread should be renamed.

Asking people to rant is a pointless exercise. Asking for people's opinions, constructive criticisms, and maybe even suggested solutions would be more helpful.

KDE4 is clearly very usable to some people. If you happen to use applications that are not yet functioning properly or have not been ported to QT4/KDE4 then there is less incentive to try or continue using the environment. That's just the way it is now.

I wouldn't mind seeing a thread that follows KDE4 development in Slackware in a constructive way with a balance of positive and negative experiences, bug reports, fixes etc. Complaining for the sake of complaining serves no purpose and just gets boring.

My 2 cents

Ranting is the rave. After the Slackware logo threads, this did not come as a surprise.

What would be much more worthwhile to realize is that KDE4 is meant to be run on modern systems. For older systems, you can still go back to an older release of Slackware - remember that security fixes are still being released for as far back as Slackware 8.1.

Also, KDE4 is an evolutionary release. If you have a problem with change, imagine what your desktop would look like if you still had only twm as a window manager. The good thing is that there is choice. No one forces you to install and use KDE4!

The issue I would agree to is the (relatively small) loss of functionality when you migrate from KDE3 to KDE4. Many people are working hard to make KDE4 better and more functional with every new release. The Slackware -current tree has a set of Qt3 and KDE3 compatibility packages (also in /testing) that you can install to get your old KDE3 applications runnning if you do need those in KDE4.

Nobody ever made the world a better place by sitting in a corner complaining about how things should be. The strength of the Open Source development model is that you can reach out and start contributing if you see an opportunity for change. Do not be disappointed when your initial contributions are not rewarded - sometimes you will just have to prove to the development team that you know what you are doing before they start accepting your patches. The smaller the project, the faster contributions from outsiders will be accepted.

Eric

Originally Posted by Alien Bob What would be much more worthwhile to realize is that KDE4 is meant to be run on modern systems. For older systems, you can still go back to an older release of Slackware - remember that security fixes are still being released for as far back as Slackware 8.1.

Eric,

You make some good points. I differ a bit with the choice you present above, however. For those with older hardware, the choice will not (I hope!) come down to: use KDE 4 or use an older version of Slackware.

I've got two Pentium III computers that are running Slackware 12.1 and KDE 3.5 very well and very quickly. They also run XFCE without problems.

I'll continue to upgrade those computers with the latest version of Slackware because I want to get the latest features. If KDE 4's performance isn't quick enough for my tastes, I'll probably use a lighter windows manager/desktop environment like XFCE -- as long as Slackware continues to bundle them with the latest releases.

In short, Slackware shipping with KDE 4 sometime in the future should not lock out users like me with older hardware.

Regards,

-Drew

I haven't tried it ... is it even more bloated then KDE 3 ? I bet it is

<rant>

OK, I'll admit I am completely and totally baffled by the whole reaction to KDE4. The KDE team has been playing by the usual FOSS procedure of release early, release often so that people can test it, contribute to it, and give feedback. However, instead of useful responses, they've gotten a new one ripped on a regular basis because it isn't "finished" or "my favorite app doesn't work".

I mean JESUS H. CHRIST people, this is OPEN SOURCE. THIS IS HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED! If you want spit, polish and flawless 1.0 releases, go back to the Windows world (notice I managed to get that sentence out without cracking up). Is KDE4 finished or even stable? Hell, no. And nobody I've seen has been claiming that it is. And so what if Patrick does drop KDE3 eventually. Given what happened with Gnome, my guess is that a Slackware KDE3 project will quickly spring to life. And so what if KDE4 doesn't run on older stuff and there is no KDE3? Cripes, I've got hardware that pretty much any type of X environment will choke, fluxbox included. Does that mean Slackware should stop progressing? No, that is my problem, not Patrick's. And sometimes you have to face reality and send hardware to that great recycling center in the sky.

If and/or when KDE4 becomes the only choice of GUI in Slackware, then I'll worry about how it performs. But until then, I've got plenty of other options.

</rant>

I've seen some unusual topics before in LQ. But, this ranks up in the top 10 for weirdness. Jeez, if you don't like KDE4 then don't use it. I'm happy as a clam running Slackware 12.1 and XFce 4.4.2 on my IBM Celeron 850. At some point in the future when this unit fails I'll buy a new killer Slackware computer and I_will_try_KDE4. Until then life is good. FOSS is all about choice. Use what you want:-)

Many thanks to the Slackware team for including KDE 4
in /testing.

Gives me an idea of what to look forward to in
the next generation of KDE. (and it looks like its going to be awesome)

But its still not ready to replace KDE 3.5.x as my main DE.
Just want to have fun with it (and get used to it) for now.

Originally Posted by empcrono I think we can have a Windows manager that is "everything-including-the-kitchen-sink" that is both solid and relatively bloat free.

I think we can't, because "Everything" quite often means "bloatware".

Originally Posted by Hangdog42 If you want spit, polish and flawless 1.0 releases, go back to the Windows world (notice I managed to get that sentence out without cracking up).

Excuse me, when did you see flawless 1.0 release of windows software last time? It's very rare thing. Everything has bugs, it doesn't matter whether it windows-only or not.

Originally Posted by empcrono However my main complaint is... just because the hardware is getting more powerful does not mean its time to slack off get sloppy and use tons more power. What is the point of getting new hardware if all I get is relatively the same speed... the same or more Bugs ... for once I would like to see optimization be priority.

Completely agree with you there. I wonder what it would be like if all major software projects dedicated an entire year to optimization fixes. Of course this is not realistic but I wish they considered optimization as a higher priority than they do now. I understand that modern software has a lot more features and is more complicated than the old ones, but given how much hardware power has improved over the years, I find the current point disappointing (actually if you take Vista as a standard, things can be said to be getting worse). Still, the free software world is in a relatively better situation. At least you can find lightweight alternatives to most things.

What would be much more worthwhile to realize is that KDE4 is meant to be run on modern systems. For older systems, you can still go back to an older release of Slackware . . . .

One of the promises when QT4 was released and development began with KDE 4 was how much faster the new OS would be. I read numbers such as 33% faster. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but when I read those claims I concluded that a faster OS would mean extended or renewed life for older hardware. If code is optimized to run faster, then older hardware should be able to run the same code faster too.

For me, by "old hardware" I am talking about a Pentium I (updated with a K6-III+) with 256 MB of RAM and Pentium II box with 448 MB of RAM.

However my main complaint is... just because the hardware is getting more powerful does not mean its time to slack off get sloppy and use tons more power. What is the point of getting new hardware if all I get is relatively the same speed... the same or more Bugs ... for once I would like to see optimization be priority.

Yes, I agree. Here I am with new hardware and the overall basic system responsiveness seems little different from when I ran Windows for Workgroups and the Norton Desktop on a 486 back in 1991. Yes, this is somewhat comparing apples to oranges, but the generic observation has merit.

I have an image of my Windows for Workgroups and the Norton Desktop setup from my 486 installed on a partition on my K6-III+ box. Bear in mind that my ATA-100 hard drive there is throttled to ATA-33 because of the motherboard design. Yet, that "puny" 16-bit operating system screams on that box.

Conversely, on my new box OpenOffice Writer (2.4.1) takes 4 seconds to perform a basic cut and paste. Yes, I have tweaked the memory options and I have Java disabled. I'm using the nvidia proprietary drivers.

I think we can't, because "Everything" quite often means "bloatware".

Perhaps the problem is not bloat, that is, numerous features. Perhaps the problem is being unable to disable those additional features, or enable only those a person wants. The KDE developers do a fairly good job in that respect. Many people mock the KDE Control Center, but I always have enjoyed that portal tool. The only reason I could run KDE on my old boxes was being able to disable most of the eye candy and non essential features. I think the developers could do better, but they are ahead of the GNOME developers who presume to not provide an easy way to access various features.

With all eye candy disabled I believe the basic KDE desktop should be snappy on old hardware. That is not the case. Some folks might respond that I am unrealistic. Yet consider that I ran NT4 on the K6-III+ box until early this year and the system hums very fast. This is on a "puny" single core 400 MHz CPU and a "mere 256 MB of RAM. Word 97 opens the first time in 3 seconds whereas on my new box OpenOffice requires about 15. Even Firefox still requires about 6 seconds to open on my new box. KDE never has been as snappy as NT4. I believe that if access is provided to disable various features then the "bloat" argument disappears like the dew on a hot sunny morning.

Nonetheless, I agree with the sentiment and that there is a disconnect somewhere. Why is NT4 so snappy on old hardware and KDE is not?

I hope Pat keeps version 3.5.x around for the next two or three Slackware releases. I'm sure the day will arrive when he no longer includes 3.5.x. If by then I have not grown warm and fuzzy toward version 4 I'll have to build my own 3.5.x packages. Doable for me --- after all I ran NT4 7 years after the Microsoft folks declared the system dead and obsolete. Until KDE 4 is fully functional --- by fully functional I mean the entire KDE suite and not just the base desktop is no longer in alpha or beta, I hope version 3.5 remains the primary installation option and version 4 remains in the testing branch.

My major complaint is not that people want to develop KDE 4, but that they so utterly and horribly abandoned 3.5.x. Most of the developers --- and many distro vendors, now treat KDE 3.5x as some kind of disease. I don't discount the additional effort to maintain two versions of an operating system or individual apps. I'm just saddened that KDE 3.5.x has been relegated to the proverbial leprosy colony.