Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KDE Does Its Second 4.7 Release Candidate

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by mugginz View Post
    What I wrote relates to my experience with the KDE 4 series, Gnome 2 series, and now with Ubuntu's Unity interface.

    As someone who wanted KDE to be stable, I mean reeeeaaaalllly wanted it be because I liked its feature set and UI, I finally gave in.
    Unity is nice, but it's not rock stable yet. Gnome 2 wasn't so perfect for me.

    Oh, I know drivers can be an issue, that's why I tested with varying hardware. Also, service sub-subsystems can also be culprits as well, hence my preparedness to initially trust those assuring me to swap distros, which I dutifully did, only to be again disappointed by a lack of stability.
    There are other factors as well. Otherwise I would experience the same problems or most of them. I'm running Arch Linux right now and KDE simply doesn't crash. When I ran Kubuntu I experienced some problems, but those problems were strictly related to Kubuntu (and it seems nobody cares to fix them). I ran Chakra and it was also rock stable (uses packages from Arch). The same about Fedora KDE spin, so while it's rock stable on my box I can't simply agree with you. I can't say about Kontact, because I don't use it.

    I think it speaks to how hardened KDE is or should I say, how KDE lacks fault-tolerance in that it seems so improbable that it can be implemented or rolled out in a way that provides a stable solution for a desktop environment.
    Maybe that's the case, but I'd like to know for what faults it should be tolerant? Maybe it will be better for everyone to fix mentioned faults?

    At this point I should acknowledge that Gnome isn't absolutely perfect from a stability perspective, but it almost is. But more importantly, when compared to KDE, I've found Gnome to be leaps and bounds more stable. That may be because it's less ambitious as a platform, but I can live without ambitious and grandiose software if it's stable and reliable.
    When I ran Gnome 2 on Fedora I had much better experience with KDE. Gnome 2 was less ambitious, but it had even more bugs per line of code. Maybe there's a difference in severity of these bugs, but there's no easy way to check this out.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by mugginz View Post
      What I wrote relates to my experience with the KDE 4 series, Gnome 2 series, and now with Ubuntu's Unity interface.

      As someone who wanted KDE to be stable, I mean reeeeaaaalllly wanted it be because I liked its feature set and UI, I finally gave in.

      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      Unity is nice, but it's not rock stable yet. Gnome 2 wasn't so perfect for me.
      I actually find Unity to be more stable than KDE. And I'm using an ATI card with FGLRX!

      On the very rare occasion I have had Nautilus disappear, but that's simply required a click on an icon and to navigate back to where I was. Dolphin has done the same for me as well, so on the file manager front they're both imperfect, only that in Nautilus's favor, I can count on one hand the number of crashes as apposed to Dolphin which I found to be far less stable, though more featurefull.

      I guess there are analogues here to the graphics driver debate, in that there is no perfect and crashproof Linux desktop, but various people find differences of opinion on which one is the most stable. I'm mearly relating my experiences with KDE to put along side those experiences of others that maintain that they've never, never ever had one single solitary crash with KDE. I'm skeptical of such claims, as they're so different to mine, but I'm not prepared to call them wrong, only different to what I've personally found to be the case.

      Initially when I first switched to 11.04 with the Unity desktop, there were bugs. Software updates seem to have fixed them for me. I guess I'm lucky

      I also found that Gnome 2 was quite stable, again no Linux desktop is 100% crashproof and anyone that states that they are I'm skeptical of, but Gnome2 rarely had any issues for me but KDE displayed problems on a weekly basis. Again I should repeat that I liked KDE's features and general design better than Gnome, it was merely a case of being worn down by bugs and also Ubuntu's enhancements to the Gnome2 desktop that made it the over all winner in my mind.



      Originally posted by mugginz View Post
      Oh, I know drivers can be an issue, that's why I tested with varying hardware. Also, service sub-subsystems can also be culprits as well, hence my preparedness to initially trust those assuring me to swap distros, which I dutifully did, only to be again disappointed by a lack of stability.
      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      There are other factors as well. Otherwise I would experience the same problems or most of them. I'm running Arch Linux right now and KDE simply doesn't crash. When I ran Kubuntu I experienced some problems, but those problems were strictly related to Kubuntu (and it seems nobody cares to fix them). I ran Chakra and it was also rock stable (uses packages from Arch). The same about Fedora KDE spin, so while it's rock stable on my box I can't simply agree with you. I can't say about Kontact, because I don't use it.
      As I've detailed in previous posts in this thread, I've found this style of statement to be common place from those defending the stability record of the KDE desktop. And I also detailed that I was indeed prepared to test in other distros because of my preference for KDE over Gnome2 if stability was there. I, like others have found KDE's stability to be left wanting. And you like others have found KDE's stability to be exemplary. I wish I had the same experience as yourself and had I, I'd be running KDE right now.





      Originally posted by mugginz View Post
      I think it speaks to how hardened KDE is or should I say, how KDE lacks fault-tolerance in that it seems so improbable that it can be implemented or rolled out in a way that provides a stable solution for a desktop environment.
      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      Maybe that's the case, but I'd like to know for what faults it should be tolerant? Maybe it will be better for everyone to fix mentioned faults?

      I've been using Gnome2 and now Unity as my day to day desktop for over a year and a half so I hope you'll forgive me if I can't be pin point precision specific with recalling every bug I encountered. As the KDE stability issue has been discussed in these forum previously I've piped up in those earlier threads as well making note of particular bugs. They might be a better source than the ones I've mentioned in this thread.

      Ultimately though I found that over time I grew less and less prepared to put up with issues in KDE. I still have strong memories of the revelation though when I did switch to Gnome2 and that was that (to use an over used term) Gnome 2 kind of "just worked."





      Originally posted by mugginz View Post
      At this point I should acknowledge that Gnome isn't absolutely perfect from a stability perspective, but it almost is. But more importantly, when compared to KDE, I've found Gnome to be leaps and bounds more stable. That may be because it's less ambitious as a platform, but I can live without ambitious and grandiose software if it's stable and reliable.
      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      When I ran Gnome 2 on Fedora I had much better experience with KDE. Gnome 2 was less ambitious, but it had even more bugs per line of code. Maybe there's a difference in severity of these bugs, but there's no easy way to check this out.

      I'm not talking about looking at bug trackers and such to try and perform some kind of quantitative analysis of bugs per lines of code per desktop.

      I'm talking about simply being able to get work done without dialogue boxes announcing to me that this or that has crashed, or being delayed by software not behaving in predicable ways.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by mugginz View Post
        I'm talking about simply being able to get work done without dialogue boxes announcing to me that this or that has crashed, or being delayed by software not behaving in predicable ways.
        I'm talking about the same. Like you said you have simply different experience than me and many other KDE users. Nearly everything what you wrote about KDE in this thread I can say the same about Gnome, from my pov and experience. When comes to stability, delays, dialogs, work everything is about mine and yours experience:

        And you like others have found KDE's stability to be exemplary. I wish I had the same experience as yourself and had I, I'd be running KDE right now.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          I'm talking about the same. Like you said you have simply different experience than me and many other KDE users.
          And many others have had similar experiences to me yet you insist that anyone's experience of KDE failing must be the fault of the distro, and not KDE itself. Why is it commonplace that Gnome be quite stable accross a variety of distros, yet KDE is only reliable with Arch?


          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          Nearly everything what you wrote about KDE in this thread I can say the same about Gnome,
          And you have. When reviewing posts I've made on Phoronix regarding KDE's lack of stability, even as far back as 2009, you've been there assuring anyone that'll listen that perhaps it's dbus or drivers or some other subsystem or sumsuch that's the real culprit.


          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          from my pov and experience. When comes to stability, delays, dialogs, work everything is about mine and yours experience:
          You've maintained that KDE is stability personified for a very long time now. Yet you've also acknowlegded issues it has as well. You should make up your mind.



          Winding back the clock to September last year we have this statement from you.

          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          No, dbus causes Dolphin to crash on some configurations. Maybe some other apps are affected too.
          I guess that must always be the distros fault.



          Looking at KWin for example, even its developer acknowledges it's not in as strong a position as Compiz and friends, yet you assure us that KWin has no issues. It must have no issues as you've stated that KDE has none. Or are all KWins failings those of drivers? Thought so.

          Comment


          • #20
            More from Sep 2010


            Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
            1. It is a different thing an app crushing, and a different thing a window manager crushing...

            2. If you believe KDE is less bloated, then you are wasting everyone's time here... Get back to school. BTW, having an additional set of libraries doesn't make a system bloated, but i won't waste my time trying to explain it to you.
            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            Compiz is crashing sometimes too. I didn't saw Metacity or Kwin (without compositions) crashing. If you would be so kind and explain this I'd be thankfull. However, I really believe KDE is much less bloated. I don't like the idea - python everywhere. KDE apps share libraries and I'm not so sure about this when comes to Gnome.


            Yet when I tested both desktops ->



            Yet you consider Gnome more bloated and memory hungry. I thought it was commonly held that KDE used more memory than does Gnome.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by mugginz View Post
              And many others have had similar experiences to me yet you insist that anyone's experience of KDE failing must be the fault of the distro, and not KDE itself. Why is it commonplace that Gnome be quite stable accross a variety of distros, yet KDE is only reliable with Arch?
              No, it's not a commonplace that Gnome is quite stable across a variety of distros and KDE's not only reliable with Arch.

              And you have. When reviewing posts I've made on Phoronix regarding KDE's lack of stability, even as far back as 2009, you've been there assuring anyone that'll listen that perhaps it's dbus or drivers or some other subsystem or sumsuch that's the real culprit.
              And how does this change a thing? While KDE's rock stable on my box then why should I be saying otherwise? I still believe the issues you're facing are mainly related to graphic stuff, dbus or some different crap. There's possibility there are KDE's faults, too.

              You've maintained that KDE is stability personified for a very long time now. Yet you've also acknowlegded issues it has as well. You should make up your mind.
              You make no sense at all. If there are some issues in Kubuntu or even in KDE it doesn't mean KDE isn't stable.

              Winding back the clock to September last year we have this statement from you. I guess that must always be the distros fault.
              And it seems with got a winner! However, I didn't even imply it's always the distros fault. There were known problems with dbus those times.

              Looking at KWin for example, even its developer acknowledges it's not in as strong a position as Compiz and friends, yet you assure us that KWin has no issues. It must have no issues as you've stated that KDE has none. Or are all KWins failings those of drivers? Thought so.
              Another illogical bullshit. I don't experience any issues with kwin right now. Many issues with kwin were related to graphic drivers. About what position was he talking about? You can run compiz with KDE as well. Compiz is not a gnome tech. They had only crappy metacity.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                Yet you consider Gnome more bloated and memory hungry. I thought it was commonly held that KDE used more memory than does Gnome.
                Give me a freaking break. You didn't benchmark DE's. Last time I benchmarked distros (Kubuntu vs Ubuntu) memory usage Ubuntu was so much bloated compared to KDE it wasn't even funny. It's commonly held KDE used more memory than does Gnome when people do such stupid things. I tried to be cool, but if you're such blind gnomeboy we can change the game.

                PS. Don't even quote Templar's bullshit.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  Give me a freaking break. You didn't benchmark DE's.
                  Oh yes I did. See post the following post made 03-13-2010.

                  Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                  As far as memory use goes it looks like the Gnome guys are creamin the KDE guys. At least when it comes to the buntus anyways.



                  Initial blimpage in memory for Kubuntu 10.04 might be due to the Nepomuk Strigi indexer auto starting on login every session.



                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  Last time I benchmarked distros (Kubuntu vs Ubuntu) memory usage Ubuntu was so much bloated compared to KDE it wasn't even funny.
                  Can you supply the date you ran the benchmark, the versions of Kubuntu and Ubuntu should suffice, but if I can be running the versions of packages you were running at the time it would make my measurements more in line with yours.

                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  It's commonly held KDE used more memory than does Gnome when people do such stupid things.
                  What stupid things are they?


                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  I tried to be cool, but if you're such blind gnomeboy we can change the game.
                  I ain't no fanboi dude. I was accused of being an anti AMD fanboi because I dared mention the failings of AMD's drivers yet I own and use an AMD 5870 because for my use case (triple screens) the driver bugs are better to put up with than are the problems running two nVidia cards. Some people just can't handle the truth.

                  For the record, I'm not prepared to hold any manufacturers reputation or software projects feelings above my own integrity. I simply call it as I see it. I don't care which is better between Gnome and KDE. I will simjply use the one that works the best. If KDE 4.7 is all of a sudden the most reliable desktop available on any platform, I'll happily switch to it. I switched from KDE to Gnome, and I can switch back again if it's warranted.


                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  PS. Don't even quote Templar's bullshit.
                  What, as apposed to quoting yours

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    No, it's not a commonplace that Gnome is quite stable across a variety of distros and KDE's not only reliable with Arch.
                    Not from what I've read.



                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    And how does this change a thing? While KDE's rock stable on my box then why should I be saying otherwise? I still believe the issues you're facing are mainly related to graphic stuff, dbus or some different crap. There's possibility there are KDE's faults, too.
                    I've downloaded the Arch 2009.02 iso to take for a spin. It's nice that pacman provides for specific package version installation so I should be able to test a representative install from that time period. Firstly though I should do a current Arch install. That'll mean I can gauge just how crashy Gnome is on Arch at the moment and how super rock solid KDE is.



                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    You make no sense at all. If there are some issues in Kubuntu or even in KDE it doesn't mean KDE isn't stable.
                    If it's highly improbable that KDE can be implemented in such a way as to provide a stable desktop by such teams as the Kubuntu, openSUSE and Fedora guys, then I think the KDE team should have a look at why that is the case. You're saying that Arch can do it, but why not the others. Well maybe KDE is a difficult platform to press into action.



                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    And it seems with got a winner! However, I didn't even imply it's always the distros fault. There were known problems with dbus those times.
                    And they crashed Gnome how? Or was it just KDE.



                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    Another illogical bullshit. I don't experience any issues with kwin right now. Many issues with kwin were related to graphic drivers. About what position was he talking about? You can run compiz with KDE as well. Compiz is not a gnome tech. They had only crappy metacity.
                    How is it illogical?

                    You don't experience any issues right now. How about earlier. And why is KWin's stability and performance the subject of threads on Phoronix if it's the bees knees?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      March 2009


                      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                      KDE 4.2.1 it has every feature I want and I don't notice any performance penalty. Same FPS here and same in gnome, xfce... And KDE 4 just looks great and has great apps!

                      Ah, more classic comments from Linux users

                      Originally posted by linmin View Post
                      KDE was overall an unstable and unusable mess. KDE 4 is even worse. The world would be better off if all the KDE developers were rounded up and shot. I'll take Windows Me over KDE. Just my opinion of course, but I really can't understand why people still use KDE.

                      More votes for Arch. Perhaps I should download an Arch ISO from circa March 2009 and see just how a real KDE 4 distro feels to use.

                      Originally posted by AdrenalineJunky View Post
                      i very much agree with this - for example, i have never been a fan of any of Kubuntu's kde implementations, however, for KDE 3, straight debian, mepis, and pclinuxos have very good stable kde 3 environments.

                      for kde4, i had some level of issues with every distro i tried till arch, sidux was pretty good, but still kinda buggy plasma workspace crashes were annoying, wasn't a fan of opensuse, mandriva was decent, arch i realy liked, since then kde 4 has matured alot and other distro's with kde 4 have gotten alot better.

                      thats the downside of choice - not all implementations of a certian thing are created equal, especially not when it comes to KDE.


                      I'd probably agree with statements along these lines, except for the slow part. Maybe my computers too fast for me to feel the slowness of Gnome though

                      Originally posted by izual View Post
                      I use KDE 4.2.
                      I'm not a big fan of gnome, but I think it's better deployed in most distros than KDE. Especially in (K)Ubuntu!

                      I really hate the Gnome look. It "feels" so old and slow!



                      Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                      kde on my pet server, But i prefer gnome as I like my desktop environment working for me and not the other way around.


                      Yet more "you're distro is doing it wrong."

                      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                      KDE is a mess in Kubuntu. In Arch, it's perfect :> However, I'm not saying Arch is better then Kubuntu, because it depends on personal feelings.
                      I would think perfect is a strong word to use and suggest to me you're subject to hyperboli. Perhaps KDE 4.7 is perfect now though. No need for another RC.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                        Oh yes I did. See post the following post made 03-13-2010.
                        Still, you didn't.

                        Can you supply the date you ran the benchmark, the versions of Kubuntu and Ubuntu should suffice, but if I can be running the versions of packages you were running at the time it would make my measurements more in line with yours.
                        I just ran some Ubuntu, 10.10 maybe and exactly same Kubuntu. Ubuntu were near 1GB while Kubuntu was over 600MB.

                        What stupid things are they?
                        Measuring memory usage of distros and saying some DE uses more memory (keep in mind I did the same, but it was the response to someone else ;p).

                        Some people just can't handle the truth.
                        The truth is not the same for you and me.

                        For the record, I'm not prepared to hold any manufacturers reputation or software projects feelings above my own integrity. I simply call it as I see it. I don't care which is better between Gnome and KDE. I will simjply use the one that works the best. If KDE 4.7 is all of a sudden the most reliable desktop available on any platform, I'll happily switch to it. I switched from KDE to Gnome, and I can switch back again if it's warranted.
                        I do the same and that's why I was running Gnome in KDE 4.0 times.

                        What, as apposed to quoting yours

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                          Conclusion is obvious - many bugs don't affect different configurations. That's why KDE 4.6.2 is rock stable for me. I hadn't single KDE SC 4.6.2 application crash, nor in Arch nor in Kubuntu. Compositions work excellent too. While on Gnome in Fedora I had crashes all the time. It was damn unstable and unusable. That's why I recommend to stop saying bullshit about Gnome being more stable, because from my experience it's far more unstable (both gnome 2 and 3) than KDE. We can stick to facts and the fact is KDE is much less buggy overall:

                          KDE bugs/KLoC - 0.019
                          GNOME bugs/KLoC - 0.508

                          http://scan.coverity.com/rung1.html

                          (Maybe it can be even concluded from those results Qt is more bugs proof than the language mixture used in Gnome.)

                          or we can agree many bugs aren't stricte DE's faults*, but also graphic drivers and other services, libraries (or dbus etc.).

                          * Ubuntu is much more stable on my computer than Fedora. It suggests Gnome and Fedora libraries aren't playing nice or just unmodified Gnome is such buggy and unstable.


                          Ahh, now I see where your Gnome has more bugs than KDE is coming from.

                          The citisism of the statement you made there
                          Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                          This is a static analysis tool, equivalent to e.g. Gendarme for C#. It *cannot* catch bugs in semantics and thus cannot a measure of how 'buggy' an application is. At best, it can see whether the application conforms to the coding guidelines coded into the tool.
                          I think holds fairly true.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                            Still, you didn't.
                            Are you saying I didn't do clean installs of Ubuntu and Kubuntu to compare memory usage?


                            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                            I just ran some Ubuntu, 10.10 maybe and exactly same Kubuntu. Ubuntu were near 1GB while Kubuntu was over 600MB.
                            Are you including disc buffer usage as well?


                            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                            Measuring memory usage of distros and saying some DE uses more memory (keep in mind I did the same, but it was the response to someone else ;p).
                            Yet you can't say on one hand that desktop A is better because it uses less memory than dekstop B, and then when it's shown that in fact desktop B uses more than A say memory usage doesn't really matter at all. That's be most inconsistant.



                            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                            The truth is not the same for you and me.
                            The truth is out there.



                            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                            I do the same and that's why I was running Gnome in KDE 4.0 times.
                            I was rarely running Gnome previous to KDE 4.4

                            It was the bugs that made me do it. Switch desktops that is.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                              Not from what I've read.
                              It seems we read different things.

                              I've downloaded the Arch 2009.02 iso to take for a spin. It's nice that pacman provides for specific package version installation so I should be able to test a representative install from that time period. Firstly though I should do a current Arch install. That'll mean I can gauge just how crashy Gnome is on Arch at the moment and how super rock solid KDE is.
                              It seems you forget what you were saying before. On my box KDE's rock stable and Gnome isn't, but you said it's opposite on yours. However, give it a try if you wish, but you will get Gnome 3 not Gnome 2 in Arch.

                              If it's highly improbable that KDE can be implemented in such a way as to provide a stable desktop by such teams as the Kubuntu, openSUSE and Fedora guys, then I think the KDE team should have a look at why that is the case. You're saying that Arch can do it, but why not the others. Well maybe KDE is a difficult platform to press into action.
                              If it's highly improbable that Gnome can be implemented in such a way as to provide a stable desktop by such teams as the Fedora, Arch Linux guys, then I think the Gnome team should have a look at why that is the case. You're saying that Arch can do it, but why not the others. Well maybe Gnome is a difficult platform to press into action.

                              And they crashed Gnome how? Or was it just KDE.
                              While there were known problems in dbus then what's wrong with you? It was just dbus.

                              How is it illogical?
                              Simply. I didn't say kwin has NO issues and if I don't have issues with it, it doesn't mean you will share my experience. If Gnome is more stable for you then why it's not stable on my box? (I'm talking about gnome2)


                              You don't experience any issues right now. How about earlier. And why is KWin's stability and performance the subject of threads on Phoronix if it's the bees knees?
                              I experienced issues related to graphic drivers. The thread is about graphic drivers too, isn't' it? Why there are many topics about gnome's hell performance, stability and memory usage issues?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                                March 2009

                                Ah, more classic comments from Linux users
                                I don't know what are you 'failing' to say?

                                More votes for Arch. Perhaps I should download an Arch ISO from circa March 2009 and see just how a real KDE 4 distro feels to use.

                                I'd probably agree with statements along these lines, except for the slow part. Maybe my computers too fast for me to feel the slowness of Gnome though
                                Or your reflex is slow. :P Gnome was really slow for me. And I don't mean fps in games.

                                Yet more "you're distro is doing it wrong."
                                The same about your distros and gnome. Didn't you check the forums?

                                I would think perfect is a strong word to use and suggest to me you're subject to hyperboli. Perhaps KDE 4.7 is perfect now though. No need for another RC.
                                No, KDE was perfect for me those times in Arch (and it's perfect now, too). However, Kubuntu has some other, not DE related advantages.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X