Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KDE Does Its Second 4.7 Release Candidate

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    It seems we read different things.
    That must be the case.



    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    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.
    I'm sure I'll be able to manage to wrangle an install with Gnome 2. Perhaps if I start with a 2010.05 install and specify package versions.


    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    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.
    Well well, running out of things to say, and resorting to being the copy cat. So just how old are you?



    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    While there were known problems in dbus then what's wrong with you? It was just dbus.
    And the same versions of dbus running underneath a Gnome desktop caused what crashes there?


    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    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)
    But you're on the record as saying that KDE is rock solid yet here you acknowledge that it does have issues. Interesting.



    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    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?
    Perhaps you can point me to those. They might make for interesting comparison against the memory hoggery and instability of KDE.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      I don't know what are you 'failing' to say?
      Perhaps you could re-read it then.



      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      Or your reflex is slow. :P Gnome was really slow for me. And I don't mean fps in games.
      No, they're pretty good actually.



      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      The same about your distros and gnome. Didn't you check the forums?
      You must of missed my post where I mentioned that there was no perfect desktop for Linux and that they all had bugs. I also said that some desktops have more than others.


      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      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.
      And that's why I should test Arch from previous versions as well as recent ones.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by mugginz View Post
        Are you saying I didn't do clean installs of Ubuntu and Kubuntu to compare memory usage?
        I'm saying Kubuntu != KDE and Ubuntu != Gnome.

        Are you including disc buffer usage as well?
        I simply took a look at system monitors.

        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.
        I don't see any evidence of memory usage.

        The truth is out there.
        Where? :>

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          I'm saying Kubuntu != KDE and Ubuntu != Gnome.
          To the largest part of the Linux using community I'm not sure you're completely right there as between them they have the lions share of users. But when testing for stability in Arch I'll be sure to record memory usage as well.


          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          I simply took a look at system monitors.
          But surely you realize that as files are read from disc they're cached in memory and are reflected in the memory usage metrics. One mistake people make is to combine the amount of data read from disc ie: buffers&cache with the amount of memory used by the running software. If a program uses 100M but has read 500M while using that amount of memory, some people will assume that 600M is in use, when in reality that 500M is available for use by other programs if they need it, but while it's not being used it's sensible to cache disc with it.



          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          I don't see any evidence of memory usage.
          Twas in the graph I posted earlier.


          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          Where? :>
          Some might say not in your posts.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by mugginz View Post
            I'm sure I'll be able to manage to wrangle an install with Gnome 2. Perhaps if I start with a 2010.05 install and specify package versions.
            It will be great, but keep in mind to set up both DE's in similar way. Check if strigi doesn't do indexing when you will make measurement.

            Well well, running out of things to say, and resorting to being the copy cat. So just how old are you?
            It doesn't really matter. I'm just showing how irrelevant your talk was.

            And the same versions of dbus running underneath a Gnome desktop caused what crashes there?
            That's right.

            But you're on the record as saying that KDE is rock solid yet here you acknowledge that it does have issues. Interesting.
            Not interesting at all, really. When I say it's rock solid I mean it doesn't crash on my box.

            Perhaps you can point me to those. They might make for interesting comparison against the memory hoggery and instability of KDE.
            https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=122269
            https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=122344

            But damn, it's so easy to find in google. There are many more reports.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by mugginz View Post
              Perhaps you could re-read it then.
              Perhaps, could you stop such childish play?

              No, they're pretty good actually.
              They're? I already said Gnome2 was slow for me.

              You must of missed my post where I mentioned that there was no perfect desktop for Linux and that they all had bugs. I also said that some desktops have more than others.
              Then, what's your point with all those bull?

              And that's why I should test Arch from previous versions as well as recent ones.
              You're still missing some things... You don't have my box and while we have different experience then why do you think it will be automagically different, now?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                It will be great, but keep in mind to set up both DE's in similar way. Check if strigi doesn't do indexing when you will make measurement.
                I'll check with and without, but as stringi is part of the KDE desktop technology it would seem a little dishonest not to include it as the main memory benchmark.


                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                It doesn't really matter. I'm just showing how irrelevant your talk was.
                To you maybe.


                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                That's right.
                No, I asked which crashes it caused in the Gnome desktop. The very dbus that was causing them in KDE in Dolphin and friends.



                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                Not interesting at all, really. When I say it's rock solid I mean it doesn't crash on my box.
                Yet you say earlier that KDE doesn't have issues, then you say it does for some others. If a desktop is rock solid, it's rock solid. If it's only rock solid for a sub-set of users, then it's not rock solid. It's partially solid.


                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=122269
                https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=122344

                But damn, it's so easy to find in google. There are many more reports.
                Interesting. Here we are discussing KDE and Gnome2, and here you go throwing Gnome3 into the mix. You really are disingenuous aren't you.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                  But when testing for stability in Arch I'll be sure to record memory usage as well.
                  I said about stability, but it will be great to see memory usage. Keep in mind to run comparable services and applications in both environments. It will be great if you check memory usage just after a clean install and after running some apps.

                  But surely you realize that as files are read from disc they're cached in memory and are reflected in the memory usage metrics. One mistake people make is to combine the amount of data read from disc ie: buffers&cache with the amount of memory used by the running software. If a program uses 100M but has read 500M while using that amount of memory, some people will assume that 600M is in use, when in reality that 500M is available for use by other programs if they need it, but while it's not being used it's sensible to cache disc with it.
                  I think those system monitors do it right, but whatever. It will be nice to see some new comparison.

                  Twas in the graph I posted earlier.
                  Kubuntu vs Ubuntu. Not interesting. Btw. how did you measure memory usage out there?

                  Some might say not in your posts.
                  Some might say opposite. That's boring.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    Perhaps, could you stop such childish play?
                    Pot, meet kettle.



                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    They're? I already said Gnome2 was slow for me.
                    But what does Gnome2 being slow for you have to do with my reflexes? You're starting to become irrational here.


                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    Then, what's your point with all those bull?
                    KDE 4 series has more bugs than Gnome2. No bull.



                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    You're still missing some things... You don't have my box and while we have different experience then why do you think it will be automagically different, now?
                    But if you're the only person having a stable experience with KDE then that's telling. If I can't install Arch and KDE on a range of hardware and not have bugs then that reflects on statments such as "KDE is perfect"

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                      I said about stability, but it will be great to see memory usage. Keep in mind to run comparable services and applications in both environments. It will be great if you check memory usage just after a clean install and after running some apps.
                      That goes without saying.



                      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                      I think those system monitors do it right, but whatever. It will be nice to see some new comparison.
                      You have to know what you're reading.

                      Do you know about the free command? If so do you understand how to read its results.


                      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                      Kubuntu vs Ubuntu. Not interesting. Btw. how did you measure memory usage out there?
                      With the "free" command, taking into account actual memory used by software running. Not adding in buffers&cache like some people mistakenly do.



                      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                      Some might say opposite. That's boring.
                      I wonder who would.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                        I'll check with and without, but as stringi is part of the KDE desktop technology it would seem a little dishonest not to include it as the main memory benchmark.
                        Then run beagle too.

                        No, I asked which crashes it caused in the Gnome desktop. The very dbus that was causing them in KDE in Dolphin and friends.
                        I don't care. It caused crashes in KDE and it's what I care.

                        Yet you say earlier that KDE doesn't have issues, then you say it does for some others. If a desktop is rock solid, it's rock solid. If it's only rock solid for a sub-set of users, then it's not rock solid. It's partially solid.
                        Where did I say there are no issues in KDE? Bullshit. It can be said something is rock solid even if it's not rock solid for all of the users. And yes, KDE's rock solid. If you don't get it I'll explain: it's rock solid from my experience.

                        Interesting. Here we are discussing KDE and Gnome2, and here you go throwing Gnome3 into the mix. You really are disingenuous aren't you.
                        I think you've got some problems with reading and understanding the thing you read. I mentioned gnome's hell before and you wanted examples, so I gave them to you.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                          Then run beagle too.
                          Of course



                          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                          I don't care. It caused crashes in KDE and it's what I care.
                          If it crashes KDE but it doesn't crash Gnome that's not interesting to you?


                          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                          Where did I say there are no issues in KDE? Bullshit. It can be said something is rock solid even if it's not rock solid for all of the users. And yes, KDE's rock solid. If you don't get it I'll explain: it's rock solid from my experience.
                          You should take a break, then come back and re-read what you just typed there.

                          Also, perfect would suggest no issues no?

                          And I quote:
                          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.
                          (emphasis mine)



                          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                          I think you've got some problems with reading and understanding the thing you read. I mentioned gnome's hell before and you wanted examples, so I gave them to you.
                          And if you can't detect the disingenuousness in that statement then I think that helps me understand you a bit more.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                            But what does Gnome2 being slow for you have to do with my reflexes? You're starting to become irrational here.
                            You said you don't notice its slowness and this can have something to do with your reflex. You said it's maybe your computer which is too fast for you to feel the slowness of Gnome, but maybe just your reflex is too slow?

                            KDE 4 series has more bugs than Gnome2. No bull.
                            According to Coverity KDE has much less bugs than Gnome:

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

                            KDE 4 series has less bugs than Gnome 2 series. No bull.

                            But if you're the only person having a stable experience with KDE then that's telling. If I can't install Arch and KDE on a range of hardware and not have bugs then that reflects on statments such as "KDE is perfect"
                            I'm not only the one. Nobody said it's perfect, but It's perfect for me. It's also much better than Gnome ever was.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                              You said you don't notice its slowness and this can have something to do with your reflex. You said it's maybe your computer which is too fast for you to feel the slowness of Gnome, but maybe just your reflex is too slow?
                              But i responded with the fact that my reflexes are just fine. Yet you felt it more appropriate to "play the man" rather than leave it at the more likely scenario where a 2.4GHz quad core CPU has no issues pushing a Gnome desktop.



                              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                              According to Coverity KDE has much less bugs than Gnome:

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

                              KDE 4 series has less bugs than Gnome 2 series. No bull.
                              Did you read the critique of that perspective. The one that mentioned that static analysis of code doesn't find all run time bugs. In itself the coverity numbers are less relevant than real world testing and experience.

                              And yet more unoriginality from you . It's like speaking to a four year old. Really.



                              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                              I'm not only the one. Nobody said it's perfect, but It's perfect for me. It's also much better than Gnome ever was.
                              Yet another inconsistent statement from yourself there. Should I expect any different going forward?

                              I would think not.

                              Can I remind you of what you said.

                              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.
                              Sounds pretty unequivocal to me.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                                If it crashes KDE but it doesn't crash Gnome that's not interesting to you?
                                Not at all.

                                You should take a break, then come back and re-read what you just typed there. Also, perfect would suggest no issues no?
                                Not at all. I rarely experience issues with KDE, but it doesn't have to be issues free to be perfect for me. It's not only perfect, because it runs fast on my box, but it's also perfect, because it's rock stable. Right now (and many times before) I didn't encounter any issues.

                                (emphasis mine)
                                I'm usually speaking for myself. I don't care about you or about some other people, why should I? When I say something it's because I feel exactly like that.

                                And if you can't detect the disingenuousness in that statement then I think that helps me understand you a bit more.
                                If you don't get what all of these is about then I can't understand you at all.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X