KDE Does Its Second 4.7 Release Candidate

[kraftman]

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.

[kraftman]

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.

[mugginz]

Give me a freaking break. You didn't benchmark DE's.

Oh yes I did. See post the following post made 03-13-2010.

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.

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.

It's commonly held KDE used more memory than does Gnome when people do such stupid things.

What stupid things are they?

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.

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

What, as apposed to quoting yours

[mugginz]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[mugginz]

March 2009

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

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.

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

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!

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."

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.

[kraftman]

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

[mugginz]

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

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.

[mugginz]

Still, you didn't.

Are you saying I didn't do clean installs of Ubuntu and Kubuntu to compare memory usage?

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?

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.

The truth is not the same for you and me.

The truth is out there.

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.

[kraftman]

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?

[kraftman]

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.