KDE SC 4.6.2 Codename Is Dedicated To GNOME 3.0

[kraftman]

Well, none of the bugs that affect *me* for a long time now were fixed They just keep accumulating, lol. And I've reported them all.

What can I say, what's important to me is what I care about.

That's a different thing of course.

[mat69]

Are you kidding? A lot of bugs were fixed for 4.6.2. I suppose what you mean is "none of my pet bugs were fixed". I can tell you a bunch of my pet bugs were (especially issues with GHNS).

And I am not sure what you mean about not being able to shut down the machine, I shut it down all the time just fine.

Indeed. Though the shutdown issue is _really_ quite unfortunate and should have never been backported, since it is no fix to begin with ... Also KWin often fails to start here. Sometimes I wonder how much of these changes are tested. ok, ok, after having introduced some nasty bugs myself over the time I know that it is not easy

I guess the GHNS stuff was my doing. I wanted to add auto update for the comic applet for quite a while, yet GHNS bugs failed me. So I fixed them.


@kraftman And that changelog itself only shows few fixes.
The changelog is a pita since you have to enter things by hand. I fixed quite some bugs and entered none into the changelog. When just looking at kdelibs I see roughly 70 commits for 4.6.2 of which most (I guess >95%) are bug fixes. In fact not every of those fixed bugs had been reported before, or has been closed on bko. The later is an interesting issue. Often when you fix a bug you have to invest quite a while to find out if it is reported on bko already.

Imo they should use the same system as for kde-commits for the changelog. List all changes and highlight those which are perceived as important.

[smitty3268]

And the GPU manufacturers should not care about their paying customers?

You're presenting a false choice here. Either the GPU manufacturer OR the KWin developers should care about fixing the issues. That's wrong, they should both care. What one does could help out the other, but it really doesn't matter whether the GPU manufacturer cares or not, the KWin developers still should. Anyway, I'm not necessarily claiming they need to fix the drivers directly - although that is in the spirit of open source - but they could at least do some testing, figure out which effects are broken on currently widespread drivers, and disable them on that hardware. Or even try to rewrite the broken affects to work around driver bugs. It's what everyone else does, after all.

[liam]

Usually KDE vs Gnome flame wars are about usability. If someone has to edit many configuration files to tune basic options such DE isn't so usable for newbies. Pro's don't have any problems with this (if they like it, it's other thing), but Gnome isn't so good for beginners. Simplicity is not about cutting features off, but about achieving goals in a simple way.

Well, I'm not arguing people SHOULD be doing these things just that if someone is really unhappy with it, and they are willing to take the time to learn how to do it, many things can be done. That was the entirety of my point. People say gnome isn't configurable but what they really mean is that it doesn't provide a gui tweak tool that exposes all the options. Frankly, that might be something someone may be interested in writing since it should be fairly simple (assuming you actually already know all the possible tweaks). I'm saying this as a GS user who is currently editing css and js files, and let me say it is a pain (b/c of documentation only, however), but it can be done.
BTW, I think this is the first time anyone has said that Gnome isn't for newbies (I do get your point, but a little obtuseness makes for funny)

[kayosiii]

Let me refrase what I said earlier, as you clearly didn't understand:

I wish KDE developers would fix KWin's (notice that I said KWin and not radeon driver, as in "fix kwin", not "fix driver") bad performance on radeons. Don't tell me it's a problem in the drivers because every other 3D application I've tried runs as expected on my HD4200.

Compositing Managers use the card in a very different way to general 3D apps.

And it's not a matter of compositing managers in general on KDE, because Compiz runs fluidly.

Compiz uses a very different driver code path to kwin (currently OpenGL 1 vs OpenGL 2+ iirc) kwin uses hardware features that were previously not tested by any other project on Linux and Compiz may have kludges in place to deal with those specific drivers.

It's also not a problem of drivers because it runs equally bad on both OSS radeon and FGLRX. Sure it's not a very powerful GPU, but even an old Athlon XP + Radeon 9500pro offers a better experience on the OSS drivers with compiz.

It could be a general hardware weakness and it could also be a coincidence.

However the problem should be fixed - that may mean tracking down the problem and making the relevant driver team aware of the issue. Of course this is all assuming that a there is one of these cards available for the kwin team to test on.

[liam]

If they want to consider themselves uber 1337 then maybe they should be on the command line.

Command line? Pshhaw! I exclusively use punchcards on a time-share, my friend

If you're garden variety user wants things a little different in their GUI environment asking them to learn the intricacies of its internal workings would seem a little heavy, especially if there's alternative GUIs that allow you to easily customise stuff the way you want without having to resort to config files, etc.

Of course that's unreasonable, but that wasn't my point. The "common user" simply isn't going to need much more, if any, tweaking guis than were available in G2 (certainly GS is woefully lacking, but that is more time-based than from design). For Gnome, the name of the game is sensible defaults and good design. As to what those is debatable, but that is thought process, IMHO, not arrogant ivory tower fascists who want to control your digital life.

But wasn't the point of his post that if you want to customise things a little, and there's alternative GUIs that allow you to do it with out resorting to hacks, maybe it demonstrates one way in which those alternatives are superior.
Again, if the alternative is superior maybe it's worth switching to.

Not as I understood it. The point was that gnome wasn't tweakable, and I simply pointed out that it is, but it isn't easily tweakable for things that are considered less common (ignoring GS, again).
BTW, editing config files and editing xml aren't hacks. A gui would be doing essentially the same thing, but would give you the protection, hopefully, of shooting yourself in the foot. So, no, I don't think it says anything about one way be superior, simply a different view of things.

This folly of removing all options isn't supportable. At the end of the day whether to provide an option or not will always remain a judgment call. The fact that Gnome provides a minimal set demonstrates that they believe there's a place for them.

Well, perhaps. I could easily imagine a desktop that adapts to your usage and bases its decisions on heuristics and chooses from a large database of usability morphs (maybe, making icons larger, or moving the panel to the left, or whatever). Frankly, I was a expecting a VERY primitive version of this when I read the early versions of the GS design paper. Obviously this is a really hard thing to do, and either they determined it was too difficult, or I am misremembering, but the point is I can imagine a desktop where not options exists. One might say, I have a dream

I agree that thoughtlessly providing an option for anything and everything as a mechanism to avoid making necessary design decisions isn't great and can lead to clutter, but the opposite end of the spectrum also has its downsides and can leave you with a restricted, inflexible and hamstrung software environment.

I agree, and I think that GS will have to make some changes, additionally, but I think it undoubted that they will add more configuration options in the coming releases, but hopefully they will do so in as elegant and transparent way as possible.

Until Gnome removes absolutely every single option they're doing what the KDE guys are doing. Making judgment calls as to whether this or that benefits the user experience. To argue that there is no place for options and they must be eliminated at all costs and then turn around and provide them would show they don't really believe in that position.

Perhaps, but I don't think that they believe in NO options, just a design that is good enough for most, and tweakable for the rest.

So, the fact that Gnome provide some options demonstrates they believe there's a place for them, and this leaves them open to the criticism that they don't provide enough of them. The options for end users is to submit feature requests, switch to other environments, and complain on on-line forums.

Well, that is a bit of a stretch. I think they admit that they don't know how to create a DE that is perfect for all so they compromise with what they consider enough options, all the while looking for the white whale.

[mugginz]

Command line? Pshhaw! I exclusively use punchcards on a time-share, my friend

Punchcards are for pussies Hardwiring is where it's at.

Of course that's unreasonable, but that wasn't my point. The "common user" simply isn't going to need much more, if any, tweaking guis than were available in G2 (certainly GS is woefully lacking, but that is more time-based than from design). For Gnome, the name of the game is sensible defaults and good design. As to what those is debatable, but that is thought process, IMHO, not arrogant ivory tower fascists who want to control your digital life.

The name of the game should always be sensible defaults, even where other options are on offer. I find Gnome a little on the under-configurable side but I still use it so I can't find it too terminal.

I see the pro-gnomes try to justify its level of configurability based on the "too many switches spoils the broth" principle but I don't buy their explanation. Sure, there's a level where things get out of control but I and others think they've gone too far with simplicity. Thankfully, if it gets too much to bear there's other environments to jump ship to.

Your response along the lines of "just edit the config file you noob " to Joe Sixpack's comment didn't seem to be a viable answer for your garden variety user though. I think he was saying that it's a weakness of Gnome that they don't provide enough configurability and my respone was aqlong the lines of "and config file editing isn't really a very good answer to that." For the more 1337, tweaker tools, gconf and config file editing gets it across the line though I guess.

Not as I understood it. The point was that gnome wasn't tweakable, and I simply pointed out that it is, but it isn't easily tweakable for things that are considered less common (ignoring GS, again).
BTW, editing config files and editing xml aren't hacks.

I'd say compared to KDE, G2 isn't very tweakable out of the box. As for editing config and xml files, they are hacks for end users though. If you know what you're doing, nothing is impossible. If something about Windows 7 gives me the shits, there's the option to disassemble the code, gain an understanding of it, and patch accordingly. Many would consider that going too far. I think the environments default position should be to be somewhat tweakable outta the box.

A gui would be doing essentially the same thing, but would give you the protection, hopefully, of shooting yourself in the foot. So, no, I don't think it says anything about one way be superior, simply a different view of things.

I generally argue how things should be for the end user though. Again, with source code on the table, no proper computer nerd can ultimately argue that something isn't unalterable, but most people aren't proper computer nerds.

Well, perhaps. I could easily imagine a desktop that adapts to your usage and bases its decisions on heuristics and chooses from a large database of usability morphs (maybe, making icons larger, or moving the panel to the left, or whatever). Frankly, I was a expecting a VERY primitive version of this when I read the early versions of the GS design paper. Obviously this is a really hard thing to do, and either they determined it was too difficult, or I am misremembering, but the point is I can imagine a desktop where not options exists. One might say, I have a dream

I have that dream as well but as we're so far off from it at the moment preferences panes are a necessary evil.

I agree, and I think that GS will have to make some changes, additionally, but I think it undoubted that they will add more configuration options in the coming releases, but hopefully they will do so in as elegant and transparent way as possible.

My beef with unconfigurability is mostly pointed at Gnome 2.

If Gnome Shells uncomfigurability is the result of decisions following a "If we haven't got time to implement if properly and bug freely, we'll wait till we can" type process, then I'm all for it.

Perhaps, but I don't think that they believe in NO options, just a design that is good enough for most, and tweakable for the rest.

The mechanism for tweakability, that is hitting config files and gconf, is not the place for the majority of it though I think. I guess for those that use G2 it must be "good enough" or they'd find something else. I hope for a world where things are as they should be, not just good enough.

Well, that is a bit of a stretch. I think they admit that they don't know how to create a DE that is perfect for all so they compromise with what they consider enough options, all the while looking for the white whale.

Sometimes the gnomers try to paint the lack of configurabilty as based in good design and that less is more. My point is less is more only up to a point, and then less becomes less.

[pingufunkybeat]

KDE's usability sucks.

I think that this has really changed in recent years.

At the same time, if GNOME really requires you to start a registry editor to change a font now, then this particular point of criticism should be re-thought

[pvtcupcakes]

KDE 4.6.2 got released, and the bugs keep piling up. None of the bugs were fixed, and new have been added (now it's impossible to shutdown the machine from KDE; it just brings you to a console.)

How classy is that?

I saw that shutdown bug last night, and I didn't know what happened at the time. Once I told it to shut down for the night I walked away to take my contacts out, and when I walked by my desk again it was sitting at a login shell. I had no idea how it got there.

I'm pretty sure the reboot option doesn't do that though because I did a reboot once yesterday, and I know I had 4.6.2 installed long before that.

[Remco]

I think that this has really changed in recent years.

At the same time, if GNOME really requires you to start a registry editor to change a font now, then this particular point of criticism should be re-thought

Configurability is not usability.

I just tried an openSUSE KDE livecd. First thing I see is a bunch of technical mumbo jumbo about the openSUSE project and the build service. The browser was easy enough to find. But how is a user going to figure out how to start chatting in KDE? It was the second thing I tried, and I failed. The wizard for setting up e-mail is not very helpful either. The user is not going to like having to choose between POP, IMAP and a bunch of other options. That's the first page, without any guidance.

Then I tried watching a movie in a patented format. I succeeded, but a non-technical person would not. It's very easy to go wrong here. If you click on the wrong button, you'll get directed to the Yast software repositories without a clue what to do. If you click the right button, you'll go to a website where you have to choose your distribution and version number. If you do everything right, it's a few clicks. But those have to be the right clicks.

Actually, did I succeed? No, because the entire system locked up as Yast was doing its thing. That's not usability though. Trying to listen to music is the same experience as trying to watch a movie. But not only does Yast lock up the computer; if you bypass that, Amarok itself crashes.

The sound mixer: WTF is going on there? I close the volume slider tab with that helpful red X, and now I have no idea how to get it back. Why can I mis-configure the configuration panel for sound?

Installing a printer is difficult to figure out. You are directed to the CUPS web interface. This does not seem to be designed for end users. But OK, if you go to "CUPS for Administrators" and then "Add Printers and Classes", you can click on Add Printer. And then you get a login prompt. It doesn't work with either the standard live login account, or the root account. So, there, printing is impossible with KDE.

That's enough KDE for today.