KDE Does Its Second 4.7 Release Candidate

[mugginz]

It seems we read different things.

That must be the case.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

[mugginz]

I don't know what are you 'failing' to say?

Perhaps you could re-read it then.

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.

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.

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.

[kraftman]

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? :>

[mugginz]

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.

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.

I don't see any evidence of memory usage.

Twas in the graph I posted earlier.

Where? :>

Some might say not in your posts.

[kraftman]

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.

[kraftman]

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?

[mugginz]

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.

It doesn't really matter. I'm just showing how irrelevant your talk was.

To you maybe.

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.

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.

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.

[kraftman]

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.

[mugginz]

Perhaps, could you stop such childish play?

Pot, meet kettle.

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.

Then, what's your point with all those bull?

KDE 4 series has more bugs than Gnome2. No bull.

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"

[mugginz]

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.

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.

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.

Some might say opposite. That's boring.

I wonder who would.