KDE Does Its Second 4.7 Release Candidate

[kraftman]

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.

[mugginz]

Then run beagle too.

Of course

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?

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:

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)

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.

[kraftman]

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.

[mugginz]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[kraftman]

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.

[mugginz]

If it crashes KDE but it doesn't crash Gnome that's not interesting to you?

Not at all.

Well I guess that figures.

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.

Rock stable, yet others have major issues. If you kept it to "it's rock solid for me" then that's one thing, but you argue against people who complain of KDE's stability like it's a figment of their imagination.

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.

If I walk up to you and say gee, the sky is all red, green purple, yellow and brown, and you look up and see blue, it's fair for you to question me about it. If you state unequivocally that KDE is rock solid, and it turns out it's only that way for a subset of users, then overall, no it's not rock solid generally.

If you don't get what all of these is about then I can't understand you at all.

Perhaps you should consider further education. It may help your comprehension and originality while you're at it.

[kraftman]

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.

I have Athlon X2 64 and gnome 2 was sluggish, so that's why I consider there could be something wrong with your reflex.

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.

Glad to hear that, but it's far more than some fanboy's talk. While we have different real world experience and while you're still talking the same then such comparison is much more meaningful.

Yet another inconsistent statement from yourself there. Should I expect any different going forward?

Oh, but this is out of the contest. One time I said it's perfect in Arch (in the meaning: unlike Kubuntu) and when I said nobody said it's perfect I meant there's no perfect software. Your manipulation is very unequivocal.

[mugginz]

I have Athlon X2 64 and gnome 2 was sluggish, so that's why I consider there could be something wrong with your reflex.

Perhaps yours are too fast. Perhaps Gnome2 needs a quad core. I did find KDE 4.5 and Gnome2 broadly comparable from a performance perspective on a Celeron III 1.2GHz and a netbook. This quad core runs both fine from a performance perspective as well as I've noted.

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.

Glad to hear that, but it's far more than some fanboy's talk. While we have different real world experience and while you're still talking the same then such comparison is much more meaningful.

To believe that would seem to suggest that you're not a programmer then.

Oh, but this is out of the contest. One time I said it's perfect in Arch unless Kubuntu and when I said nobody said it's perfect I meant there's no perfect software. Your manipulation is very unequivocal.

Again with the copying.

As I've said above, you have a history of making remarks along the lines of "If you're having issues with KDE, it's your distro, not KDE"

You also say KDE is rock solid.

Then you acknowledge that it has issues.

[jrch2k8]

one thing about the bloating between kde and gnome in the memory aspect you are both wrong, Linux at kernel level has many cool trick in how optimize memory that make my kde uses 600 mb while gnome uses 1gb useless because linux will map more memory depending on your system speed, total memory, latency, file system, etc to make use of those 3gb unused you have in your pc in the form or preloading or various form of caches, heavy used libs keep loaded in ram to reduce the loading time of application, browsers like opera release memory very slowly to give you the fast load of previous pages, etc.

in the stability area all is very gray cuz you are comparing apples to tires, gnome2 is a decade old DE technologically speaking compared to kde4/QT4.

for example gnome2/gtk don't use opengl or any know form of hardware acceleration in their drawing api until very recently when cairo got in enough good shape and even now is not fully used in gnome2, hence you need a completely extenal app for compisited desktop like compiz (compiz != gnome) on the other hand kde have been pushing very far stuff like raster rendering, opengl 2+, opengl ES, safe multithreading, plasma, really heavy use of XCB and many complex X11 extension like Xrender or XFixes in composited enviroments, true AA lines and text, etc that relies heavily on the GPU drivers or proper DDX acceleration. to prove my point run gnome and kde using vesa without any form of 3d accel and you will notice that gnome2 in most apps don't show many slowdowns except for some apps on the other hand half of the kde eyecandy get automatically off and the other half suffer a lot in the perfomance category.

because of that a bug in the graphics driver will be very noticeable in kde while in gnome it can affect only some applications, so yes an old nvidia blob or an old kernel + oss driver combo or fglrx any version will make kde very fluffy and tend to crash but that not means gnome is better or more stable, it is simply not using them hence ovbiously won't affect it.

in the case of Dbus im not sure how deep gnome use it since gnome devs have gconf/corba/etc from long ago but kde relies heavily on dbus for IPC so you will notice any bug in dbus inmediately with kde4 maybe not so much in gnome

on the memory use of kde per se is tricky because kde4 and kde3 to some extent too tend to reuse library and component heavily, so sometimes you can see an app like okular showing use of 100mb of memory but 95mb are virtual or shared with other applications or libraries, so is very common see 3 apps using 100mb each but each one use only real 5mb and the other 95 are shared among them cuz those 95 are stuff like QtCore.so and libdbus.so and common parts of many kdelibs, etc.

in the case of gnome3 you are beggining to see the same effect that kde4 had since now their are moving to hardware accel too, gnome3 can be unusable too with many drivers or version of those drivers due to driver bugs, hence that is why unity2d exist as a fallback (other scenario ofc is vesa or other X non accel driver )

ofc gnome3 have the advantage that many outstanding bugs in 3dlibs or X11 have been addressed by now since kde4 found them first (google kde4.0 and slow text with nvidia and you will see for example) and mesa developers on the OSS have been adressing some bugs too (a while ago here you could read how kwin had to blacklist some OSS driver due to several bugs, today is almost nonexistant though).

so i guess the guy with arch and kde4.6.x have a nice pc with latest OSS stack or a recent enough nvidia blob, a recent dbus implementation like me and kde is rock solid for him too (kubuntu here with r600g driver git) maybe in your kde previous you hitted a buged driver (nvidia 160.x.x.x i think it was or mesa 7.10.x or inferior) or even a bugged dbus version in your distro that make kde unstable but won't affect gnome2

now is true that a latest nvidia blob or git OSS stack + recent distro like kubuntu natty or arch or latest opensuse + a fixed dbus lib system should be rock solid with KDE 4.6.x in any decent PC core2 or athlon x2 or superior and any r300+ or g80+ gpu.

[kraftman]

Well I guess that figures.

This is a proof of your stupid thinking - it seems you don't get KDE could use dbus in different way which exposed it's weaknesses.

Rock stable, yet others have major issues. If you kept it to "it's rock solid for me" then that's one thing, but you argue against people who complain of KDE's stability like it's a figment of their imagination.

What I do is just keeping the balance.

If I walk up to you and say gee, the sky is all red, green purple, yellow and brown, and you look up and see blue, it's fair for you to question me about it. If you state unequivocally that KDE is rock solid, and it turns out it's only that way for a subset of users, then overall, no it's not rock solid generally.

You're still manipulating, because if from my experience it's rock solid I can say that. Even if some people experience problems with KDE I can still say it's rock solid - I don't know what KDE versions the problems affect, I don't know if it's KDE's fault or if it's something different. I can simply consider you're a troll or a liar and I can simply ignore your stance.

Perhaps you should consider further education. It may help your comprehension and originality while you're at it.

Perhaps, you should consider rethinking few things or just try to change your mentality. You tried to look smart, but you look dumb.