I've been playing around.

David Wührer

Michael B. Trausch wrote:

> While I cannot say that I have found KDE to be less stable when using it
> with the functionality that it has, I have found it to be less stable
> indirectly when doing things that it was not designed to do. For example,
> it does not know how to interface with SSL NNTP servers (NNTPS) using
> KNode.

Are you saying knode crashes when it does something it cannot do?

> It is still largely a matter of opinion which desktop distribution you
> like more, but for me it comes down to a question of the available
> applications for the system and the support for various tasks that the
> distribution has available for me, the user.

gucharmap works with KDE, and k3b works with GNOME. Applications are not a
matter of what environment you use. For a user, it's rather if you prefer
kwin and kicker, or metacity and gnome-panel.

> It is also certainly possible for the KDE project to straighten
> themselves out and start releasing things regularly. But, the biggest
> failure in my mind on the part of the KDE project is that KDE 4 was
> supposed to be released before Windows Vista; we are still waiting for the
> release of KDE 4.0, and the beta releases that I have seen don’t work all
> that well at all.

Who cares about Vista. Hardly anyone uses it anyway.
As for KDE4, I'd rather it is released when it is finished, than released
now and finished in regular semi-yearly upgrade steps later. What is there
to "straighten out" about that?
In the meantime, KDE3.5.8 has been released, and not because the Kalendar
told them it was time to do a release.

I use both GNOME and KDE, and I'd have to say that GNOME is really easy to
use for beginners. Yet everyone I ever gave a choice strongly preferred
KDE. I don't know why either.

vincent

Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 05:53:26 +0000, ChrisC wrote:
>> Does any one notice that KDE is less stable than Gnome. I find Gnome
>> crashes less and is a lot more solid. This isn't Gnome Vs KDE debate,
>> just an observation.
>>
>
> While I cannot say that I have found KDE to be less stable when using it
> with the functionality that it has, I have found it to be less stable
> indirectly when doing things that it was not designed to do. For example,
> it does not know how to interface with SSL NNTP servers (NNTPS) using
> KNode. It /does/ lack a significant amount of functionality.
> Furthermore, the KDE project has issues releasing things when they say
> that they are going to release them. I like the stability (both in
> software and in the project itself) that GNOME has to offer, including
> regular incremental releases and so forth.
>
> It is still largely a matter of opinion which desktop distribution you
> like more, but for me it comes down to a question of the available
> applications for the system and the support for various tasks that the
> distribution has available for me, the user. GNOME has what feels like a
> much better finished interface for the system; it has not always been that
> way. It is also certainly possible for the KDE project to straighten
> themselves out and start releasing things regularly. But, the biggest
> failure in my mind on the part of the KDE project is that KDE 4 was
> supposed to be released before Windows Vista; we are still waiting for the
> release of KDE 4.0, and the beta releases that I have seen don’t work all
> that well at all.
>
> I think that KDE would be far better than it is if GNOME would not have
> been started, because there would be more available effort going towards
> it. As some of you might recall, the GNOME project was started over
> licensing and continues due to inertia and happy users of the project. If
> either project were to disappear, I would place my bets on KDE over GNOME
> at this point, simply for many of the reasons that I already stated.
>
> --- Mike
>
i hate kde
always looks like some kids high school assignment to me, rather gnome
anyday

Michael B. Trausch

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:06:27 +0100, David Wührer wrote:

> Michael B. Trausch wrote:
>
>> While I cannot say that I have found KDE to be less stable when using
>> it with the functionality that it has, I have found it to be less
>> stable indirectly when doing things that it was not designed to do.
>> For example, it does not know how to interface with SSL NNTP servers
>> (NNTPS) using KNode.
>
> Are you saying knode crashes when it does something it cannot do?
>

No, I am saying that it does not do it; I chose my words poorly there, I
should have said "I have found the overall stability of the system to be
negatively impacted when doing...", which would have been more clear. My
apologies for being ambiguous in my statement.

>> It is still largely a matter of opinion which desktop distribution you
>> like more, but for me it comes down to a question of the available
>> applications for the system and the support for various tasks that the
>> distribution has available for me, the user.
>
> gucharmap works with KDE, and k3b works with GNOME. Applications are not
> a matter of what environment you use. For a user, it's rather if you
> prefer kwin and kicker, or metacity and gnome-panel.
>

Certainly it does, but then again, there is the matter of æsthetics.
Applications that use one toolkit do not look right with a DE of another
toolkit. Not a huge issue save for the fact that often they have had
different perceptions of things like font sizes and the like. Granted,
this may have changed, but I still do not like mixing and matching
applications and environments. At best, it looks kludgy and does not
present a uniform interface to the user, given that they follow different
user interface guidelines.

>> It is also certainly possible for the KDE project to straighten
>> themselves out and start releasing things regularly. But, the biggest
>> failure in my mind on the part of the KDE project is that KDE 4 was
>> supposed to be released before Windows Vista; we are still waiting for
>> the release of KDE 4.0, and the beta releases that I have seen don’t
>> work all that well at all.
>
> Who cares about Vista. Hardly anyone uses it anyway. As for KDE4, I'd
> rather it is released when it is finished, than released now and
> finished in regular semi-yearly upgrade steps later. What is there to
> "straighten out" about that?
> In the meantime, KDE3.5.8 has been released, and not because the
> Kalendar told them it was time to do a release.
>

I certainly understand that KDE 4 is a massive undertaking due to
essentially being a complete rewrite. However, the point is that if they
are simply going to use "when it is done" as the sole criteria for
release, they should not be throwing dates around. If they are going to
announce a date, then they should do as much as possible to stick to it.
The nice thing about GNOME is that it is regularly released with new
functionality and bug-fixes, the releases are predictable, and it is a
project that constantly evolves. While that does mean that the updates
are more often, it also means that they are less severe and involve less
of a learning curve from users.

> I use both GNOME and KDE, and I'd have to say that GNOME is really easy
> to use for beginners. Yet everyone I ever gave a choice strongly
> preferred KDE. I don't know why either.

I must say that I have had the opposite experience myself, save for some
new converts to GNU/Linux or other UNIX-like systems from the world of
Windows. It is somewhat infrequent that people I have worked with
actually run into the limitations of KDE, but when they do, that's it.
Open-source/free software or not, perception is still a major issue, and
if something is not cutting it, then it is likely that the name is going
to be marred forever, at least insofar as a given user is concerned.

That having been said, when KDE 4 is released, I do hope that it proves
to be as featureful and robust as the hype that I have heard. It would
be nice, if only for the fact that competition is something that benefits
everyone, and continued hard-core competition is something that will keep
both KDE and GNOME from ever becoming stagnant.

--- Mike

--
Michael B. Trausch
Ubuntu Unofficial Backports Project
Pidgin, ufiformat, and more; supporting Ubuntu Feisty and Gutsy

David Wührer

Michael B. Trausch wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:06:27 +0100, David Wührer wrote:
>
>> Are you saying knode crashes when it does something it cannot do?
>
> No, I am saying that it does not do it; I chose my words poorly there, I
> should have said "I have found the overall stability of the system to be
> negatively impacted when doing...", which would have been more clear. My
> apologies for being ambiguous in my statement.

I guess I am still reading it wrong. What does the lack of features have to
do with stability?

> Applications that use one toolkit do not look right with a DE of another
> toolkit. Not a huge issue save for the fact that often they have had
> different perceptions of things like font sizes and the like. Granted,
> this may have changed, but I still do not like mixing and matching
> applications and environments. At best, it looks kludgy and does not
> present a uniform interface to the user, given that they follow different
> user interface guidelines.

The gtk-qt-engine is a theme that makes GNOME-apps use qt and the KDE-theme.
This solves the problem with fonts and font-sizes (for KDE users at least).
Icons and file requesters may still betray the original environment of the
app though.

I don't know how to make KDE- and qt-apps use the GNOME-theme, but I'm quite
confident that there is a solution.

> I certainly understand that KDE 4 is a massive undertaking due to
> essentially being a complete rewrite. However, the point is that if they
> are simply going to use "when it is done" as the sole criteria for
> release, they should not be throwing dates around. If they are going to
> announce a date, then they should do as much as possible to stick to it.

Optimistic release dates are expected nowadays. Even Debian is doing it.

"When it's done" is not a bad release date if the goal is dependable
stability. (Except for companies that have to be afraid of running out of
money before the product or the competitor is ready of course.)

An alternative would be to add new things along the way without tagged
releases, if a permanently mutating system is not a problem.

I think GNOME has a nice middle way with the advantages of both approaches.
New things can be added in small increments without being unexpected.

>> I use both GNOME and KDE, and I'd have to say that GNOME is really easy
>> to use for beginners. Yet everyone I ever gave a choice strongly
>> preferred KDE. I don't know why either.
>
> I must say that I have had the opposite experience myself, save for some
> new converts to GNU/Linux or other UNIX-like systems from the world of
> Windows.

Maybe it's the default colour and icon themes, or the double-click thing.
(Most people I introduced to Linux never or rarely used computers before.)
No one wanted to stick with enlightenment though.

> That having been said, when KDE 4 is released, I do hope that it proves
> to be as featureful and robust as the hype that I have heard. It would
> be nice, if only for the fact that competition is something that benefits
> everyone, and continued hard-core competition is something that will keep
> both KDE and GNOME from ever becoming stagnant.

I don't think there is reason to worry about lack of competition. There is
not only GNOME and KDE, but also xfce, enlightenment, fluxbox, and the
occasional WindowMaker. And is it really competition? Most recent efforts
are towards compatibility and interoperability. I think it is more about
filling niches, or providing frameworks for different needs.

Personally, I am looking forward to the improvements in performance that
were announced with qt4 and plasma. I don't know if I will notice any
difference, but maybe the CPU will.