[arch-general] We have lost the desktop war. The reason? Windows 7.
This thread will probably erupt in a massive flamewar, yet I decided to post my story anyway. I am talking about the desktop experience in general, not the technical details behind it. Keep that in mind. I've been working these past few months with KDE 4.3 and it feels very sluggish and incomplete. I can't enable the desktop effects because that makes things even slower. I'm doing this on a fairly decent setup, an AMD Sempron 2 Ghz with an nVidia FX5500. My laptop suffers from this sluggishness as well. On top of that, lots of things annoy me in KDE 4.3, see the end of this post for my top annoyances. Yesterday I had to reboot to my Windows XP installation on this computer and I was shocked when I arrived in XP's userland. Everything was ridiculously fast. When returning to my linux desktop everything felt even more sluggish. That's when I decided to go back to KDE 3.5. I restored my old KDE 3.5 profile, installed the necessary packages and logged back in. WOOOOOF, everything is fast again. Opening new windows is instantaneous, hell even bringing up context menus is faster. If Linux is that much better, why does the current Linux desktop (KDE 4.3) still suck compared to an operating system that's 8 years old? Last week I also had the chance to check out Windows 7, and I was stumped. I was genuinly impressed by Windows 7's GUI. It feels fast, works fluently, it has nice effects which just work and work FAST. When browsing around it felt like a very solid desktop environment. I am jealous. I really am. The thought of using Windows 7 in favor of KDE 4.3 has occured to me much more than I like. And it's little things like dragging the windows to the top of the screen makes them maximized, dragging them to the left makes the take exactly 50% of the screen. How many times have you been manually resizing windows to fit next to each other? I have, too many times. These are things that really improve your productivity. So when should we have started working at a better desktop environment for Linux? When Mac OS X came out. When was that again? 2001. Yes, it really was that long ago. It already had awesome desktop effects that just work on (compared to these days) VERY modest hardware. And it worked fast as well. It was and still is a solid desktop environment. From that point on the Linux community should have recognized the threat Mac OS X was for the desktop environment. Unfortunately nobody did and we went on creating a big mess, fighting over implementations and technical details instead of attempting to create a solid desktop environment. Yet we did have a second chance in 2007. Microsoft obviously screwed up with Windows Vista, we had the chance to win back alot of terrain here until the release of Windows 7. So what did we come up with? KDE 4. Yes, a big dissapointment. We still don't have something that's comparable. So basically, where are we at? KDE 3.5 is Windows XP KDE 4.3 is Windows Vista ??? is Windows 7 When are we getting to the Windows 7 stage? Microsoft didn't do a big advertising campaign for the launch of Windows 7, nevertheless they delivered a big slap in the face to the Linux desktop environments. The numbers speak for themselves, Windows 7 has already sold more copies in its first week than Windows Vista did in its first month. And with good riddance, Windows 7 really is better than Windows Vista. Microsoft recognized the problems with Windows Vista and dealt with them. And dealt with them swiftly if you ask me, doing it in less then 3 years. Conclusion We are losing ground. We are losing it fast. Our competitors recognize what the user wants and delivered. If we are comparing enterprise desktops, there's no going around Red Hat. The current Red Hat desktop (5.4) ships with KDE 3.5, while its succesor RHEL 6 will be, if looking what Fedora brings now, shipped with KDE 4.2 or 4.3. That means KDE 4.2/4.3 will be the main desktop for enterprises for at least the next 3 years. A disgrace if you ask me. Users will be comparing desktop environments and they will find Windows 7 or Mac OS X to be better. After the damage RHEL 6 will have done to the reputation of the Linux desktop, it will take again as many years to rectify the damage done. Granted if we will have a solid desktop environment comparable to Windows 7 by the time RHEL 7 gets released. Which I can't help but doubt. My top KDE 4.3 annoyances: * Slooooowwww. Logging in takes a multifold of times it did under KDE 3.5, repainting windows takes up a lot of time * The battery status applet is buggy, it only shows the actual percentage after you've hovered it with the mouse, even when you've set it to always display. The scale it uses is also difficult to interpret. These bugs have been reported a long time ago and are still not fixed. * The run dialog is useless. The reason is the history function. It can't display a full history when you start typing, you have to type alot more. Having a pull down menu and using the arrow keys to select the entry you want is alot faster. Even Microsoft knows they shouldn't touch that dialog, it still works like a charm in windows 7. * Double clicking the system icon in the titlebar doesn't always work to close an application (the system icon is the left-most icon in the titlebar). This bug has also been reported a long time ago and still not fixed. * I get a full 10 minutes of extra runtime on my laptop when I switched back to 3.5 * Power management is buggy in KDE 4.3 and sometimes powerdevil just loses its settings * Some settings KDE 3.5 used to have aren't there anymore in KDE 4.3. * Where's my "home" icon!!!??? :-(
So basically, where are we at? KDE 3.5 is Windows XP KDE 4.3 is Windows Vista ??? is Windows 7
awesome is Windows 1 --vk
RedShift wrote:
This thread will probably erupt in a massive flamewar, yet I decided to post my story anyway. I am talking about the desktop experience in general, not the technical details behind it. Keep that in mind.
So you posted in both the forums and here... Seriously, get a blog. Allan
Allan McRae wrote:
RedShift wrote:
This thread will probably erupt in a massive flamewar, yet I decided to post my story anyway. I am talking about the desktop experience in general, not the technical details behind it. Keep that in mind.
So you posted in both the forums and here...
Seriously, get a blog.
Yes I did, because I feel the more technical people roam the mailinglists and the more casual user the forums. I want to hear all the sides. Glenn
2009/10/26 RedShift <redshift@pandora.be>
Allan McRae wrote:
So you posted in both the forums and here...
Seriously, get a blog.
Yes I did, because I feel the more technical people roam the mailinglists and the more casual user the forums. I want to hear all the sides.
"I am talking about the desktop experience in general, not the technical details behind it. Keep that in mind." If you're not talking technical details, why post to the list to get the thoughts of the "technical" people? I agree with Allan, this is definitely more suitable for a blog.
go away On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 6:17 AM, RedShift <redshift@pandora.be> wrote:
Allan McRae wrote:
RedShift wrote:
This thread will probably erupt in a massive flamewar, yet I decided to post my story anyway. I am talking about the desktop experience in general, not the technical details behind it. Keep that in mind.
So you posted in both the forums and here...
Seriously, get a blog.
Yes I did, because I feel the more technical people roam the mailinglists and the more casual user the forums. I want to hear all the sides.
Glenn
On 26 Oct 2009 at 11:57, RedShift wrote:
This thread will probably erupt in a massive flamewar, yet I decided to post my story anyway. I am talking about the desktop experience in general, not the technical details behind it. Keep that in mind.
I've been working these past few months with KDE 4.3 and it feels very sluggish and incomplete. I can't enable the desktop effects because that makes things even slower. I'm doing this on a fairly decent setup, an AMD Sempron 2 Ghz with an nVidia FX5500. My laptop suffers from this sluggishness as well. On top of that, lots of things annoy me in KDE 4.3, see the end of this post for my top annoyances. Yesterday I had to reboot to my Windows XP installation on this computer and I was shocked when I arrived in XP's userland. Everything was ridiculously fast. When returning to my linux desktop everything felt even more sluggish. That's when I decided to go back to KDE 3.5. I restored my old KDE 3.5 profile, installed the necessary packages and logged back in. WOOOOOF, everything is fast again. Opening new windows is instantaneous, hell even bringing up context menus is faster. If Linux is that much better, why does the current Linux desktop (KDE 4.3) still suck compared to an operating system that's 8 years old?
Last week I also had the chance to check out Windows 7, and I was stumped. I was genuinly impressed by Windows 7's GUI. It feels fast, works fluently, it has nice effects which just work and work FAST. When browsing around it felt like a very solid desktop environment. I am jealous. I really am. The thought of using Windows 7 in favor of KDE 4.3 has occured to me much more than I like. And it's little things like dragging the windows to the top of the screen makes them maximized, dragging them to the left makes the take exactly 50% of the screen. How many times have you been manually resizing windows to fit next to each other? I have, too many times. These are things that really improve your productivity.
So when should we have started working at a better desktop environment for Linux?
When Mac OS X came out. When was that again? 2001. Yes, it really was that long ago. It already had awesome desktop effects that just work on (compared to these days) VERY modest hardware. And it worked fast as well. It was and still is a solid desktop environment. From that point on the Linux community should have recognized the threat Mac OS X was for the desktop environment. Unfortunately nobody did and we went on creating a big mess, fighting over implementations and technical details instead of attempting to create a solid desktop environment.
Yet we did have a second chance in 2007. Microsoft obviously screwed up with Windows Vista, we had the chance to win back alot of terrain here until the release of Windows 7. So what did we come up with? KDE 4. Yes, a big dissapointment. We still don't have something that's comparable.
So basically, where are we at? KDE 3.5 is Windows XP KDE 4.3 is Windows Vista ??? is Windows 7
When are we getting to the Windows 7 stage?
Microsoft didn't do a big advertising campaign for the launch of Windows 7, nevertheless they delivered a big slap in the face to the Linux desktop environments. The numbers speak for themselves, Windows 7 has already sold more copies in its first week than Windows Vista did in its first month. And with good riddance, Windows 7 really is better than Windows Vista. Microsoft recognized the problems with Windows Vista and dealt with them. And dealt with them swiftly if you ask me, doing it in less then 3 years.
Conclusion
We are losing ground. We are losing it fast. Our competitors recognize what the user wants and delivered.
If we are comparing enterprise desktops, there's no going around Red Hat. The current Red Hat desktop (5.4) ships with KDE 3.5, while its succesor RHEL 6 will be, if looking what Fedora brings now, shipped with KDE 4.2 or 4.3. That means KDE 4.2/4.3 will be the main desktop for enterprises for at least the next 3 years. A disgrace if you ask me. Users will be comparing desktop environments and they will find Windows 7 or Mac OS X to be better. After the damage RHEL 6 will have done to the reputation of the Linux desktop, it will take again as many years to rectify the damage done. Granted if we will have a solid desktop environment comparable to Windows 7 by the time RHEL 7 gets released. Which I can't help but doubt.
My top KDE 4.3 annoyances: * Slooooowwww. Logging in takes a multifold of times it did under KDE 3.5, repainting windows takes up a lot of time * The battery status applet is buggy, it only shows the actual percentage after you've hovered it with the mouse, even when you've set it to always display. The scale it uses is also difficult to interpret. These bugs have been reported a long time ago and are still not fixed. * The run dialog is useless. The reason is the history function. It can't display a full history when you start typing, you have to type alot more. Having a pull down menu and using the arrow keys to select the entry you want is alot faster. Even Microsoft knows they shouldn't touch that dialog, it still works like a charm in windows 7. * Double clicking the system icon in the titlebar doesn't always work to close an application (the system icon is the left-most icon in the titlebar). This bug has also been reported a long time ago and still not fixed. * I get a full 10 minutes of extra runtime on my laptop when I switched back to 3.5 * Power management is buggy in KDE 4.3 and sometimes powerdevil just loses its settings * Some settings KDE 3.5 used to have aren't there anymore in KDE 4.3. * Where's my "home" icon!!!??? :-(
I guess you are right about everything. As a desktop Windows is better than KDE. If desktop is all that is matter for you then you should go for it :) By the way Alt+F2 is something I like in KDE4.3.2 for example. What about you? Is there anything you like in KDE4.3? I think it's always good to see things you like and to try to be positive even if KDE4.3 sucks. Thanks for the message. -- O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
Jozsef wrote:
I guess you are right about everything. As a desktop Windows is better than KDE. If desktop is all that is matter for you then you should go for it :)
By the way Alt+F2 is something I like in KDE4.3.2 for example. What about you? Is there anything you like in KDE4.3?
I think it's always good to see things you like and to try to be positive even if KDE4.3 sucks.
Of course there are things I like about KDE 4.3. A few examples: * The desktop effects are integrated into the window manager. No more messing around with compiz * When those effects are enabled, you do have cool things like a window preview when hovering the taskbar. This is what I miss most * You can fetch external themes, backgrounds, color schemes, etc... directly from within the applets that are responsible for those settings. No more searching around the web for nice themes, no more installing in obscure locations, it's now all done for you * I really like the concept plasma brings to the desktop * The KDE team has provided measures to "turn back the clock" (classic start menu, classic desktop) * Lots of KDE software runs under windows. This brings kate, my favorite editor, to the windows desktop * KDE still has better abstraction of file locations than windows or gnome However, for me, the negatives unfortunatly outweigh the positives. For the most part, because they don't really enhance my productivity. Glenn
On 10/26/2009 07:35 AM, RedShift wrote:
* KDE still has better abstraction of file locations than windows or gnome
Yup, the KIO stuff rocks. In fact, even though I switched to Xfce, I'm still using Konqueror for the file manager, since it's awesome, and since Thunar doesn't support network file systems. DR
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 03:19:06PM +0400, Jozsef wrote:
By the way Alt+F2 is something I like in KDE4.3.2 for example.
I read Ctrl+Alt+F2 for a moment. Sorry.
2009/10/26 RedShift <redshift@pandora.be>:
This thread will probably erupt in a massive flamewar, yet I decided to post my story anyway. I am talking about the desktop experience in general, not the technical details behind it. Keep that in mind.
I've been working these past few months with KDE 4.3 and it feels very sluggish and incomplete. I can't enable the desktop effects because that makes things even slower. I'm doing this on a fairly decent setup, an AMD Sempron 2 Ghz with an nVidia FX5500. My laptop suffers from this sluggishness as well. On top of that, lots of things annoy me in KDE 4.3, see the end of this post for my top annoyances. Yesterday I had to reboot to my Windows XP installation on this computer and I was shocked when I arrived in XP's userland. Everything was ridiculously fast. When returning to my linux desktop everything felt even more sluggish. That's when I decided to go back to KDE 3.5. I restored my old KDE 3.5 profile, installed the necessary packages and logged back in. WOOOOOF, everything is fast again. Opening new windows is instantaneous, hell even bringing up context menus is faster. If Linux is that much better, why does the current Linux desktop (KDE 4.3) still suck compared to an operating system that's 8 years old?
Last week I also had the chance to check out Windows 7, and I was stumped. I was genuinly impressed by Windows 7's GUI. It feels fast, works fluently, it has nice effects which just work and work FAST. When browsing around it felt like a very solid desktop environment. I am jealous. I really am. The thought of using Windows 7 in favor of KDE 4.3 has occured to me much more than I like. And it's little things like dragging the windows to the top of the screen makes them maximized, dragging them to the left makes the take exactly 50% of the screen. How many times have you been manually resizing windows to fit next to each other? I have, too many times. These are things that really improve your productivity.
So when should we have started working at a better desktop environment for Linux?
When Mac OS X came out. When was that again? 2001. Yes, it really was that long ago. It already had awesome desktop effects that just work on (compared to these days) VERY modest hardware. And it worked fast as well. It was and still is a solid desktop environment. From that point on the Linux community should have recognized the threat Mac OS X was for the desktop environment. Unfortunately nobody did and we went on creating a big mess, fighting over implementations and technical details instead of attempting to create a solid desktop environment.
Yet we did have a second chance in 2007. Microsoft obviously screwed up with Windows Vista, we had the chance to win back alot of terrain here until the release of Windows 7. So what did we come up with? KDE 4. Yes, a big dissapointment. We still don't have something that's comparable.
So basically, where are we at? KDE 3.5 is Windows XP KDE 4.3 is Windows Vista ??? is Windows 7
When are we getting to the Windows 7 stage?
Microsoft didn't do a big advertising campaign for the launch of Windows 7, nevertheless they delivered a big slap in the face to the Linux desktop environments. The numbers speak for themselves, Windows 7 has already sold more copies in its first week than Windows Vista did in its first month. And with good riddance, Windows 7 really is better than Windows Vista. Microsoft recognized the problems with Windows Vista and dealt with them. And dealt with them swiftly if you ask me, doing it in less then 3 years.
Conclusion
We are losing ground. We are losing it fast. Our competitors recognize what the user wants and delivered.
If we are comparing enterprise desktops, there's no going around Red Hat. The current Red Hat desktop (5.4) ships with KDE 3.5, while its succesor RHEL 6 will be, if looking what Fedora brings now, shipped with KDE 4.2 or 4.3. That means KDE 4.2/4.3 will be the main desktop for enterprises for at least the next 3 years. A disgrace if you ask me. Users will be comparing desktop environments and they will find Windows 7 or Mac OS X to be better. After the damage RHEL 6 will have done to the reputation of the Linux desktop, it will take again as many years to rectify the damage done. Granted if we will have a solid desktop environment comparable to Windows 7 by the time RHEL 7 gets released. Which I can't help but doubt.
My top KDE 4.3 annoyances: * Slooooowwww. Logging in takes a multifold of times it did under KDE 3.5, repainting windows takes up a lot of time * The battery status applet is buggy, it only shows the actual percentage after you've hovered it with the mouse, even when you've set it to always display. The scale it uses is also difficult to interpret. These bugs have been reported a long time ago and are still not fixed. * The run dialog is useless. The reason is the history function. It can't display a full history when you start typing, you have to type alot more. Having a pull down menu and using the arrow keys to select the entry you want is alot faster. Even Microsoft knows they shouldn't touch that dialog, it still works like a charm in windows 7. * Double clicking the system icon in the titlebar doesn't always work to close an application (the system icon is the left-most icon in the titlebar). This bug has also been reported a long time ago and still not fixed. * I get a full 10 minutes of extra runtime on my laptop when I switched back to 3.5 * Power management is buggy in KDE 4.3 and sometimes powerdevil just loses its settings * Some settings KDE 3.5 used to have aren't there anymore in KDE 4.3. * Where's my "home" icon!!!??? :-(
A general rule in life is that nothing is ever free. Perhaps a bold remark to use in an open-source mailing list, but cost doesn't have to be defined by money. We simply pay for using Linux by coping with slightly lower performance in some (certainly not all) areas of the desktop experience, furthermore by dealing with a lack of certain features and compatabillity with the rest of the world (office and other indistry standard applications not being available to us, the open source counterparts not being up to par with the standard due to closed-source or licencing). Though we try to stay on par, I think determining that we have lost implies that we must outperform other operating systems in every way to be considered a real alternative. KDE 4.x is in active developement, GNOME is renewing the desktop experience (albeit slowly). Things are moving along in the open source desktop world. Thankfully, linux != just desktop
However, for me, the negatives unfortunatly outweigh the positives. For the most part, because they don't really enhance my productivity
Behind != different? -- msn: stefan_wilkens@hotmail.com e-mail: stefanwilkens@gmail.com blog: http://www.stefanwilkens.eu/ adres: Lipperkerkstraat 14 7511 DA Enschede
Stefan Erik Wilkens wrote:
A general rule in life is that nothing is ever free. Perhaps a bold remark to use in an open-source mailing list, but cost doesn't have to be defined by money.
We simply pay for using Linux by coping with slightly lower performance in some (certainly not all) areas of the desktop experience, furthermore by dealing with a lack of certain features and compatabillity with the rest of the world (office and other indistry standard applications not being available to us, the open source counterparts not being up to par with the standard due to closed-source or licencing).
I haven't thought about the money aspect and yes this world does revolve around "you get what you pay for". Though I see this in a different light, just because we chose to be Free, we have to settle for less?
Though we try to stay on par, I think determining that we have lost implies that we must outperform other operating systems in every way to be considered a real alternative.
This point has come up in the forums as well. Don't we want linux/Free software to succeed in all facets of computing? Certainly because the desktop is a big chunk.
KDE 4.x is in active developement, GNOME is renewing the desktop experience (albeit slowly). Things are moving along in the open source desktop world. Thankfully, linux != just desktop
Yes and KDE 4 has made huge improvements over the releases. But my peers do feel similar and the most common response is, how can the community be so unresponsible for doing flawed releases?
However, for me, the negatives unfortunatly outweigh the positives. For the most part, because they don't really enhance my productivity
Behind != different?
I don't consider being "behind" as being "different" Glenn
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:41:01 +0100 Stefan Erik Wilkens <stefanwilkens@gmail.com> wrote:
2009/10/26 RedShift <redshift@pandora.be>:
This thread will probably erupt in a massive flamewar, yet I decided to post my story anyway. I am talking about the desktop experience in general, not the technical details behind it. Keep that in mind.
I've been working these past few months with KDE 4.3 and it feels very sluggish and incomplete. I can't enable the desktop effects because that makes things even slower. I'm doing this on a fairly decent setup, an AMD Sempron 2 Ghz with an nVidia FX5500. My laptop suffers from this sluggishness as well. On top of that, lots of things annoy me in KDE 4.3, see the end of this post for my top annoyances. Yesterday I had to reboot to my Windows XP installation on this computer and I was shocked when I arrived in XP's userland. Everything was ridiculously fast. When returning to my linux desktop everything felt even more sluggish. That's when I decided to go back to KDE 3.5. I restored my old KDE 3.5 profile, installed the necessary packages and logged back in. WOOOOOF, everything is fast again. Opening new windows is instantaneous, hell even bringing up context menus is faster. If Linux is that much better, why does the current Linux desktop (KDE 4.3) still suck compared to an operating system that's 8 years old?
Last week I also had the chance to check out Windows 7, and I was stumped. I was genuinly impressed by Windows 7's GUI. It feels fast, works fluently, it has nice effects which just work and work FAST. When browsing around it felt like a very solid desktop environment. I am jealous. I really am. The thought of using Windows 7 in favor of KDE 4.3 has occured to me much more than I like. And it's little things like dragging the windows to the top of the screen makes them maximized, dragging them to the left makes the take exactly 50% of the screen. How many times have you been manually resizing windows to fit next to each other? I have, too many times. These are things that really improve your productivity.
So when should we have started working at a better desktop environment for Linux?
When Mac OS X came out. When was that again? 2001. Yes, it really was that long ago. It already had awesome desktop effects that just work on (compared to these days) VERY modest hardware. And it worked fast as well. It was and still is a solid desktop environment. From that point on the Linux community should have recognized the threat Mac OS X was for the desktop environment. Unfortunately nobody did and we went on creating a big mess, fighting over implementations and technical details instead of attempting to create a solid desktop environment.
Yet we did have a second chance in 2007. Microsoft obviously screwed up with Windows Vista, we had the chance to win back alot of terrain here until the release of Windows 7. So what did we come up with? KDE 4. Yes, a big dissapointment. We still don't have something that's comparable.
So basically, where are we at? KDE 3.5 is Windows XP KDE 4.3 is Windows Vista ??? is Windows 7
When are we getting to the Windows 7 stage?
Microsoft didn't do a big advertising campaign for the launch of Windows 7, nevertheless they delivered a big slap in the face to the Linux desktop environments. The numbers speak for themselves, Windows 7 has already sold more copies in its first week than Windows Vista did in its first month. And with good riddance, Windows 7 really is better than Windows Vista. Microsoft recognized the problems with Windows Vista and dealt with them. And dealt with them swiftly if you ask me, doing it in less then 3 years.
Conclusion
We are losing ground. We are losing it fast. Our competitors recognize what the user wants and delivered.
If we are comparing enterprise desktops, there's no going around Red Hat. The current Red Hat desktop (5.4) ships with KDE 3.5, while its succesor RHEL 6 will be, if looking what Fedora brings now, shipped with KDE 4.2 or 4.3. That means KDE 4.2/4.3 will be the main desktop for enterprises for at least the next 3 years. A disgrace if you ask me. Users will be comparing desktop environments and they will find Windows 7 or Mac OS X to be better. After the damage RHEL 6 will have done to the reputation of the Linux desktop, it will take again as many years to rectify the damage done. Granted if we will have a solid desktop environment comparable to Windows 7 by the time RHEL 7 gets released. Which I can't help but doubt.
My top KDE 4.3 annoyances: * Slooooowwww. Logging in takes a multifold of times it did under KDE 3.5, repainting windows takes up a lot of time * The battery status applet is buggy, it only shows the actual percentage after you've hovered it with the mouse, even when you've set it to always display. The scale it uses is also difficult to interpret. These bugs have been reported a long time ago and are still not fixed. * The run dialog is useless. The reason is the history function. It can't display a full history when you start typing, you have to type alot more. Having a pull down menu and using the arrow keys to select the entry you want is alot faster. Even Microsoft knows they shouldn't touch that dialog, it still works like a charm in windows 7. * Double clicking the system icon in the titlebar doesn't always work to close an application (the system icon is the left-most icon in the titlebar). This bug has also been reported a long time ago and still not fixed. * I get a full 10 minutes of extra runtime on my laptop when I switched back to 3.5 * Power management is buggy in KDE 4.3 and sometimes powerdevil just loses its settings * Some settings KDE 3.5 used to have aren't there anymore in KDE 4.3. * Where's my "home" icon!!!??? :-(
A general rule in life is that nothing is ever free. Perhaps a bold remark to use in an open-source mailing list, but cost doesn't have to be defined by money.
We simply pay for using Linux by coping with slightly lower performance in some (certainly not all) areas of the desktop experience, furthermore by dealing with a lack of certain features and compatabillity with the rest of the world (office and other indistry standard applications not being available to us, the open source counterparts not being up to par with the standard due to closed-source or licencing).
Though we try to stay on par, I think determining that we have lost implies that we must outperform other operating systems in every way to be considered a real alternative.
KDE 4.x is in active developement, GNOME is renewing the desktop experience (albeit slowly). Things are moving along in the open source desktop world. Thankfully, linux != just desktop
Am I happy to hear that. I say this because I'm under the impression that people see only two kinds of linux uses: 1) The traditional server 2) The Desktop You can, at this time, still do both, but everything in between is getting more and more difficult. The problem is that the Desktop Environments, GNOME and KDE, in their quest for "integrated desktop experience" push more and more stuff that's really only useful to those DEs deeper and deeper into the system. If you as a user need or want it or not, you get it. I'd like to provide an example. I'm using an oldish PC and like to pick the apps I use myself, therefor the DE's so-called 'integration' is just unnecessary and rather hindering in the background. I also like configuration. Those are the main reasons I don't use DEs. Recently I tried to figure out what console-kit is actually good for. Here's an excerpt of the manual that I especially like: Defining the Problem To be written. http://www.freedesktop.org/software/ConsoleKit/doc/ConsoleKit.html#id312255 I figured out that it's only useful for something called 'fast user switching', something I definitely don't need. When trying to remove it I figured that HAL requires it. HAL also requires something called policy-kit, yet another thing I don't know what it does. I recompiled HAL without either, and the system still works as before. Somewhere during the research I figured that HAL is supposed to be replaced by something called device-kit. HAL isn't really needed says the author in an email, pretty much all the work is done by udev etc.. So I figured, hey, why not just remove HAL, this way the kits won't come back with the next update, and all I use HAL for is mounting usb drives, something that can be done with udev rules as well. Well, trying to do this I found five apps requiring it, the most surprising: xorg-server Conclusion: Yeah, great, install xorg for a minimal graphical desktop, what you get is console-kit, for a minor feature in a monster DE. When will "Desktop" people start to see that they are being intrusive? They live in their own small bubble called GNOME or KDE and can't ever imagine anyone not wanting to use this. Sorry for this "slightly" off topic rant, but it annoys me on a regular basis when I see applications depend on gnome or kde, mostly for some stupid reason called 'integration' which really isn't of much use in the specific DE they integrate with and a hindrance to everyone who's not running exactly that DE. So please, next time you call something integration, think beyond the bubble. In our little Linux world with limited developer time we need real integration, real solutions and still freedom of choice. Philipp
hollunder@gmx.at wrote:
The problem is that the Desktop Environments, GNOME and KDE, in their quest for "integrated desktop experience" push more and more stuff that's really only useful to those DEs deeper and deeper into the system. If you as a user need or want it or not, you get it.
I warned about that 2 years ago, and no one would listen. Thankfully we are at a point were it gets so undenyable that the anger about the problem is gaining momentum. I'm lurking in my corner waiting for the day that the crowd is big enough to form a community (maybe even a distro) Until then, here are some steps to punch some sanity into your (arch)linux destop: 1) http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ABS_-_The_Arch_Build_System 2) IgnorePkg = dbus dbus-core gconf hal 3) foreach in {xorg,emacs,qt,webkit,..} 3.1) find and remove --enable-dbus, --enable-gconf , --enable-hal, --with-hal, --other-shite 3.2) makepgk && sudo pacman -U 4) foreach in {iron,chromium,cups,...} 4.1) take a random library, rename it to libdbus, libgconf, libwhatever, and LD_PRELOAD it. 4.2) notice that that the software will gracefully handle the missing symbols, despite it "needs" them 5) foreach in $unfixable_software 5.1) pacman -R $unfixable_software 6) pacman -R dbus-core dbus gconf 7) remove shit from /etc/cron.d/ 8) Happy face -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:33:12 +0100 Arvid Picciani <aep@exys.org> wrote:
hollunder@gmx.at wrote:
The problem is that the Desktop Environments, GNOME and KDE, in their quest for "integrated desktop experience" push more and more stuff that's really only useful to those DEs deeper and deeper into the system. If you as a user need or want it or not, you get it.
I warned about that 2 years ago, and no one would listen. Thankfully we are at a point were it gets so undenyable that the anger about the problem is gaining momentum. I'm lurking in my corner waiting for the day that the crowd is big enough to form a community (maybe even a distro)
Until then, here are some steps to punch some sanity into your (arch)linux destop:
1) http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ABS_-_The_Arch_Build_System
2) IgnorePkg = dbus dbus-core gconf hal
3) foreach in {xorg,emacs,qt,webkit,..}
3.1) find and remove --enable-dbus, --enable-gconf , --enable-hal, --with-hal, --other-shite
3.2) makepgk && sudo pacman -U
4) foreach in {iron,chromium,cups,...}
4.1) take a random library, rename it to libdbus, libgconf, libwhatever, and LD_PRELOAD it.
4.2) notice that that the software will gracefully handle the missing symbols, despite it "needs" them
5) foreach in $unfixable_software
5.1) pacman -R $unfixable_software
6) pacman -R dbus-core dbus gconf
7) remove shit from /etc/cron.d/
8) Happy face
great mail. I don't see what's so bad with dbus though. Dieter
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:01 AM, <hollunder@gmx.at> wrote:
Conclusion: Yeah, great, install xorg for a minimal graphical desktop, what you get is console-kit, for a minor feature in a monster DE. When will "Desktop" people start to see that they are being intrusive? They live in their own small bubble called GNOME or KDE and can't ever imagine anyone not wanting to use this. Sorry for this "slightly" off topic rant, but it annoys me on a regular basis when I see applications depend on gnome or kde, mostly for some stupid reason called 'integration' which really isn't of much use in the specific DE they integrate with and a hindrance to everyone who's not running exactly that DE.
So please, next time you call something integration, think beyond the bubble. In our little Linux world with limited developer time we need real integration, real solutions and still freedom of choice.
You read my mind. I was debating adding a little rant here about the necessity of hal, consolekit, policykit, devicekit, whatever-the-hellkit to do the stupidest things. It's real counter-intuitive. And don't even get me started about linux audio - apparently the core market for linux audio developers are people doing live, realtime, studio recordings with a line-in jack on a laptop[1] - not the people who just want their machine to beep at them. I absolutely positively hate that all this shit is getting integrated into the lower level portions of the operating environment. The xorg/hal coupling is gross and disgusting if you don't want or need hal. Soon enough, I'll bet udev and devicekit are going to require each other. When this starts to happen, it's time to stop using this crap 1: Paraphrasing cactus here
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:01 AM, <hollunder@gmx.at> wrote:
Conclusion: Yeah, great, install xorg for a minimal graphical desktop, what you get is console-kit, for a minor feature in a monster DE. When will "Desktop" people start to see that they are being intrusive? They live in their own small bubble called GNOME or KDE and can't ever imagine anyone not wanting to use this. Sorry for this "slightly" off topic rant, but it annoys me on a regular basis when I see applications depend on gnome or kde, mostly for some stupid reason called 'integration' which really isn't of much use in the specific DE they integrate with and a hindrance to everyone who's not running exactly that DE.
So please, next time you call something integration, think beyond the bubble. In our little Linux world with limited developer time we need real integration, real solutions and still freedom of choice.
You read my mind. I was debating adding a little rant here about the necessity of hal, consolekit, policykit, devicekit, whatever-the-hellkit to do the stupidest things. It's real counter-intuitive. And don't even get me started about linux audio - apparently the core market for linux audio developers are people doing live, realtime, studio recordings with a line-in jack on a laptop[1] - not the people who just want their machine to beep at them.
I absolutely positively hate that all this shit is getting integrated into the lower level portions of the operating environment. The xorg/hal coupling is gross and disgusting if you don't want or need hal. Soon enough, I'll bet udev and devicekit are going to require each other. When this starts to happen, it's time to stop using this crap
1: Paraphrasing cactus here
I like where this is going, although I think d-bus, hal, etc... are good initiatives they are missing transparency and maybe their implementation is just bad. I don't see thing stopping to work not having d-bus run in the background. Definately not liking the fact that I have to configure my keyboard in some obscure XML file now. As a sidenote, I have always wondered why I have 64 threads of console-kit-daemon doing nothing. Is there a way to limit this amount? Glenn
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:40:44AM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:01 AM, <hollunder@gmx.at> wrote:
[snip]
So please, next time you call something integration, think beyond the bubble. In our little Linux world with limited developer time we need real integration, real solutions and still freedom of choice.
You read my mind.
Mine too. I got burnt when after one of the xorg updates few months ago, the mouse and keyboard stopped working. The culprit, xorg unloading the mouse and keyboard drivers and waiting for hal to send some signals to load the appropriate drivers. This I think was ridiculous. Many a time I use X without any windomanager whatsoever mainly for display boards and such stuff. I dont need any PnP here. Regards ppk
On 26.10.2009 18:07, Piyush P Kurur wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:40:44AM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:01 AM, <hollunder@gmx.at> wrote:
[snip]
So please, next time you call something integration, think beyond the bubble. In our little Linux world with limited developer time we need real integration, real solutions and still freedom of choice.
You read my mind.
Mine too. I got burnt when after one of the xorg updates few months ago, the mouse and keyboard stopped working. The culprit, xorg unloading the mouse and keyboard drivers and waiting for hal to send some signals to load the appropriate drivers. This I think was ridiculous. Many a time I use X without any windomanager whatsoever mainly for display boards and such stuff. I dont need any PnP here.
Regards
ppk
In this particular case though, you can just disable hotplugging (see http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Xorg_input_hotplugging). Please realize that PnP can be a very nice feature for many users. HAL is getting deprecated as has already been stated in this thread. Udev is slowly taking over more and more tasks from HAL and at some point, HAL will only be a wrapper for Udev calls for applications that still use the old HAL calls. At least so I hope. -- Sven-Hendrik
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh@lutzhaase.com> wrote:
On 26.10.2009 18:07, Piyush P Kurur wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:40:44AM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:01 AM, <hollunder@gmx.at> wrote:
[snip]
So please, next time you call something integration, think beyond the bubble. In our little Linux world with limited developer time we need real integration, real solutions and still freedom of choice.
You read my mind.
Mine too. I got burnt when after one of the xorg updates few months ago, the mouse and keyboard stopped working. The culprit, xorg unloading the mouse and keyboard drivers and waiting for hal to send some signals to load the appropriate drivers. This I think was ridiculous. Many a time I use X without any windomanager whatsoever mainly for display boards and such stuff. I dont need any PnP here.
In this particular case though, you can just disable hotplugging (see http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Xorg_input_hotplugging). Please realize that PnP can be a very nice feature for many users. HAL is getting deprecated as has already been stated in this thread. Udev is slowly taking over more and more tasks from HAL and at some point, HAL will only be a wrapper for Udev calls for applications that still use the old HAL calls. At least so I hope.
This is true, but it seems trivial to only do the keyboard/mouse unload junk if hal is alive. I'm sure there's a way to test for this.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 06:09:49PM +0100, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
On 26.10.2009 18:07, Piyush P Kurur wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:40:44AM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
In this particular case though, you can just disable hotplugging (see http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Xorg_input_hotplugging). Please realize that PnP can be a very nice feature for many users.
I have read the wiki and actually changed the xorg.conf to have the "AutoAddDevice" off. I am not against PnP, it helps. But I think this is not the business of xorg. It should be the business of KDE/GNOME or what not (although I am not sure whether the window manager has control over such issues). One of the (if not the) reason I like Arch and BSDs over say Debian is the simplicity. The Arch developers have really done a great job here. I dont want a X server that is overly complicated and kills the joy of Arch. Regards ppk
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:40:44 -0500 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:01 AM, <hollunder@gmx.at> wrote:
Conclusion: Yeah, great, install xorg for a minimal graphical desktop, what you get is console-kit, for a minor feature in a monster DE. When will "Desktop" people start to see that they are being intrusive? They live in their own small bubble called GNOME or KDE and can't ever imagine anyone not wanting to use this. Sorry for this "slightly" off topic rant, but it annoys me on a regular basis when I see applications depend on gnome or kde, mostly for some stupid reason called 'integration' which really isn't of much use in the specific DE they integrate with and a hindrance to everyone who's not running exactly that DE.
So please, next time you call something integration, think beyond the bubble. In our little Linux world with limited developer time we need real integration, real solutions and still freedom of choice.
You read my mind. I was debating adding a little rant here about the necessity of hal, consolekit, policykit, devicekit, whatever-the-hellkit to do the stupidest things. It's real counter-intuitive. And don't even get me started about linux audio - apparently the core market for linux audio developers are people doing live, realtime, studio recordings with a line-in jack on a laptop[1] - not the people who just want their machine to beep at them.
I absolutely positively hate that all this shit is getting integrated into the lower level portions of the operating environment. The xorg/hal coupling is gross and disgusting if you don't want or need hal. Soon enough, I'll bet udev and devicekit are going to require each other. When this starts to happen, it's time to stop using this crap
1: Paraphrasing cactus here
As it happens I'm involved in Linux Audio, and I think you're right, most developers are working on applications for what is often called "Pro Audio", basically audio production in contrast to consumption. Those on the consumption side always seem to work on yet another itunes clone. It's really two worlds. I've been involved in this for years, mostly as user/tester, and don't even know how to set anything up an .asoundrc, I don't even have one. The production world 'speaks' almost exclusively JACK, which uses alsa and oss (and drivers for firewire devices) to talk to hardware. It's great at what it does, but it's not a general purpose soundserver. I'm not quite sure to what part of the mess you're referring to, so I'll just give you my view of things. On the lowest level, talking to hardware, is alsa and oss, whereas oss has few users (Arch Linux seems to be an exception). The main benefit of oss seems to be that it's easier to program to, but it's not quite as powerful and supports less hardware. Alsa seems to be hard to program to, lacking documentation, etc.. I often read recommendations to not write for alsa directly, it seems to be hard to get it right. To make it easy for programmers to output the "klick" they want when clicking a button, abstractions were invented. Lots of them. Everyone can name a few, esd, artsd, whatever. The problem with abstraction is that it's rarely perfect (btw., I love this article about abstraction, I see those problems everywhere: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html). If you have a problem the fault can now be the abstraction layer or alsa (in addition to anything below or above). It's basically added complexity through imperfect abstraction. And a zillion different soundservers. And what comes to the rescue? PulseAudio. Yet another soundserver that tries to abstract away the difference between the zillion soundservers and applications talking to alsa/oss and then talks to the hardware through alsa. It's right in the middle of everything (redhat people seem to like that). Unfortunately it seems to also rely on consolekit, hal, policykit, ... you name it (because redhat people like that too). I experienced it when I was still on ubuntu, which was an (too) early adopter. The experience was quite bad, but I heard it got better since then. But honestly, I can see the mess, and from what I know I'd say the problem stems from alsa being too difficult to use. The alsa developers hide (from a bombardment of user questions) and no one feels up to the task of really resolving the mess. Philipp
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:43 PM, <hollunder@gmx.at> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:40:44 -0500 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:01 AM, <hollunder@gmx.at> wrote:
Conclusion: Yeah, great, install xorg for a minimal graphical desktop, what you get is console-kit, for a minor feature in a monster DE. When will "Desktop" people start to see that they are being intrusive? They live in their own small bubble called GNOME or KDE and can't ever imagine anyone not wanting to use this. Sorry for this "slightly" off topic rant, but it annoys me on a regular basis when I see applications depend on gnome or kde, mostly for some stupid reason called 'integration' which really isn't of much use in the specific DE they integrate with and a hindrance to everyone who's not running exactly that DE.
So please, next time you call something integration, think beyond the bubble. In our little Linux world with limited developer time we need real integration, real solutions and still freedom of choice.
You read my mind. I was debating adding a little rant here about the necessity of hal, consolekit, policykit, devicekit, whatever-the-hellkit to do the stupidest things. It's real counter-intuitive. And don't even get me started about linux audio - apparently the core market for linux audio developers are people doing live, realtime, studio recordings with a line-in jack on a laptop[1] - not the people who just want their machine to beep at them.
I absolutely positively hate that all this shit is getting integrated into the lower level portions of the operating environment. The xorg/hal coupling is gross and disgusting if you don't want or need hal. Soon enough, I'll bet udev and devicekit are going to require each other. When this starts to happen, it's time to stop using this crap
1: Paraphrasing cactus here
As it happens I'm involved in Linux Audio, and I think you're right, most developers are working on applications for what is often called "Pro Audio", basically audio production in contrast to consumption. Those on the consumption side always seem to work on yet another itunes clone.
It's really two worlds. I've been involved in this for years, mostly as user/tester, and don't even know how to set anything up an .asoundrc, I don't even have one. The production world 'speaks' almost exclusively JACK, which uses alsa and oss (and drivers for firewire devices) to talk to hardware. It's great at what it does, but it's not a general purpose soundserver.
I'm not quite sure to what part of the mess you're referring to, so I'll just give you my view of things.
On the lowest level, talking to hardware, is alsa and oss, whereas oss has few users (Arch Linux seems to be an exception). The main benefit of oss seems to be that it's easier to program to, but it's not quite as powerful and supports less hardware. Alsa seems to be hard to program to, lacking documentation, etc.. I often read recommendations to not write for alsa directly, it seems to be hard to get it right.
To make it easy for programmers to output the "klick" they want when clicking a button, abstractions were invented. Lots of them. Everyone can name a few, esd, artsd, whatever. The problem with abstraction is that it's rarely perfect (btw., I love this article about abstraction, I see those problems everywhere: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html). If you have a problem the fault can now be the abstraction layer or alsa (in addition to anything below or above). It's basically added complexity through imperfect abstraction. And a zillion different soundservers.
And what comes to the rescue? PulseAudio. Yet another soundserver that tries to abstract away the difference between the zillion soundservers and applications talking to alsa/oss and then talks to the hardware through alsa. It's right in the middle of everything (redhat people seem to like that). Unfortunately it seems to also rely on consolekit, hal, policykit, ... you name it (because redhat people like that too). I experienced it when I was still on ubuntu, which was an (too) early adopter. The experience was quite bad, but I heard it got better since then.
But honestly, I can see the mess, and from what I know I'd say the problem stems from alsa being too difficult to use. The alsa developers hide (from a bombardment of user questions) and no one feels up to the task of really resolving the mess.
I feel more cranky about the plethora of options and the fact that they all work differently with no real choice. You install app foo that uses JACK, great now you need jack installed and running, but your other app, bar, uses raw alsa, so now you have to fiddle with settings in multiple places. It's just so tedious and confusing. Perhaps you are right that this whole thing comes down to alsa sucking.
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:52:28 -0500 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
But honestly, I can see the mess, and from what I know I'd say the problem stems from alsa being too difficult to use. The alsa developers hide (from a bombardment of user questions) and no one feels up to the task of really resolving the mess.
I feel more cranky about the plethora of options and the fact that they all work differently with no real choice. You install app foo that uses JACK, great now you need jack installed and running, but your other app, bar, uses raw alsa, so now you have to fiddle with settings in multiple places. It's just so tedious and confusing.
Perhaps you are right that this whole thing comes down to alsa sucking.
Jack is kind of an exception here, so not the best example (it uses the device exclusively, although I heard it's possible to use it together with PA). Pa tries to solve that problem, but I'm not sure it can. I think there's at least also alsa below and possibly one of the earlier abstraction layers above. I sure understand that problem, and the only solution I see is reducing layers. But PA might help a bit, because it tries to get developers to use PA directly instead of what they used before. This of course doesn't help with legacy applications and there's still PA itself, but it could be the beginning of some sort of unification. Maybe someone will write PA without those stupid requirements, or maybe it can be stripped down, who knows.
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:08:00 +0100 <hollunder@gmx.at> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:52:28 -0500 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
But honestly, I can see the mess, and from what I know I'd say the problem stems from alsa being too difficult to use. The alsa developers hide (from a bombardment of user questions) and no one feels up to the task of really resolving the mess.
I feel more cranky about the plethora of options and the fact that they all work differently with no real choice. You install app foo that uses JACK, great now you need jack installed and running, but your other app, bar, uses raw alsa, so now you have to fiddle with settings in multiple places. It's just so tedious and confusing.
Perhaps you are right that this whole thing comes down to alsa sucking.
Jack is kind of an exception here, so not the best example (it uses the device exclusively, although I heard it's possible to use it together with PA).
Note that jack doesn't talk to hardware directly. it's up to drivers (alsa, ffado, ..) to do that
Pa tries to solve that problem, but I'm not sure it can. I think there's at least also alsa below and possibly one of the earlier abstraction layers above. I sure understand that problem, and the only solution I see is reducing layers. But PA might help a bit, because it tries to get developers to use PA directly instead of what they used before. This of course doesn't help with legacy applications and there's still PA itself, but it could be the beginning of some sort of unification.
Maybe someone will write PA without those stupid requirements, or maybe it can be stripped down, who knows.
Note that both paul davis (jack author) and lennart poettering (PA) agree that both products are good stuff but serve a different purpose. on the long term, they both wish a single audio/midi server which a unified api which works for pro-audio (lowlatency) and desktop (low powerconsumption). (think coreaudio but better) on lwn.net there was an article about that recently. see also http://www.cio.com.au/article/320807/open_source_identity_pulseaudio_creator... I met Lennart 2 weeks ago and he told that right now you can have a desktop system with PA, when you start jack, PA will detect that and change it's stuff to give jack access to the hardware and PA will talk to jack. he also had a very strong and negative opinion about OSS. he said the design goals are fundamentally flawed, trying to do way too much things in kernel space (such as floating point calcs etc) and oh yeah, he likes stuff like dbus and such. Dieter
Aaron Griffin wrote:
You read my mind. I was debating adding a little rant here about the necessity of hal, consolekit, policykit, devicekit, whatever-the-hellkit to do the stupidest things. It's real counter-intuitive. And don't even get me started about linux audio - apparently the core market for linux audio developers are people doing live, realtime, studio recordings with a line-in jack on a laptop[1] - not the people who just want their machine to beep at them.
I absolutely positively hate that all this shit is getting integrated into the lower level portions of the operating environment. The xorg/hal coupling is gross and disgusting if you don't want or need hal. Soon enough, I'll bet udev and devicekit are going to require each other. When this starts to happen, it's time to stop using this crap
cat /var/abs/extra/xorg-server/PKGBUILD 8<-- --enable-config-hal \ --enable-config-dbus \ -->8 cat /var/abs/extra/qt/PKGBUILD 8<-- patch -p1 -i $srcdir/kde-qt-${_kdeqtver}.patch || return 1 -->8 cat /var/abs/extra/cups/PKGBUILD 8<-- --enable-dbus -->8 It's not like anyone but you is forcing those upon us, Aaron. -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:01 PM, <hollunder@gmx.at> wrote:
[snip] When will "Desktop" people start to see that they are being intrusive? They live in their own small bubble called GNOME or KDE and can't ever imagine anyone not wanting to use this. Sorry for this "slightly" off topic rant, but it annoys me on a regular basis when I see applications depend on gnome or kde, mostly for some stupid reason called 'integration' which really isn't of much use in the specific DE they integrate with and a hindrance to everyone who's not running exactly that DE.
Being a Xfce user I wholeheartedly agree. I left Xubuntu for Arch a few years ago looking for minimal dependencies on applications and a way to recompile offending applications if needed. I have found what I needed. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer applications are "desktop-agnostic" these days. To install a gtk2 application I am usually asked to download half of GNOME or at least libgnomeui and gconf. Gconf is my personal favourite. Xfce already uses xfconf (btw I love its description in the repository:"xfconf.. thingie" -- looks like not only I am confused), why am I supposed to use two different configuration databases? Why can't people agree on one? Why not just save configuration in plain files, it has worked before... I have been filing feature requests on bugtrackers for alternative configuration systems, maintaining biased AUR packages and bugging Arch devs about sudden additions of dependencies. But I feel I am losing. We are destined to live in a convoluted mass of redundant dependencies. Regards, JM
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:41:58 +0100 JM <fijam@archlinux.us> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:01 PM, <hollunder@gmx.at> wrote:
[snip] When will "Desktop" people start to see that they are being intrusive? They live in their own small bubble called GNOME or KDE and can't ever imagine anyone not wanting to use this. Sorry for this "slightly" off topic rant, but it annoys me on a regular basis when I see applications depend on gnome or kde, mostly for some stupid reason called 'integration' which really isn't of much use in the specific DE they integrate with and a hindrance to everyone who's not running exactly that DE.
Being a Xfce user I wholeheartedly agree. I left Xubuntu for Arch a few years ago looking for minimal dependencies on applications and a way to recompile offending applications if needed. I have found what I needed.
Unfortunately, fewer and fewer applications are "desktop-agnostic" these days. To install a gtk2 application I am usually asked to download half of GNOME or at least libgnomeui and gconf. Gconf is my personal favourite. Xfce already uses xfconf (btw I love its description in the repository:"xfconf.. thingie" -- looks like not only I am confused), why am I supposed to use two different configuration databases? Why can't people agree on one? Why not just save configuration in plain files, it has worked before...
I have been filing feature requests on bugtrackers for alternative configuration systems, maintaining biased AUR packages and bugging Arch devs about sudden additions of dependencies. But I feel I am losing. We are destined to live in a convoluted mass of redundant dependencies.
Regards, JM
Wait until dbus eat our babies and the dependency threads strangle us :) Well, I guess they try to 'integrate' again, all config in one place, but again only for their bubble. I also encountered gconf a couple of times, and a bunch of other stuff as well. For me gtk and gnome are two very different things. Same goes for qt and kde. Yet application developers seem to rarely see a problem with adding gnome/kde dependencies to their gtk/qt app. I wonder why this is. I also wonder why they don't make more stuff optional. Probably because it's hard, but what is the hard part there?
Am Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:58:49 +0100 schrieb <hollunder@gmx.at>:
Unfortunately, fewer and fewer applications are "desktop-agnostic" these days. To install a gtk2 application I am usually asked to download half of GNOME or at least libgnomeui and gconf. Gconf is my personal favourite. Xfce already uses xfconf (btw I love its description in the repository:"xfconf.. thingie" -- looks like not only I am confused), why am I supposed to use two different configuration databases? Why can't people agree on one? Why not just save configuration in plain files, it has worked before...
Well, I guess they try to 'integrate' again, all config in one place, but again only for their bubble.
Isn't there already an OS with such a terrible, bloated and cryptical all config in one place database called registry? And wasn't there a principle in Unix/Linux: "Everything is a file."? Both were two of many reasons why I completely switched from Windows to Linux years ago. I really don't understand why now also on Linux configs have to be saved in such gconf (still text files) or even worse sqlite databases, which make those software nearly unmaintainable and slow. Why not just stay with the good old text files which can simply be edited with a console text editor? I, too, don't like those dbus, hal, console-kit stuff. I even don't like udev with its many, quite complicated udev rules. In the past I could simply create a device node for a device and it worked and I and the system knew how to access a specific hardware. I of course see that udev has some advantages but the way it is designed makes the system (the device naming) pretty inconsistent. I don't see the advantages of hal and console-kit - I even don't know what they are for. Usually hardware can easily accessed by the device files in /dev, infos about the hardware can be obtained by lspci and lsusb, through /proc etc.. What is console-kit for? I usually have a console and can login without such an additional daemon which in my opinion only takes system ressources. Not so good on slow computers and also not the best on fast computers. But regarding the KDE/Gnome dependencies there are some applications which don't use these libraries and which are built against pure Qt or GTK. See e.g. the Xfce and LXDE applications. They are unfortunately not yet perfect but I have the impression that there will be more and more such software like Xfburn, Thunar, Mousepad etc. and that those developers are open-minded for feature requests. So I guess there's a little hope. Heiko
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:39:54 +0100 Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
Am Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:58:49 +0100 schrieb <hollunder@gmx.at>:
Unfortunately, fewer and fewer applications are "desktop-agnostic" these days. To install a gtk2 application I am usually asked to download half of GNOME or at least libgnomeui and gconf. Gconf is my personal favourite. Xfce already uses xfconf (btw I love its description in the repository:"xfconf.. thingie" -- looks like not only I am confused), why am I supposed to use two different configuration databases? Why can't people agree on one? Why not just save configuration in plain files, it has worked before...
Well, I guess they try to 'integrate' again, all config in one place, but again only for their bubble.
Isn't there already an OS with such a terrible, bloated and cryptical all config in one place database called registry?
And wasn't there a principle in Unix/Linux: "Everything is a file."?
Both were two of many reasons why I completely switched from Windows to Linux years ago.
I really don't understand why now also on Linux configs have to be saved in such gconf (still text files) or even worse sqlite databases, which make those software nearly unmaintainable and slow. Why not just stay with the good old text files which can simply be edited with a console text editor?
I think those centralised systems have some benefits over configuration files spread over the whole system, but the way it is now it is neither. You still have lots of programs that use config textfiles somewhere and in addition multiple "centralised" configs for only a bunch of applications.
I, too, don't like those dbus, hal, console-kit stuff. I even don't like udev with its many, quite complicated udev rules. In the past I could simply create a device node for a device and it worked and I and the system knew how to access a specific hardware. I of course see that udev has some advantages but the way it is designed makes the system (the device naming) pretty inconsistent. I don't see the advantages of hal and console-kit - I even don't know what they are for. Usually hardware can easily accessed by the device files in /dev, infos about the hardware can be obtained by lspci and lsusb, through /proc etc.. What is console-kit for? I usually have a console and can login without such an additional daemon which in my opinion only takes system ressources. Not so good on slow computers and also not the best on fast computers.
But regarding the KDE/Gnome dependencies there are some applications which don't use these libraries and which are built against pure Qt or GTK. See e.g. the Xfce and LXDE applications. They are unfortunately not yet perfect but I have the impression that there will be more and more such software like Xfburn, Thunar, Mousepad etc. and that those developers are open-minded for feature requests. So I guess there's a little hope.
Heiko
I do use some xfce applications, namely thunar and terminal. And guess what, thunar depends on hal, as well as exo (a library used in many xfce applications) :( Well, I'd survive it if I had to switch to something else, but this would only win the battle, not the war.
Well, I guess they try to 'integrate' again, all config in one place, but again only for their bubble.
Isn't there already an OS with such a terrible, bloated and cryptical all config in one place database called registry? And wasn't there a principle in Unix/Linux: "Everything is a file."? Both were two of many reasons why I completely switched from Windows to Linux years ago. I really don't understand why now also on Linux configs have to be saved in such gconf (still text files) or even worse sqlite databases, which make those software nearly unmaintainable and slow. Why not just stay with the good old text files which can simply be edited with a console text editor? GConf still uses text files. Unfortunately, they are in XML. On the other hand, you can use gconf-editor to change settings via scripts without doing checks to make sure you are changing the right thing. Too bad GNOME programs don't access GConf to give you access to all of the settings, so you don't need to use GConf directly. Hmm. The glass is half full or half empty. I, too, don't like those dbus, hal, console-kit stuff. I even don't like udev with its many, quite complicated udev rules. In the past I could simply create a device node for a device and it worked and I and the system knew how to access a specific hardware. I of course see that udev has some advantages but the way it is designed makes the system (the device naming) pretty inconsistent. I don't see the advantages of hal and console-kit - I even don't know what they are for. Usually hardware can easily accessed by the device files in /dev, infos about the hardware can be obtained by lspci and lsusb, through /proc etc.. What is console-kit for? I usually have a console and can login without such an additional daemon which in my opinion only takes system ressources. Not so good on slow computers and also not the best on fast computers. I like HAL and Dbus, although I heard that HAL will disappear. I like having my thumb drive automatically mounted when I stick it in or my camera being recognized. Or X.org configuring itself automatically without my intervention (at least when it works). On the other hand, I would prefer that Dbus not have any DE dependencies like GNOME. It should be treated like a low-level interface only. I can live with glib dependencies because it is basically a set of useful tools like lists, strings, etc., for C.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:31:06PM +0000, dennisjperkins@comcast.net wrote:
Well, I guess they try to 'integrate' again, all config in one place, but again only for their bubble.
Isn't there already an OS with such a terrible, bloated and cryptical all config in one place database called registry?
And wasn't there a principle in Unix/Linux: "Everything is a file."?
Indeed, this is one of the many appeals of Linux. What scares me about Windows is that I cannot fix anything that Microsoft didn't expect to go wrong - so pretty much everything ;) - because I need some program that understands whatever proprietary format they use. In addition, looking for a messed-up entry in the registry is like looking for a needle in a haystack because it's huge, not really documented, and the entry keys are cryptic. In old-fashioned Linux, you have a few well-defined text files that control the behaviour of an application. If they're messed up, I can go at them with a text editor, and their entries are usually well-documented in a man-page. This is a level of maintainability that is hard to beat. I see why desktop people want to have a centralized place to configure everything: the average user is probably not up to editing many text files and probably doesn't understand half of what's written in the man-pages explaining their contents. But then I think the way to go is to have a two-tier architecture with well-documented text files for the individual applications underneath and a unified GUI on top that manipulates (the most common options in) them. Cheers, Norbert
Hi :) On Monday 26 October 2009 11:57:59 RedShift wrote:
This thread will probably erupt in a massive flamewar, yet I decided to post my story anyway. I am talking about the desktop experience in general, not the technical details behind it. Keep that in mind.
No intention to make this a real flame war, just got some questions/advice/info 0:)
I've been working these past few months with KDE 4.3 and it feels very sluggish and incomplete. I can't enable the desktop effects because that makes things even slower. I'm doing this on a fairly decent setup, an AMD Sempron 2 Ghz with an nVidia FX5500.
I've got a Dell Latitude D610 with an Intel VGA: $ lspci | grep -i vga 00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 915GM/GMS/910GML Express Graphics Controller (rev 03) 1 GB RAM $ cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 13 model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1.86GHz stepping : 8 cpu MHz : 1867.000 cache size : 2048 KB fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 2 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss tm pbe nx up bts est tm2 bogomips : 3726.83 clflush size : 64 power management: Relevant software: kernel26 2.6.31.5-1 xorg-server 1.6.3.901-1 intel-dri 7.5.1-2 xf86-video-intel 2.8.1-1 KDE* 4.3.2-4 Using KMS for my Intel VGA. I've got to say I've got a very snappy KDE running. Doesn't "feel" slow, response is immediate, ... ¿Could you be having some hardware issues? Maybe not because KDE 3.5 and XP seem to run fine on your system. BTW, not running ANY effects because they get on my nerves. Don't find them productive (I don't see how a snowing background or blowing up windows can make you more productive). BTW, I've also got an MSI Wind with 2 GB RAM, Intel VGA and Atom (dual core) and same version software with the same results: sanppy, fast response, ... Can't really compare to MS-Windows since I don't use it/them. But I can compare to KDE 3.5 (since I used it before on the same hw) and 4.3 is not slower than 3.5 IMHO on the same hardware. @ home I've got a dual-core AMD + 8 GB RAM + ATI with 512 MB dedicated RAM. In this case I'm _NOT_ using ATI's drivers, I'm using the radeonhd drivers and everything seems to work fine: fast response, ... Not slow at all. On this system I've got a 2nd partition with openSUSE + ATI drivers + KDE 3.5 and TBH, I see no better performance with KDE 3.5. My guess is that there's something wrongly configured or installed in your KDE 4 installation. Check this: - deactivate nepomuk and Akonadi - delete /tmp/k* /var/tmp/k* - delete your .kde4 and .kde and .local dirs (you can also choose creating a new account and see if it's "faster") [...]
So when should we have started working at a better desktop environment for Linux?
I think the KDE team already is, but of course, that's MHO ;) [...]
So basically, where are we at? KDE 3.5 is Windows XP KDE 4.3 is Windows Vista ??? is Windows 7
When are we getting to the Windows 7 stage?
KDE 4.5? ;)
Microsoft didn't do a big advertising campaign for the launch of Windows 7, nevertheless they delivered a big slap in the face to the Linux desktop environments. The numbers speak for themselves, Windows 7 has already sold more copies in its first week than Windows Vista did in its first month. And with good riddance, Windows 7 really is better than Windows Vista. Microsoft recognized the problems with Windows Vista and dealt with them. And dealt with them swiftly if you ask me, doing it in less then 3 years.
MS _DOES_ have some help from IHVs ;) Those IHVs preinstall Windows on their laptops, netbooks, ... + MS also has some very deep pockets (filled with $) to "convince" those IHVs to preinstall MS-Windows. Not only that, their deep pockets help them "talk" with polititians (at least here in Spain that helps a lot ;) If we (KDE Community) had those deep pockets filled to the brim with $ just as MS does: - we could pay more full time developers - we could pay more full time developers to solely profile and debug KDE - "convince" IHVs to preinstall KDE - we could "speak" with polititians (at least here in Spain) - ... I'm not saying money = hapiness, but it does help a bit sometimes ;) Resources on one side and the other are not the same. MS has way more full time developers than KDE has.
Conclusion
We are losing ground. We are losing it fast. Our competitors recognize what the user wants and delivered.
This reminds me of a time (long ago) when MS "prooved" that Win2k was faster serving files that Linux+Samba. While the FLOSS Community was shouting and arguing whether the benchmark was well done, Mr. Torvalds said that was good news since now we would know where we have to apply fixes and what fixes would have to be applied. I think this situation is similar.
If we are comparing enterprise desktops, there's no going around Red Hat. The current Red Hat desktop (5.4) ships with KDE 3.5, while its succesor RHEL 6 will be, if looking what Fedora brings now, shipped with KDE 4.2 or 4.3. That means KDE 4.2/4.3 will be the main desktop for enterprises for at least the next 3 years. A disgrace if you ask me. Users will be comparing desktop environments and they will find Windows 7 or Mac OS X to be better. After the damage RHEL 6 will have done to the reputation of the Linux desktop, it will take again as many years to rectify the damage done. Granted if we will have a solid desktop environment comparable to Windows 7 by the time RHEL 7 gets released. Which I can't help but doubt.
My top KDE 4.3 annoyances: * Slooooowwww. Logging in takes a multifold of times it did under KDE 3.5, repainting windows takes up a lot of time
Check hardware, drivers, configs, ... What I said previously.
* The battery status applet is buggy, it only shows the actual percentage after you've hovered it with the mouse, even when you've set it to always display. The scale it uses is also difficult to interpret. These bugs have been reported a long time ago and are still not fixed.
I have no such problems on my MSI Wind and my Dell. BTW I also installed ArchLinux + KDE 4.3 on an Acer ONE for a friend and she has no such problems either.
* The run dialog is useless. The reason is the history function. It can't display a full history when you start typing, you have to type alot more. Having a pull down menu and using the arrow keys to select the entry you want is alot faster. Even Microsoft knows they shouldn't touch that dialog, it still works like a charm in windows 7.
Can't reproduce that here. History displays and changes as I type, no lag. BTW, I'm not the fastest typer, but I use more than 2 fingers ;)
* Double clicking the system icon in the titlebar doesn't always work to close an application (the system icon is the left-most icon in the titlebar). This bug has also been reported a long time ago and still not fixed.
Never tried that, TBH, always use the "X" on the far right.
* I get a full 10 minutes of extra runtime on my laptop when I switched back to 3.5
Not here.
* Power management is buggy in KDE 4.3 and sometimes powerdevil just loses its settings
Haven't lost any settings on KDE 4.x ... and I'm using XFS =:0
* Some settings KDE 3.5 used to have aren't there anymore in KDE 4.3.
Somethings haven't been ported to KDE 4.x yet. Maybe for KDE 4.4 or 4.5.
* Where's my "home" icon!!!??? :-(
¿What for? You've got "Konqueror Profiles" widget ;) HTH Rafa -- "We cannot treat computers as Humans. Computers need love." rgriman@skype.com rgriman@jabberes.org Happily using KDE 4.3.1 :)
Rafa Griman wrote: (note, lots of things cut)
I've been working these past few months with KDE 4.3 and it feels very sluggish and incomplete. I can't enable the desktop effects because that makes things even slower. I'm doing this on a fairly decent setup, an AMD Sempron 2 Ghz with an nVidia FX5500.
I've got a Dell Latitude D610 with an Intel VGA:
$ lspci | grep -i vga 00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 915GM/GMS/910GML Express Graphics Controller (rev 03)
1 GB RAM
$ cat /proc/cpuinfo model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1.86GHz Using KMS for my Intel VGA.
I've got to say I've got a very snappy KDE running. Doesn't "feel" slow, response is immediate, ...
I have about the same setup running here (Intel 915 VGA and a Pentium M processor), yet it distinctively feels slow compared to for example Windows XP or KDE 3.5.
My guess is that there's something wrongly configured or installed in your KDE 4 installation. Check this: - deactivate nepomuk and Akonadi - delete /tmp/k* /var/tmp/k* - delete your .kde4 and .kde and .local dirs (you can also choose creating a new account and see if it's "faster")
Already did those. Doesn't help.
So basically, where are we at? KDE 3.5 is Windows XP KDE 4.3 is Windows Vista ??? is Windows 7
When are we getting to the Windows 7 stage?
KDE 4.5? ;)
I hope so. Maybe I should have waited with my response and give KDE 4 project more time to mature, but there's also chance I would be writing this same e-mail two years in the future.
Microsoft didn't do a big advertising campaign for the launch of Windows 7, nevertheless they delivered a big slap in the face to the Linux desktop environments. The numbers speak for themselves, Windows 7 has already sold more copies in its first week than Windows Vista did in its first month. And with good riddance, Windows 7 really is better than Windows Vista. Microsoft recognized the problems with Windows Vista and dealt with them. And dealt with them swiftly if you ask me, doing it in less then 3 years.
MS _DOES_ have some help from IHVs ;) Those IHVs preinstall Windows on their laptops, netbooks, ... + MS also has some very deep pockets (filled with $) to "convince" those IHVs to preinstall MS-Windows. Not only that, their deep pockets help them "talk" with polititians (at least here in Spain that helps a lot ;)
That is true, but even that's not unlimited. Look at windows vista. Most OEMs still ship XP upgrades with business desktops. Though that'll rapidly diminish now that 7 is out.
Conclusion
We are losing ground. We are losing it fast. Our competitors recognize what the user wants and delivered.
This reminds me of a time (long ago) when MS "prooved" that Win2k was faster serving files that Linux+Samba. While the FLOSS Community was shouting and arguing whether the benchmark was well done, Mr. Torvalds said that was good news since now we would know where we have to apply fixes and what fixes would have to be applied. I think this situation is similar.
Than it is a good thing that I spoke up. I am worried about the future of Linux.
* Double clicking the system icon in the titlebar doesn't always work to close an application (the system icon is the left-most icon in the titlebar). This bug has also been reported a long time ago and still not fixed.
Never tried that, TBH, always use the "X" on the far right.
Partially agreed, however, my reasoning here is "don't provide features that don't work".
* I get a full 10 minutes of extra runtime on my laptop when I switched back to 3.5
Not here.
On the forums the response was, "well duh". That being due to the fact that KDE 4 makes more intensive use of the graphics card, which I can understand. But I would have expected by optimizing hardware usage, the system would be faster as well, which is not the case. Glenn
On 26 Oct 2009 at 12:46, Rafa Griman wrote:
My guess is that there's something wrongly configured or installed in your KDE 4 installation. Check this: - deactivate nepomuk and Akonadi - delete /tmp/k* /var/tmp/k* - delete your .kde4 and .kde and .local dirs (you can also choose creating a new account and see if it's "faster")
What's the way of deactivating nepomuk and Akonadi? -- O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
What's the way of deactivating nepomuk and Akonadi? It can be done via "system settings" > advanced tab.
I have to admit that I am partly agree with you. MS screwed up with Vista and all its competitors had a chance to gain part of its market. I speak about both Linux and MacOS. But none of them used it. So basically situation is the same as it was before Vista. In fact we are not loosing ground because we never had it. Slightly over 1% of desktop market makes me think that Linux is still OS for the geeks. I also have to admit that there are no tech innovations in windows 7 which could encourage me to go back to MS technology. At the same time I really see a lot of them in linux.
RedShift wrote:
Conclusion
We are losing ground. We are losing it fast. Our competitors recognize what the user wants and delivered.
I can't remember fighting for that ground, and I'd be totally happy if the people who do would just go away. -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 were we *EVER* in a war ? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrlnhgACgkQEX4dV4KnKneMeQCg8RxNQYR1LW8Pp56vyRVjnVFv zDMAoJxJWyZeNMAn5XRTer1SEjX4LkYv =SmMM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Am Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:57:59 +0100 schrieb RedShift <redshift@pandora.be>:
This thread will probably erupt in a massive flamewar, yet I decided to post my story anyway. I am talking about the desktop experience in general, not the technical details behind it. Keep that in mind.
...
So when should we have started working at a better desktop environment for Linux?
...
So basically, where are we at? KDE 3.5 is Windows XP KDE 4.3 is Windows Vista ??? is Windows 7
When are we getting to the Windows 7 stage?
...
Why do you stick with KDE? Why don't you try Xfce or LXDE? KDE 1 was quite nice but pretty slow and buggy. Until KDE 3.5 it was made much more stable and faster so that KDE 3.5 was really usable. With KDE 4 they went back to KDE 1 regarding stability and speed but with far too much "eyecandy". KDE 4 was the reason for me for switching to Xfce. It runs smoothly and in my opinion fast and has only a few minor issues in my experience. LXDE seems to be fast and stable, too. For me there's only one applet missing, don't know which one. I can't decide which one I like more. Currently I stick with Xfce. But KDE isn't an option for me anymore. Since I already used GTK/Gnome apps in KDE, I'm now using Qt/KDE apps in Xfce. Heiko
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 6:57 AM, RedShift <redshift@pandora.be> wrote:
This thread will probably erupt in a massive flamewar, yet I decided to post my story anyway. I am talking about the desktop experience in general, not the technical details behind it. Keep that in mind.
I've been working these past few months with KDE 4.3 and it feels very sluggish and incomplete. I can't enable the desktop effects because that makes things even slower. I'm doing this on a fairly decent setup, an AMD Sempron 2 Ghz with an nVidia FX5500. My laptop suffers from this sluggishness as well. On top of that, lots of things annoy me in KDE 4.3, see the end of this post for my top annoyances. Yesterday I had to reboot to my Windows XP installation on this computer and I was shocked when I arrived in XP's userland. Everything was ridiculously fast. When returning to my linux desktop everything felt even more sluggish. That's when I decided to go back to KDE 3.5. I restored my old KDE 3.5 profile, installed the necessary packages and logged back in. WOOOOOF, everything is fast again. Opening new windows is instantaneous, hell even bringing up context menus is faster. If Linux is that much better, why does the current Linux desktop (KDE 4.3) still suck compared to an operating system that's 8 years old?
The way that last sentence is phrased reveals a lot. If you think "Linux Desktop" == "KDE" then you're already deep into a method of thinking that makes MS automatically win. If I used one of the big DEs I'd hate the Linux Desktop too. Not to mention, if you evaluate any "X" by comparing it to "Y" then "X" will look bad by any difference it has from "Y". Sure, performance problems are lame. But rather than complain about KDE, just go run something else that isn't a huge hog. I use awesome with a bunch of hand-picked apps and I'm very happy with my "Linux Desktop".
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:57:59AM +0100, RedShift wrote:
This thread will probably erupt in a massive flamewar, yet I decided to post my story anyway. I am talking about the desktop experience in general, not the technical details behind it. Keep that in mind.
I've been working these past few months with KDE 4.3 and it feels very sluggish and incomplete.
[snip]
back in. WOOOOOF, everything is fast again. Opening new windows is instantaneous, hell even bringing up context menus is faster. If Linux is that much better, why does the current Linux desktop (KDE 4.3) still suck compared to an operating system that's 8 years old?
Here are my two paises (Indian cents). You bring out a point that I regularly see: * Oh my graphics card does not work. Conclusion Linux is not for desktops. This was say in 1997 when I started on linux. Surely this was a problem. But even then things were not bad compared to windows. * Oh my printer does not work with GNU/Linux. Conclusion Linux is not for office use. Yes it is true that some esoteric printers do not work but then a careful netsearch will give you what to buy. If you dont want to search a product then your vendor will sell you snakeoil any way. I bought a Samsung printer (ML something) for my office and it works like charm. * Oh my foo bar effect on KDE 4.x/GNOME x.x does not work. Conclusion Linux is not for desktop usage. What you say might be true. I dont know because I use xmonad and that beats all other WM in my opinion. But to conclude we have lost the ``war'' (which war I dont know) of desktops might be premature. Really many of us do not care. GNU/Linux and *BSDs give us excellent servers, desktops, development environments, document creation tools (TeX/LaTeX) which together is hard to beat. Plus it is hackable and I have choice of what to use (xmonad for desktop for eg). So as far as I am concerned the war is over. Opensource won. Just to illustrate, for a talk I carried my presentation as a pdf file created using latex beamer on an Arch linux and some one from Microsoft research carried a ppt (for ``security'' reasons we were not supposed to connect our laptops on to their projectors vga port). Both of us were given a windows machine to project the presentations and yes you guessed it right the ppt fonts were all garbled where as my pdf file was just fine. In fact the only other presentation that worked without any problem was also created via beamer on GNU/Linux. KDE/GNOME/XFCE or whichever is your favorite WM will continue to produce high quality software and you may also contribute. My suggestion is forget about the war and have fun. Let the people in Redmond suffer hypertension by attempting world domination. Meanwhile try out xmonad even if you do not want to use it. Regards ppk
if the problem is only the grafical interface, gnome can be changed to the limit. you can make him far better than any win using compiz, some apps for cairo and others. 2009/10/26 ppk <ppk@matrix.iitk.ac.in>
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:57:59AM +0100, RedShift wrote:
This thread will probably erupt in a massive flamewar, yet I decided to post my story anyway. I am talking about the desktop experience in general, not the technical details behind it. Keep that in mind.
I've been working these past few months with KDE 4.3 and it feels very sluggish and incomplete.
[snip]
back in. WOOOOOF, everything is fast again. Opening new windows is instantaneous, hell even bringing up context menus is faster. If Linux is that much better, why does the current Linux desktop (KDE 4.3) still suck compared to an operating system that's 8 years old?
windows can open software faster because all programs uses the same group os basics libraries and all that is already on ram. Linux do not have that. But everyone here already know that
Here are my two paises (Indian cents). You bring out a point that I regularly see:
* Oh my graphics card does not work. Conclusion Linux is not for desktops. This was say in 1997 when I started on linux. Surely this was a problem. But even then things were not bad compared to windows.
* Oh my printer does not work with GNU/Linux. Conclusion Linux is not for office use. Yes it is true that some esoteric printers do not work but then a careful netsearch will give you what to buy. If you dont want to search a product then your vendor will sell you snakeoil any way. I bought a Samsung printer (ML something) for my office and it works like charm.
* Oh my foo bar effect on KDE 4.x/GNOME x.x does not work. Conclusion Linux is not for desktop usage. What you say might be true. I dont know because I use xmonad and that beats all other WM in my opinion. But to conclude we have lost the ``war'' (which war I dont know) of desktops might be premature.
Really many of us do not care. GNU/Linux and *BSDs give us excellent servers, desktops, development environments, document creation tools (TeX/LaTeX) which together is hard to beat. Plus it is hackable and I have choice of what to use (xmonad for desktop for eg). So as far as I am concerned the war is over. Opensource won.
Just to illustrate, for a talk I carried my presentation as a pdf file created using latex beamer on an Arch linux and some one from Microsoft research carried a ppt (for ``security'' reasons we were not supposed to connect our laptops on to their projectors vga port). Both of us were given a windows machine to project the presentations and yes you guessed it right the ppt fonts were all garbled where as my pdf file was just fine. In fact the only other presentation that worked without any problem was also created via beamer on GNU/Linux.
KDE/GNOME/XFCE or whichever is your favorite WM will continue to produce high quality software and you may also contribute. My suggestion is forget about the war and have fun. Let the people in Redmond suffer hypertension by attempting world domination. Meanwhile try out xmonad even if you do not want to use it.
agreed!! hahaha just have fun!!
Regards
ppk
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:57 AM, RedShift <redshift@pandora.be> wrote:
This thread will probably erupt in a massive flamewar, yet I decided to post my story anyway. I am talking about the desktop experience in general, not the technical details behind it. Keep that in mind.
Nice job, you turned a "kde 4 sucks" into a "linux vs windows desktop flamewar". :) What about getting productive, and reporting nicely your bug report and feature request to the kde developer ?
And it's little things like dragging the windows to the top of the screen makes them maximized, dragging them to the left makes the take exactly 50% of the screen. How many times have you been manually resizing windows to fit next to each other? I have, too many times. These are things that really improve your productivity.
If you were not so single minded with KDE, you might realize there are many wm which address this problem much more nicely than windows, at least in my opinion. Of course you can disagree and not like the alternatives, but you still have to take that into account if you want to do a serious comparison.
RedShift wrote:
This thread will probably erupt in a massive flamewar, yet I decided to post my story anyway. I am talking about the desktop experience in general, not the technical details behind it. Keep that in mind.
I've been working these past few months with KDE 4.3 and it feels very sluggish and incomplete. I can't enable the desktop effects because that makes things even slower. I'm doing this on a fairly decent setup, an AMD Sempron 2 Ghz with an nVidia FX5500. My laptop suffers from this sluggishness as well. On top of that, lots of things annoy me in KDE 4.3, see the end of this post for my top annoyances. Yesterday I had to reboot to my Windows XP installation on this computer and I was shocked when I arrived in XP's userland. Everything was ridiculously fast. When returning to my linux desktop everything felt even more sluggish. That's when I decided to go back to KDE 3.5. I restored my old KDE 3.5 profile, installed the necessary packages and logged back in. WOOOOOF, everything is fast again. Opening new windows is instantaneous, hell even bringing up context menus is faster. If Linux is that much better, why does the current Linux desktop (KDE 4.3) still suck compared to an operating system that's 8 years old?
Last week I also had the chance to check out Windows 7, and I was stumped. I was genuinly impressed by Windows 7's GUI. It feels fast, works fluently, it has nice effects which just work and work FAST. When browsing around it felt like a very solid desktop environment. I am jealous. I really am. The thought of using Windows 7 in favor of KDE 4.3 has occured to me much more than I like. And it's little things like dragging the windows to the top of the screen makes them maximized, dragging them to the left makes the take exactly 50% of the screen. How many times have you been manually resizing windows to fit next to each other? I have, too many times. These are things that really improve your productivity.
So when should we have started working at a better desktop environment for Linux?
When Mac OS X came out. When was that again? 2001. Yes, it really was that long ago. It already had awesome desktop effects that just work on (compared to these days) VERY modest hardware. And it worked fast as well. It was and still is a solid desktop environment. From that point on the Linux community should have recognized the threat Mac OS X was for the desktop environment. Unfortunately nobody did and we went on creating a big mess, fighting over implementations and technical details instead of attempting to create a solid desktop environment.
Yet we did have a second chance in 2007. Microsoft obviously screwed up with Windows Vista, we had the chance to win back alot of terrain here until the release of Windows 7. So what did we come up with? KDE 4. Yes, a big dissapointment. We still don't have something that's comparable.
So basically, where are we at? KDE 3.5 is Windows XP KDE 4.3 is Windows Vista ??? is Windows 7
When are we getting to the Windows 7 stage?
Microsoft didn't do a big advertising campaign for the launch of Windows 7, nevertheless they delivered a big slap in the face to the Linux desktop environments. The numbers speak for themselves, Windows 7 has already sold more copies in its first week than Windows Vista did in its first month. And with good riddance, Windows 7 really is better than Windows Vista. Microsoft recognized the problems with Windows Vista and dealt with them. And dealt with them swiftly if you ask me, doing it in less then 3 years.
Conclusion
We are losing ground. We are losing it fast. Our competitors recognize what the user wants and delivered.
If we are comparing enterprise desktops, there's no going around Red Hat. The current Red Hat desktop (5.4) ships with KDE 3.5, while its succesor RHEL 6 will be, if looking what Fedora brings now, shipped with KDE 4.2 or 4.3. That means KDE 4.2/4.3 will be the main desktop for enterprises for at least the next 3 years. A disgrace if you ask me. Users will be comparing desktop environments and they will find Windows 7 or Mac OS X to be better. After the damage RHEL 6 will have done to the reputation of the Linux desktop, it will take again as many years to rectify the damage done. Granted if we will have a solid desktop environment comparable to Windows 7 by the time RHEL 7 gets released. Which I can't help but doubt.
My top KDE 4.3 annoyances: * Slooooowwww. Logging in takes a multifold of times it did under KDE 3.5, repainting windows takes up a lot of time * The battery status applet is buggy, it only shows the actual percentage after you've hovered it with the mouse, even when you've set it to always display. The scale it uses is also difficult to interpret. These bugs have been reported a long time ago and are still not fixed. * The run dialog is useless. The reason is the history function. It can't display a full history when you start typing, you have to type alot more. Having a pull down menu and using the arrow keys to select the entry you want is alot faster. Even Microsoft knows they shouldn't touch that dialog, it still works like a charm in windows 7. * Double clicking the system icon in the titlebar doesn't always work to close an application (the system icon is the left-most icon in the titlebar). This bug has also been reported a long time ago and still not fixed. * I get a full 10 minutes of extra runtime on my laptop when I switched back to 3.5 * Power management is buggy in KDE 4.3 and sometimes powerdevil just loses its settings * Some settings KDE 3.5 used to have aren't there anymore in KDE 4.3. * Where's my "home" icon!!!??? :-(
Hi, I suggest the opposite in the facts of speed. My work's computer runs with Windows XP and the hardware is faster than mine at home. But Windows XP often stands still without a reason and takes ages to do something. KDE 4.3 on my Arch Linux installation runs very well and fast. I guess that it depends on the hardware you use. But I would say that the enterprise linux distributions should use KDE 3.5 and GNOME 2.28 in the nearly future. In such an area with installations on many machines things just have to work and Plasma and GNOME Shell are too new. If KDE is too slow for you, use Xfce or LXDE. I do not miss anything under Xfce. And if you want to use Windows 7, use it. At the moment linux has little percentage on the desktop market. Bye Lars
On 26 Oct 2009 at 14:55, Lars Tennstedt wrote:
Hi,
I suggest the opposite in the facts of speed. My work's computer runs with Windows XP and the hardware is faster than mine at home. But Windows XP often stands still without a reason and takes ages to do something. KDE 4.3 on my Arch Linux installation runs very well and fast. I guess that it depends on the hardware you use.
Not to mention viruses and other shit... -- O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
On Monday 26 October 2009 19:25:09 Lars Tennstedt wrote:
I suggest the opposite in the facts of speed. My work's computer runs with Windows XP and the hardware is faster than mine at home. But Windows XP often stands still without a reason and takes ages to do something. KDE 4.3 on my Arch Linux installation runs very well and fast. I guess that it depends on the hardware you use.
But I would say that the enterprise linux distributions should use KDE 3.5 and GNOME 2.28 in the nearly future. In such an area with installations on many machines things just have to work and Plasma and GNOME Shell are too new. If KDE is too slow for you, use Xfce or LXDE. I do not miss anything under Xfce. And if you want to use Windows 7, use it. At the moment linux has little percentage on the desktop market.
I am writing this for sole reason that silence of a satisfied linux user should not be taken as absence of one. I am a happy arch and KDE user and use windows XP only as much forced by the work. I don't know about vista. Rarely seen it in action. These are my opinions and not conclusions. Just adding a data point here. - KDE is hugely productive. Multiple desktop(it already had for ages but mentioned for comparison with XP), plethora of applets(plasma widgets lately), kopete, kmail, akregator, knews, kate, konsole, k3b and konqueror. It is so much ahead of windows that its not even the same race. Not to mention, each of these apps have innovation on its own that are hard to rival. - I was happy with KDE 3.5.x(on slack and arch) and upgraded to KDE4 just along the way. KDE4.1/4.2 were not upto the par but KDE4.3 is on par with KDE3.5.x for me. - I don't need any eye-candy on KDE and I have turned it off. Even though I have functioning nvidia drivers, I want my desktop fast, not animating and I am happy with that speed. Frankly I have not found any plasma widget worth keeping on desktop(I don't get to see the desktop anyways. Its always covered with some app). But I am a konsole geek. I could go alone with kate/konsole except email/IM/webbrowsing needs. - I couldn't change to GNOME. I hate it. File open dialog is lame compared to KDE. I don't know what virtues peole see in it. That is only one reason another is button order(third is GTK. C for desktop? Not for me and no mono please.). I could stand a half working KDE but not GNOME. - To people advocating lightweight options, Don't you lose what *KDE* offers? Instead of putting together a solution yourself, isn't it much better to use a solution that is put together already? Use xfce, throw in firefox and openoffice and its hardly any different from KDE+openoffice. Throw in thunderbird and pidgin and one begins to wonder whats the point? Is the dekstop really that lean now? Besides, throw in one KDE app. because its irresistible(kmail, kopete, k3b?) and again, one might as well run KDE. - Huge win for KDE is consistency. Whatever speed KDE desktop loads today, it will load with same speed 3 months down the line and 3 years down the line(I can attest that. My home directory has remains of mandrake 7 till date. Upgraded and moved from machine to machine). Windows will not. - I don't like nepomuk/strigi/akonadi and its off on my desktop. Thats more to do with hatred of mysql than these technologies itself. I won't let my desktop depend on mysql. Period. Come postgresql support and I will give it a go. Besides I don't have time to tag 10s of thousand of photos that I already have and every download from digital camera is at least 150 photos. - on point of desktop war, KDE is not fighting with windows but windows ecosystem. What does vanilla windows offer compared to KDE anyways? freecell and solitaire? Where is google messenger? where is an up to date browser? where is yahoo messenger? where is a good console? where are tons of utilities? Again, KDE is not fighting with windows. Its fighting with an echo- system. - for browser, I dabbled with lot of them and here is simple conclusion. The web is too fluid. There is no single app that can render it well, now and in future. And the whole web2.0 is a non-sense, at least functionally. So I have konqueror for regular browsing(no serious site breaks in it for me.) and firefox for occasions when its needed. Usually if it does not render well in konqueror, I bypass the site and not the browser. - use windows and you have to format/reinstall to upgrade. You realize how much productivity hit that is? It is impossible to get back all the small tweaks that one has accumulated over the period of time. Besides isn't that like last century? With arch we upgrade every month, if not more and don't have any problems. I am happy with linux desktop for long time, since 2001 and haven't had windows since then. The war is over. Neo won :) -- Shridhar
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On Monday 26 October 2009 19:25:09 Lars Tennstedt wrote:
I suggest the opposite in the facts of speed. My work's computer runs with Windows XP and the hardware is faster than mine at home. But Windows XP often stands still without a reason and takes ages to do something. KDE 4.3 on my Arch Linux installation runs very well and fast. I guess that it depends on the hardware you use.
But I would say that the enterprise linux distributions should use KDE 3.5 and GNOME 2.28 in the nearly future. In such an area with installations on many machines things just have to work and Plasma and GNOME Shell are too new. If KDE is too slow for you, use Xfce or LXDE. I do not miss anything under Xfce. And if you want to use Windows 7, use it. At the moment linux has little percentage on the desktop market.
I am writing this for sole reason that silence of a satisfied linux user should not be taken as absence of one.
I am a happy arch and KDE user and use windows XP only as much forced by the work. I don't know about vista. Rarely seen it in action. These are my opinions and not conclusions. Just adding a data point here.
- KDE is hugely productive. Multiple desktop(it already had for ages but mentioned for comparison with XP), plethora of applets(plasma widgets lately), kopete, kmail, akregator, knews, kate, konsole, k3b and konqueror. It is so much ahead of windows that its not even the same race. Not to mention, each of these apps have innovation on its own that are hard to rival.
- I was happy with KDE 3.5.x(on slack and arch) and upgraded to KDE4 just along the way. KDE4.1/4.2 were not upto the par but KDE4.3 is on par with KDE3.5.x for me.
- I don't need any eye-candy on KDE and I have turned it off. Even though I have functioning nvidia drivers, I want my desktop fast, not animating and I am happy with that speed. Frankly I have not found any plasma widget worth keeping on desktop(I don't get to see the desktop anyways. Its always covered with some app). But I am a konsole geek. I could go alone with kate/konsole except email/IM/webbrowsing needs.
- I couldn't change to GNOME. I hate it. File open dialog is lame compared to KDE. I don't know what virtues peole see in it. That is only one reason another is button order(third is GTK. C for desktop? Not for me and no mono please.). I could stand a half working KDE but not GNOME.
- To people advocating lightweight options, Don't you lose what *KDE* offers? Instead of putting together a solution yourself, isn't it much better to use a solution that is put together already? Use xfce, throw in firefox and openoffice and its hardly any different from KDE+openoffice. Throw in thunderbird and pidgin and one begins to wonder whats the point? Is the dekstop really that lean now? Besides, throw in one KDE app. because its irresistible(kmail, kopete, k3b?) and again, one might as well run KDE.
- Huge win for KDE is consistency. Whatever speed KDE desktop loads today, it will load with same speed 3 months down the line and 3 years down the line(I can attest that. My home directory has remains of mandrake 7 till date. Upgraded and moved from machine to machine). Windows will not.
- I don't like nepomuk/strigi/akonadi and its off on my desktop. Thats more to do with hatred of mysql than these technologies itself. I won't let my desktop depend on mysql. Period. Come postgresql support and I will give it a go. Besides I don't have time to tag 10s of thousand of photos that I already have and every download from digital camera is at least 150 photos.
- on point of desktop war, KDE is not fighting with windows but windows ecosystem. What does vanilla windows offer compared to KDE anyways? freecell and solitaire? Where is google messenger? where is an up to date browser? where is yahoo messenger? where is a good console? where are tons of utilities? Again, KDE is not fighting with windows. Its fighting with an echo- system.
- for browser, I dabbled with lot of them and here is simple conclusion. The web is too fluid. There is no single app that can render it well, now and in future. And the whole web2.0 is a non-sense, at least functionally. So I have konqueror for regular browsing(no serious site breaks in it for me.) and firefox for occasions when its needed. Usually if it does not render well in konqueror, I bypass the site and not the browser.
- use windows and you have to format/reinstall to upgrade. You realize how much productivity hit that is? It is impossible to get back all the small tweaks that one has accumulated over the period of time. Besides isn't that like last century? With arch we upgrade every month, if not more and don't have any problems.
I am happy with linux desktop for long time, since 2001 and haven't had windows since then. The war is over. Neo won :)
I have to agree. The time using Debian and Arch was and is a pleasure for me. At this point huge thanks to the Arch developers. Compared to my Windows XP area, I had much less issues to solve. I do not hate Windows XP. My girlfriend use Windows XP and my father either because they know where and when to click. But for me the war is also over. I will never go back to the Windows world. Bye Lars
RedShift schrieb:
This thread will probably erupt in a massive flamewar, yet I decided to post my story anyway. I am talking about the desktop experience in general, not the technical details behind it. Keep that in mind.
I've been working these past few months with KDE 4.3 and it feels very sluggish and incomplete. I can't enable the desktop effects because that makes things even slower. I'm doing this on a fairly decent setup, an AMD Sempron 2 Ghz with an nVidia FX5500. My laptop suffers from this sluggishness as well. On top of that, lots of things annoy me in KDE 4.3, see the end of this post for my top annoyances.
I stopped reading here, as everything after that is probably shit anyway. Suffice it to say: Blame nvidia - KDE4/QT4 is (despite it being supposedly fixed) still amazingly slow on nvidia, my desktop with a 8500GT feels sluggish too. On a bunch of SuSE machines at work (all with nvidia), it is just as slow. On my laptop with intel 2.9, everything is as fast as you can get.
On 10/26/2009 06:57 AM, RedShift wrote:
I've been working these past few months with KDE 4.3 and it feels very sluggish and incomplete. I can't enable the desktop effects because that makes things even slower. I'm doing this on a fairly decent setup, an AMD Sempron 2 Ghz with an nVidia FX5500. My laptop suffers from this sluggishness as well. On top of that, lots of things annoy me in KDE 4.3, see the end of this post for my top annoyances. Yesterday I had to reboot to my Windows XP installation on this computer and I was shocked when I arrived in XP's userland. Everything was ridiculously fast. When returning to my linux desktop everything felt even more sluggish. That's when I decided to go back to KDE 3.5. I restored my old KDE 3.5 profile, installed the necessary packages and logged back in. WOOOOOF, everything is fast again. Opening new windows is instantaneous, hell even bringing up context menus is faster.
I'm with you about hating KDE4. I was dragged kicking and screaming into using KDE4, since no one supports KDE3 anymore. (Even the kdemod3 packages are in limbo - although you can install the last built packages, the packages can no longer be built without error.) After finally, grudgingly upgrading to KDE4(.3) and kicking it around for about a month I came to the conclusion that I was extremely disappointed: * Performance, as you noted, sucks. * Loads of cool little features that I either relied upon heavily or liked a lot are gone. And although I've filed bug reports asking to bring them back, no KDE dev has even responded to them. * And of all the "cool new" features they've added, I don't use a single one of them. Finally this past Friday I gave up. After an intense 5 year love affair with KDE, I switched over my desktop to XFCE. It's lightweight, it's fast, it looks slick, things work, and all the little nice features I loved in KDE3 are there. As I said in an earlier email, I've come to the conclusion that KDE has "jumped the shark". Maybe try giving XFCE a go? HTH, DR
I just had a look at the Windows 7 features and didn't see anything that suggests the Linux world has lost the UI war. It is probably true that the eye candy looks more polished on OS X/Vista/7 than on anything the Linux world has to offer. (In fact, this is what lured me into the Mac world for a while.) That also shouldn't be surprising because this is how commercial OS producers lure the gullible to buy their product. For example, it seems cool that I can wiggle a window in Windows 7 to hide all the others or that I can drag a window to the edge to make it use up half the screen. But the reality of efficient computer use looks different. I can't see a good use for the first feature in every-day use, and if I want windows side by side, chances are I don't want an even split and I want more than two windows tiled on my screen. What I'm looking for in my desktop environment isn't eye candy but efficiency. Above all, this means that I want to be able to customize my desktop for a workflow that suits me. In more concrete terms, the three major things I appreciate in my linux desktop and which Windows cannot give me are: * Tiling window management and customized keyboard shortcuts for pretty much everything I can dream of. I don't want to touch the mouse unless I deal with a graphics program. * Command line for almost everything. Nobody can convince me that cp fileA dirB/dirC/dirD is less efficient than opening dirB/dirC/dirD in an explorer window and dragging fileA there. * Scripting for all the recurring tasks. This is extremely easy using shell scripts/perl/ruby/python/... I could try that under Windows, too, but the DOS command prompt simply feels like something that was never really meant to be used. I realize that this will not convince the computer-illiterate average user to prefer linux over windows, but I sure am glad that Linux gives me the choice to use an eye-candy-free desktop that works the way I think a computer should work, on modest hardware. I know that this is easy to be interpreted as another windows-vs-linux flame, and I admit that I am certainly very biased on this subject. However, it simply irks me that almost every time Apple/Microsoft come out with the newest eye candy, we weep that we don't have it instead of focusing on the advantages our linux boxes give us. Cheers, Norbert
On Monday 26 October 2009 05:57:59 am RedShift wrote:
This thread will probably erupt in a massive flamewar, yet I decided to post my story anyway. I am talking about the desktop experience in general, not the technical details behind it. Keep that in mind.
Done, the thread is fair topic for discourse among intelligent minds.
I've been working these past few months with KDE 4.3 and it feels very sluggish and incomplete.
There is no question about it. KDE4 is just slow compared kde3, or the ms desktops. My vista installs are more responsive. However, I don't think kde4 will remain like this. I think the response problem is due to remaining bugs in the API that should go away as kde4 matures. I think the biggest problem that kde4 will have to overcome is the stain on kde's reputation caused when a few major distros pushed kde4 out the door as a "New Desktop" when it was barely beta (kde 4.04 was released by SuSE as the desktop for 11.0 in June 2008) kde4.04 as a desktop -- gimme a break! But at 4.3.2, kde4 is getting there and I use it every day. The only time I boot another desktop is to work in a lightweight desktop (openbox, lxde, icewm, enlightenment) All provide a great desktop experience, but none compare to the completeness of tools provided natively in kde4. The only time I boot vista is to let updates run once monthly :) I didn't do windows 7 beta, so I can't comment there, but I have used every windows since windows 286 (what '88? when I moved from DOS 4.04) and all were "usable". I agree with much you have to say, but I have watched kde4 get better and better so I'm optimistic at this point that it will fulfill its promise, but I agree, it's not close to doing so yet. As for my list of kde4 annoyances (bugs) see: http://www.3111skyline.com/download/bugs/kde4/rankin-bug-list-20091026.pdf that's all 154 of them. (Note there are about 10 kde3 bugs in there, but I wasn't going to take the time to parse them out...) -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. Rankin Law Firm, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 Telephone: (936) 715-9333 Facsimile: (936) 715-9339 www.rankinlawfirm.com
On 10/26/2009 01:30 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
I think the biggest problem that kde4 will have to overcome is the stain on kde's reputation caused when a few major distros pushed kde4 out the door as a "New Desktop" when it was barely beta (kde 4.04 was released by SuSE as the desktop for 11.0 in June 2008) kde4.04 as a desktop -- gimme a break!
... which was caused by the KDE devs' bad decision to release it as 4.0, which set everyone's expectations that it was production-ready software. Had they labeled the whole 4.0 series (and possibly even the 4.1's) as beta software, that wouldn't have happened. DR
I also had a "crysis" some time ago about how windows can match linux. But it's just use windows for 3 months or so, and suddenly I change my opinion once again :) 2009/10/26 David Rosenstrauch <darose@darose.net>:
On 10/26/2009 01:30 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
I think the biggest problem that kde4 will have to overcome is the stain on kde's reputation caused when a few major distros pushed kde4 out the door as a "New Desktop" when it was barely beta (kde 4.04 was released by SuSE as the desktop for 11.0 in June 2008) kde4.04 as a desktop -- gimme a break!
... which was caused by the KDE devs' bad decision to release it as 4.0, which set everyone's expectations that it was production-ready software. Had they labeled the whole 4.0 series (and possibly even the 4.1's) as beta software, that wouldn't have happened.
DR
-- Felipe de Oliveira Tanus E-mail: fotanus@gmail.com Blog: http://www.itlife.com.br Site: http://www.inf.ufrgs.br/~fotanus/ ----- "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." - Gandalf
Hi! In data lunedì 26 ottobre 2009 18:30:25, David C. Rankin ha scritto:
I didn't do windows 7 beta, so I can't comment there, but I have used every windows since windows 286 (what '88? when I moved from DOS 4.04) and all were "usable".
Well, when I stepped from dos 6.22 to Windows 95 on my 486, the latter was really slow and bloated... This was the same reason that prevented me from switching windows 98 with XP, some years later, and made me jump the barricade. Surely I never had an up-to-date machine, nor I have now, still KDE runs fine even if not excellent. But I get a good feel of speed with kde apps and fluxbox. ciao! Dario Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
... Someone is wrong on the internet. anyways... I think that kde 4.x is mostly ready for users with a rough edge in that it's still not ready for mobile users. it's probably slow because your video drivers suck... I don't have problems on my intel (well I do but not with performance). blame nvidia. also I'd suggest sending complaints about kde to... not arch... arch just distributes it... kde. your home icon is in your folderview. I should not have responded to this thread and will not again. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
At Montag, 26. Oktober 2009 11:57 RedShift wrote:
an nVidia FX5500. My laptop suffers from this sluggishness as well. On top of that, lots of things annoy me in KDE 4.3, see the end of this post for my top annoyances. Yesterday I had to reboot to my Windows XP installation on this computer and I was shocked when I arrived in XP's userland. Everything was
You don't have to go to another OS because i was positive shocked as i switched to lxde on my laptop. And i still use the most kde applications but the gui is so much faster which remembers me as my good old kde 3.5.
Last week I also had the chance to check out Windows 7, and I was stumped. I was genuinly impressed by Windows 7's GUI. It feels fast, works fluently, it has nice effects which just work and work FAST. When browsing around it felt like a very solid desktop environment. I am jealous. I really am. The thought of
That a big firm as MS can learn from his deseaster named Vista is a good sign.-)
So when should we have started working at a better desktop environment for Linux?
At one side you be right but on the other side i miss the positive thing: The choice. Because at example your favorit Mac OS X comes only with one gui und celebrates centuries after X (or Workplace Shell for OS/2) to have virtuell desktops. Instead i can understand your lines i must say that the other ones cooks only with water too.-)
Yet we did have a second chance in 2007. Microsoft obviously screwed up with Windows Vista, we had the chance to win back alot of terrain here until the release of Windows 7. So what did we come up with? KDE 4. Yes, a big dissapointment. We still don't have something that's comparable.
The miss of one project is even the chance for another project. The biggest problem with KDE is that 4.x is not the follower of 3.5 because it is "only" plasma 0.x (here i speak from the gui and not from the apps). I don't mean this too much critical because i test the other gui's after i see what i will get with 4.x and at the moment i use on the desktop pc still again KDE ... but only because i lost the chance to compile 3.5 with the newer gcc.
So basically, where are we at? KDE 3.5 is Windows XP KDE 4.3 is Windows Vista ??? is Windows 7
Funny summary.-)
If we are comparing enterprise desktops, there's no going around Red Hat. The current Red Hat desktop (5.4) ships with KDE 3.5, while its succesor RHEL 6 will be, if looking what Fedora brings now, shipped with KDE 4.2 or 4.3. That means KDE 4.2/4.3 will be the main desktop for enterprises for at least the next 3 years. A disgrace if you ask me. Users will be comparing desktop environments and they will find Windows 7 or Mac OS X to be better. After the damage RHEL 6 will have done to the reputation of the Linux desktop, it will take again as many years to rectify the damage done. Granted if we will have a solid desktop environment comparable to Windows 7 by the time RHEL 7 gets released. Which I can't help but doubt.
Don't underrate the devs of redhat or suse because they can't discuss about useless things, the have to sell it and so they have to get it stable. So if MS can learn from his mistakes why not the bigger player in the linux market can do the same.
* I get a full 10 minutes of extra runtime on my laptop when I switched back to 3.5
Really, give another gui a chance and you will see more time what you get. Perhaps using openbox instead of kwin can helps too ... but the KDE gui without kwin looks very bad and my suggestion is to use another gui.
* Power management is buggy in KDE 4.3 and sometimes powerdevil just loses its settings
The laptop-tools can do the same job. I was a fan of KDE until 3.5 but i'm a bigger fan of "the better wins". If you like black humor than you can see KDE 4.x as a good motivation to reconsider your configuration and to take a look at the other gui's. For me this is the most positive thing about 4.x because now i know that the other one have execellent solutions too. Instead i'm not lucky about this days of testing other guis i must repeat the biggest advantage: the choice. See you, Attila
participants (34)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Alessandro Doro
-
Allan McRae
-
Arvid Picciani
-
Attila
-
b4283
-
Caleb Cushing
-
Dario
-
David C. Rankin
-
David Rosenstrauch
-
dennisjperkins＠comcast.net
-
Dieter Plaetinck
-
Felipe Tanus
-
gnuisancev3
-
Heiko Baums
-
hollunder＠gmx.at
-
JM
-
Jozsef
-
Lars Tennstedt
-
Norbert Zeh
-
Otávio Módolo
-
Phillip Smith
-
Piyush P Kurur
-
ppk
-
Rafa Griman
-
Raven_Oscar UnKnown
-
Ray Kohler
-
RedShift
-
Shridhar Daithankar
-
Stefan Erik Wilkens
-
Sven-Hendrik Haase
-
Thomas Bächler
-
Vesa Kaihlavirta
-
Xavier