Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 121 to 130 of 130

Thread: KDE Does Its Second 4.7 Release Candidate

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    40

    Default

    I have a question regarding the KDE/Gnome debate, maybe you can help with it: do you think that you can all please shut the fuck up? It's because of people like you that I can't read these forums anymore. Go troll each other in pm.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Classy..

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut,USA
    Posts
    983

    Default

    Seems every thread I open seems to be some childish bickering...seems we got the GNOME fanbois trolling a KDE thread as usual, sad!

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Reading comprehension's a wonderful thing.

  5. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    And with that you betray that you've not understood what I'm saying there. I would say though that to misunderstand what I wrote in my first post even after I explained the detail of the actual motivation behind it doesn't suggest a good faith reading of what I wrote. The reason for my first post follows it on the first page of this thread, and then further into it.
    Are you aware your motivation makes nearly no difference? Why should I care about your firsts posts in this thread while other were so trollish?


    Well the basis for the first post was certainly explained within the first page of this thread. Then further on this page. While the subject of KDE4's stability can be seen as a hot topic, simply discussing it or bringing up stability as a relevant element of a new release of a desktop isn't too far off the pale surely. It's an issue that's been the subject of discussion for quite a while now at any rate. The issue of Gnome2 and functionality has also been a running topic for quite a while. If someone brought up the stability issue within a Gnome3 release statement I'm not sure how anyone could see that as irrelevant. It's up to that project to provide a reason to be happy about stability via quality code that's robust enough for day to day use.
    I don't know why are you talking about this. You still don't get what was the point? If you wouldn't ignore other people experiences and blindly follow yours, it will make a huge difference.

    I'm not biased. I don't make brand allegiances. To do so puts one in a position of difficulty when their chosen brand doesn't perform as required. The reliability of the products of brands can change over time, and as someone who isn't contributing to either Gnome of KDE4 I have no control over what level of breakage they do or don't ship with their code. I'm certainly not going to hitch my ship to anything when I'm in that kind of position. If Gnome2 updates cause breakage of an unsatisfactory nature for me in the future then my options will be to not integrate them, live with them or shift to an alternative subject to what makes the most sense at the time. If I want to use Ubuntu 11.10 which will be shipping Gnome3 and a Unity desktop based on it it'll make sense to perform some tests in the future. Calling me a Gnome fanboy isn't really consistent with the fact that I've used both desktops and that I'm happy to acknowledge any benefits KDE has over Gnome, even now while I use a Gnome desktop. The fact that Gnome has some over KDE as well doesn't evade me as I've discussed in this thread and is why it's what I use for the moment.
    It doesn't really matter if you were using both desktops or not to be a fanboy. I consider you're biased and I'm basing on your responses in this thread and on some older ones.

    Apparently I do need to explain such things to you if you consistently misunderstand what I'm saying, either deliberately or not.

    I also disagree that my entire discussion is about other things as well.

    Chronologically, it's gone basically like this.

    • Firstly I mentioned the breakage in the release announcement.
    • Then I responded that no, they were already made aware that the breakage was there before I posted and then went on to detail why I posted there at all.
    • Then I responded that no, I wasn't talking about Gnome3, but specifically “What I wrote relates to my experience with the KDE 4 series, Gnome 2 series, and now with Ubuntu's Unity interface.”
    • Then later even more detail on the nature of the instability that I found with KDE4.


    All of this before the first page had even been filled. By post 8 in this thread actually.
    Oh man. Wasn't I clear when I said one of the problems was your attitude (you didn't took into consideration problems can lay somewhere else than in KDE)?

    People have then claimed that the issues were even worse with Gnome2, that the problems I had with KDE4 were a figment of my imagination or due to infrastructure or more specifically, the distro that I may have been using and other such things which I've then responded to as you've read.
    And what's wrong with this part? Different opinion, experience, something wrong with that?

    I've then been told that my responses to those questioning the veracity of my claims were nothing more than trolling on my behalf, ultimately leading to my statement
    Yes, I see it exactly like that.

    You can and will likely will continue to claim that the issues I found were not those of KDE but instead those of the distro/infrastructure/hardware. The diversity of hardware and distro and the period of time over which the usage occurred isn't consistent with mere sole platform issues.
    The point is there's huge possibility the issues were not in KDE, but another point is - it sometimes cannot be proven easily where the problem lays- I mentioned this before and you simply should stop your rant after that.

    I didn't agree that KDE4 was as stable or more so than Gnome2. I still don't. I've detailed what I base my view upon. I feel that KDE4 hasn't been in the same ball park as Gnome2 in relation to stability. I mentioned that I felt this could very well be due to the fact that the Gnome2 desktop, at least from a functionality standpoint, was less grandiose than KDE4, but that ultimately when talking about having a dependable desktop, grandiose software which is unreliable is less palatable than software which may be less featureful, but more stable.
    Heh, but this is just an opinion and some other people's opinions are different.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    And with that you betray that you've not understood what I'm saying there. I would say though that to misunderstand what I wrote in my first post even after I explained the detail of the actual motivation behind it doesn't suggest a good faith reading of what I wrote. The reason for my first post follows it on the first page of this thread, and then further into it.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Are you aware your motivation makes nearly no difference? Why should I care about your firsts posts in this thread while other were so trollish?
    You should care because this thread is a conversation. Statements I've made later on in the thread have a basis in the statements I first made here. You can consider criticism of KDE as a troll all you like but it doesn't make it true. I have a long term experience with KDE that I think is relevant and is not merely the stuff of someone wanting to hate KDE 4. You don't think that's relevant? Further, it's been interesting to note the experience of others in relation to the recent release KDE 4.7 as noted in the tech press and associated user comments. It would seem I'm far from an outlier as far as experiencing problems with KDE 4.





    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Well the basis for the first post was certainly explained within the first page of this thread. Then further on this page. While the subject of KDE4's stability can be seen as a hot topic, simply discussing it or bringing up stability as a relevant element of a new release of a desktop isn't too far off the pale surely. It's an issue that's been the subject of discussion for quite a while now at any rate. The issue of Gnome2 and functionality has also been a running topic for quite a while. If someone brought up the stability issue within a Gnome3 release statement I'm not sure how anyone could see that as irrelevant. It's up to that project to provide a reason to be happy about stability via quality code that's robust enough for day to day use.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    I don't know why are you talking about this. You still don't get what was the point? If you wouldn't ignore other people experiences and blindly follow yours, it will make a huge difference.
    You don't know? Even after I've explained several times. You're trying to read something into my words that isn't there. The first time you did it, fair enough, but then I went into more detail as to what I was getting at. You still refuse to accept what I'm saying, and instead want to quote out of context to try and suit your own ends. Lets see.

    You said
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    As far I can see you intentionally posted a flame bit in this thread and you were blindly following you ideology.
    The post wasn't made out of being a troll and my preparedness to use any desktop environment that suits my needs is wholly inconsistent with me following blind ideology. If I was a KDE 4 user for more years than I was a Gnome 2 one and I'm so susceptible to being locked into ideology, wouldn't I still be using KDE 4? Wouldn't I be prepared to overlook any weaknesses KDE 4 has in order to satisfy my need to stay with the KDE 4 ideology?

    Now, specifically to your question "I don't know why are you talking about this," you had misunderstood my first post as a troll. So I then posted

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Well the basis for the first post was certainly explained within the first page of this thread. Then further on this page. While the subject of KDE4's stability can be seen as a hot topic, simply discussing it or bringing up stability as a relevant element of a new release of a desktop isn't too far off the pale surely. It's an issue that's been the subject of discussion for quite a while now at any rate. The issue of Gnome2 and functionality has also been a running topic for quite a while. If someone brought up the stability issue within a Gnome3 release statement I'm not sure how anyone could see that as irrelevant. It's up to that project to provide a reason to be happy about stability via quality code that's robust enough for day to day use.
    I was explaining the true motivation behind my first post. It may run counter to your mistaken narrative of a troll post, and perhaps given the standard and nature of a fair amount internet forum comments the possibility of the troll word coming across you mind can't be completely ruled out, at least not initially, but further elucidation of my post has clarified, time and time again the true nature of the post. You then seem to pretend that I've not explained further, ignore it, and go back to your initial position. The climate skeptics could perhaps learn a thing or two from you. They would be proud.





    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    I'm not biased. I don't make brand allegiances. To do so puts one in a position of difficulty when their chosen brand doesn't perform as required. The reliability of the products of brands can change over time, and as someone who isn't contributing to either Gnome of KDE4 I have no control over what level of breakage they do or don't ship with their code. I'm certainly not going to hitch my ship to anything when I'm in that kind of position. If Gnome2 updates cause breakage of an unsatisfactory nature for me in the future then my options will be to not integrate them, live with them or shift to an alternative subject to what makes the most sense at the time. If I want to use Ubuntu 11.10 which will be shipping Gnome3 and a Unity desktop based on it it'll make sense to perform some tests in the future. Calling me a Gnome fanboy isn't really consistent with the fact that I've used both desktops and that I'm happy to acknowledge any benefits KDE has over Gnome, even now while I use a Gnome desktop. The fact that Gnome has some over KDE as well doesn't evade me as I've discussed in this thread and is why it's what I use for the moment.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    It doesn't really matter if you were using both desktops or not to be a fanboy. I consider you're biased and I'm basing on your responses in this thread and on some older ones.
    What, the ones in older threads where I say I am a KDE 4 user? The ones where I describe the behavior of KDE 4 and Gnome 2, both good and bad for both?

    The fact that I use all platforms, each with their own strengths and weaknesses must really gall you. The fact that I could be so rude as to not lock myself down to only using one particular desktop so as to fit some fixed ideology, possibly KDE 4 perhaps, it almost sounds as though it confuses you terribly.

    Clearly all platforms have their strengths and weaknesses. I like Microsoft Windows for some tasks as I can at the same time recognise Microsoft as a bad corporate citizen (to say the last, at least in the past) and also see the clear advantages it has over the Linux platform in some areas. When I use a Machintosh, I fail to see the "brain damage" that others consider it to be and find it a pleasant experience, and a most stable one as well. When I use KDE 4 I see a software design and feature set that I like but consider it too unstable for my tastes and so use the less featured but more stable Gnome 2 one instead. It was interesting to hear KDE 4.7's desktop search improvements touted as something to behold, only to be found wanting from a reliability point of view, due in part because of Strigi I believe.

    It is in fact the lack of "fanboy" in me that frees me to discuss not only the good of the platform I use the most (Gnome 2), but also the bad as well. It's great to not have a "monkey on my back" in the form of brand loyalty that some who frequent internet forums seem to burden themselves with. It frees me to pick and choose the best platform available to me at any given time and not have to worry about what someone else might think, or worry about how the use of a different platform may contradict statements I've made previously. If I was to continuously preach how Microsoft Windows 7 sucked, but then need to use it for say, running Protools or somesuch, it wouldn't be a good look in my view. I can say I both hate the corporate behavior of Microsoft, especially that of them in the 90's, yet still acknowledge that their current version of Windows has some good attributes as well and is the best technical choice in some circumstances and do it with a clear conscience knowing that I've not been unreasonable about the product in the past. When (if) KDE 4 reaches a level of stability that I'm satisfied with I can also with a clear conscience switch back to using it. Pretty basic stuff really. Don't know why you seem to have so much trouble accepting that.





    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Apparently I do need to explain such things to you if you consistently misunderstand what I'm saying, either deliberately or not.

    I also disagree that my entire discussion is about other things as well.

    Chronologically, it's gone basically like this.
    Firstly I mentioned the breakage in the release announcement.
    Then I responded that no, they were already made aware that the breakage was there before I posted and then went on to detail why I posted there at all.
    Then I responded that no, I wasn't talking about Gnome3, but specifically “What I wrote relates to my experience with the KDE 4 series, Gnome 2 series, and now with Ubuntu's Unity interface.”
    Then later even more detail on the nature of the instability that I found with KDE4.

    All of this before the first page had even been filled. By post 8 in this thread actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Oh man. Wasn't I clear when I said one of the problems was your attitude (you didn't took into consideration problems can lay somewhere else than in KDE)?
    I did look into consideration that on occasion the problems could lay somewhere else but I also noted that the same infrastructure was also supporting a nice and stable Gnome 2 desktop and that didn't appear to sit well with some. I noted that I was prepared to switch distros to test it's reliability on another teams packaging yet found problems there too. Also, it's not like the problems disappeared over quite a prolonged usage of KDE 4. I said that I didn't buy your assertion that it's all "someone else's fault" for KDE 4's issues when at the same time Gnome 2 could manage and certainly not in the face of an extended usage over years. Just as we have the drivers we have, and not the drivers we want, we also have the distro infrastructure we have and not the distro infrastructure we want. In the face of that I think it reasonable that the current state of infrastructure should be taken into consideration when developing software. If there's a particular piece that's having issues, perhaps it's not wise to use it. Say, I don't know, Strigi had show stopper issues that the KDE team were preparing to release under the guise of "production software", and also say that the KDE team were going to base parts of the greater "production software" desktop on top of that currently problematic Strigi. Wouldn't it be wise to perhaps not ship an effectively broken functionality and instead stay with a desktop search that was more stable and based on alternative technology until the current Strigi was fixed, or perhaps even delay the 4.7 release until Strigi was fixed.





    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    People have then claimed that the issues were even worse with Gnome2, that the problems I had with KDE4 were a figment of my imagination or due to infrastructure or more specifically, the distro that I may have been using and other such things which I've then responded to as you've read.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    And what's wrong with this part? Different opinion, experience, something wrong with that?
    In my experience of reading the outcomes people have reported with running various desktops, my assertions about KDE 4 and stability hold more currency than the alternative view, which I've previously stated. My experiences are that of myself only, though I will say they were experienced over a prolonged usage with a variety of hardware and distro base and they do correlate with the experiences of others.





    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    I've then been told that my responses to those questioning the veracity of my claims were nothing more than trolling on my behalf, ultimately leading to my statement
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Yes, I see it exactly like that.
    Leading to my statement
    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    It would take a particularly tortured reading of my posts here to conclude that the majority of my discussion here isn't actually merely defending my position that in my experience I've found the Gnome 2 desktop to be much more stable than the KDE 4 one, and that I don't feel that all of KDE's failures are due to lower level infrastructure.




    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    You can and will likely will continue to claim that the issues I found were not those of KDE but instead those of the distro/infrastructure/hardware. The diversity of hardware and distro and the period of time over which the usage occurred isn't consistent with mere sole platform issues.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    The point is there's huge possibility the issues were not in KDE, but another point is - it sometimes cannot be proven easily where the problem lays- I mentioned this before and you simply should stop your rant after that.
    No, it's certainly not a huge possibility.

    If the issues were experienced over only a short period of time, with perhaps only one set of hardware and only one distro, perhaps the possibility increases, but not when a lack of quality control was observed over a prolonged usage with varied hardware and distro bases that other desktops were happy with.





    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    I didn't agree that KDE4 was as stable or more so than Gnome2. I still don't. I've detailed what I base my view upon. I feel that KDE4 hasn't been in the same ball park as Gnome2 in relation to stability. I mentioned that I felt this could very well be due to the fact that the Gnome2 desktop, at least from a functionality standpoint, was less grandiose than KDE4, but that ultimately when talking about having a dependable desktop, grandiose software which is unreliable is less palatable than software which may be less featureful, but more stable.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Heh, but this is just an opinion and some other people's opinions are different.
    Well clearly you report that your experience doesn't correlate with mine but I've read many more reports that do than do not.

  7. #127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    You should care because this thread is a conversation. Statements I've made later on in the thread have a basis in the statements I first made here.
    Why do you write so much about things which can be described in few sentences? It is you who thinks it's just about conversation, but I consider it's about trolling as well. It doesn't really matter if statements you've made later are based on your first posts - your later posts were simply ignorant.

    You can consider criticism of KDE as a troll all you like but it doesn't make it true.
    Like I said few times it's about ignoring facts and other people experiences and not just about criticizing KDE. If you still don't understand this I don't know if conversation makes sense.

    I have a long term experience with KDE that I think is relevant and is not merely the stuff of someone wanting to hate KDE 4. You don't think that's relevant? Further, it's been interesting to note the experience of others in relation to the recent release KDE 4.7 as noted in the tech press and associated user comments. It would seem I'm far from an outlier as far as experiencing problems with KDE 4.
    Yes, I think that's irrelevant, because of what I wrote above... Even if you were a KDE fanboy in the past it doesn't justify your ignorance.

    You don't know? Even after I've explained several times. You're trying to read something into my words that isn't there. The first time you did it, fair enough, but then I went into more detail as to what I was getting at. You still refuse to accept what I'm saying, and instead want to quote out of context to try and suit your own ends. Lets see.
    Ask yourself if you had the point and then rethink everything.

    The post wasn't made out of being a troll and my preparedness to use any desktop environment that suits my needs is wholly inconsistent with me following blind ideology. If I was a KDE 4 user for more years than I was a Gnome 2 one and I'm so susceptible to being locked into ideology, wouldn't I still be using KDE 4? Wouldn't I be prepared to overlook any weaknesses KDE 4 has in order to satisfy my need to stay with the KDE 4 ideology?
    It's quite irritating to see at the beginning you've missed the point, because it makes your huge posts uninteresting. Your preparedness to use KDE doesn't matter, because of the thing I mentioned above - ignorance - you didn't want to agree other can have far different experience with KDE than you and you didn't want to believe your problems with KDE may lay somewhere else.

    Now, specifically to your question "I don't know why are you talking about this," you had misunderstood my first post as a troll. So I then posted
    I think it must be funny feeling realizing that's you who had misunderstood what I was talking about.

    I was explaining the true motivation behind my first post. It may run counter to your mistaken narrative of a troll post, and perhaps given the standard and nature of a fair amount internet forum comments the possibility of the troll word coming across you mind can't be completely ruled out, at least not initially, but further elucidation of my post has clarified, time and time again the true nature of the post. You then seem to pretend that I've not explained further, ignore it, and go back to your initial position. The climate skeptics could perhaps learn a thing or two from you. They would be proud.
    If my motivation is to save the World from the evil and thus I'll kill the half of the entire population, am I good? What were your motives to ignore other people experiences and some circumstantial evidences? As far I can see you didn't clarify why have you ignored those who had different opinion and experience.

    What, the ones in older threads where I say I am a KDE 4 user? The ones where I describe the behavior of KDE 4 and Gnome 2, both good and bad for both?
    Ok, enough. You're sticking to wrong point like described above.

    I did look into consideration that on occasion the problems could lay somewhere else but I also noted that the same infrastructure was also supporting a nice and stable Gnome 2 desktop and that didn't appear to sit well with some.
    Heh, but it was explained to you by some people KDE could trigger bugs in some parts which wasn't used before (by Gnome 2 in example).

    I noted that I was prepared to switch distros to test it's reliability on another teams packaging yet found problems there too. Also, it's not like the problems disappeared over quite a prolonged usage of KDE 4. I said that I didn't buy your assertion that it's all "someone else's fault" for KDE 4's issues when at the same time Gnome 2 could manage and certainly not in the face of an extended usage over years.
    There are many people who doesn't have problems with KDE. Like I said I had problems with Gnome 2, so I could write about its issues, instability etc. However, I know it works sometimes without problems I was facing and I found it strange you didn't want to realize that the same situation can be with KDE. It's one of the main reasons I considered some of your posts to be trolish.

    Just as we have the drivers we have, and not the drivers we want, we also have the distro infrastructure we have and not the distro infrastructure we want. In the face of that I think it reasonable that the current state of infrastructure should be taken into consideration when developing software.
    That's true and with such attitude it sounds far different. If there are problems in drivers and only KDE suffers from it, both sides should cooperate (KDE should report issue and track the progress of fixing it and driver guys should make a patch), but it wouldn't be fair to say it's simply a KDE's fault. My another point is there were no evidences pointing to KDE's faults, but maybe it was different from your POV - I follow KDE development, read and post some bug reports, so maybe I'm in a better position to point where some problems may be.

    If the issues were experienced over only a short period of time, with perhaps only one set of hardware and only one distro, perhaps the possibility increases, but not when a lack of quality control was observed over a prolonged usage with varied hardware and distro bases that other desktops were happy with.
    Ask yourself: quality control of what Linux's stack? Many things points to graphic drivers related problems and some other to dbus (this one is already proven). About graphic drivers - there's a thread on Phoronix describing problems with kwin and the drivers which expose 'features' as complete even if they're not, so this can lead to strange things on some configurations. Keep in mind many other don't suffer from the issues you've described, so if you didn't post a bug reports or if devs aren't able to reproduce them it will be hard to fix. Btw. we have similar situation with Gnome Shell and some graphic drivers like nvidia blob which caused some problems. The problem wasn't in shell, but in the blob.
    Last edited by kraftman; 08-05-2011 at 09:09 AM.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    You should care because this thread is a conversation. Statements I've made later on in the thread have a basis in the statements I first made here.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Why do you write so much about things which can be described in few sentences? It is you who thinks it's just about conversation, but I consider it's about trolling as well. It doesn't really matter if statements you've made later are based on your first posts - your later posts were simply ignorant.
    You think I'm trolling? Well you're wrong. Simple. (and in one sentance.)





    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    You can consider criticism of KDE as a troll all you like but it doesn't make it true.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Like I said few times it's about ignoring facts and other people experiences and not just about criticizing KDE. If you still don't understand this I don't know if conversation makes sense.
    I'm not ignoring others experiences. I've noted that I've read many more complaints about KDE 4's stability than I've read good reports. That'd be other peoples experiences. Make sense?





    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    I have a long term experience with KDE that I think is relevant and is not merely the stuff of someone wanting to hate KDE 4. You don't think that's relevant? Further, it's been interesting to note the experience of others in relation to the recent release KDE 4.7 as noted in the tech press and associated user comments. It would seem I'm far from an outlier as far as experiencing problems with KDE 4.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Yes, I think that's irrelevant, because of what I wrote above... Even if you were a KDE fanboy in the past it doesn't justify your ignorance.
    You think it's OK to ignore the meaning behind what I'm saying. At the same time you ask that I not ignore the experience of others, yet I did mention the experience of others. It's helpful to read with comprehension.





    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    You don't know? Even after I've explained several times. You're trying to read something into my words that isn't there. The first time you did it, fair enough, but then I went into more detail as to what I was getting at. You still refuse to accept what I'm saying, and instead want to quote out of context to try and suit your own ends. Lets see.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Ask yourself if you had the point and then rethink everything.
    I don't even know what this means. Perhaps you're becoming more irrational over time.





    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    The post wasn't made out of being a troll and my preparedness to use any desktop environment that suits my needs is wholly inconsistent with me following blind ideology. If I was a KDE 4 user for more years than I was a Gnome 2 one and I'm so susceptible to being locked into ideology, wouldn't I still be using KDE 4? Wouldn't I be prepared to overlook any weaknesses KDE 4 has in order to satisfy my need to stay with the KDE 4 ideology?
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    It's quite irritating to see at the beginning you've missed the point, because it makes your huge posts uninteresting. Your preparedness to use KDE doesn't matter, because of the thing I mentioned above - ignorance - you didn't want to agree other can have far different experience with KDE than you and you didn't want to believe your problems with KDE may lay somewhere else.
    Here you demonstrate more lack of understanding.

    If for example one person out of 100 has a bug free experience with KDE 4, that leaves 99 that don't have a bug free experience with KDE 4. See how that could explain your own experience? Now, I did say in my previous post in this thread that my own personal experience is just that, my own experience. But I also said that I'd read many, many more reports of buggy KDE 4 experiences than reports of fault free ones, and that that correlated with my own experience as well.





    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Now, specifically to your question "I don't know why are you talking about this," you had misunderstood my first post as a troll. So I then posted
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    I think it must be funny feeling realizing that's you who had misunderstood what I was talking about.
    You directly called my first post a troll. You were wrong. I explained in detail the meaning of the post. You then called it a troll again. You're still wrong. If I've misunderstood you then you must be telling me that you don't consider my first post a troll. Perhaps we do have progress here.





    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    I was explaining the true motivation behind my first post. It may run counter to your mistaken narrative of a troll post, and perhaps given the standard and nature of a fair amount internet forum comments the possibility of the troll word coming across you mind can't be completely ruled out, at least not initially, but further elucidation of my post has clarified, time and time again the true nature of the post. You then seem to pretend that I've not explained further, ignore it, and go back to your initial position. The climate skeptics could perhaps learn a thing or two from you. They would be proud.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    If my motivation is to save the World from the evil and thus I'll kill the half of the entire population, am I good? What were your motives to ignore other people experiences and some circumstantial evidences? As far I can see you didn't clarify why have you ignored those who had different opinion and experience.
    So are you saying that the reason behind something's always irrelevant?
    If you're killing because you have a mental illness then that's a very, very bad thing. If a police officer shoots and kills the murdering psychopath before he can continue to kill half of the people, well I'd say the police officer's a pretty good guy. Lets look at the motivations, two guys, each one has killed, one is a murderer with no reason for doing so other than his/her mental illness, one is trying to stop the murdering. One has a bad motivation, one has a good one.

    Now I didn't ignore other peoples reports of a completely fault free KDE 4 experience but I did refute that it was the overall prevailing one.

    My remark to the effect that I felt it was "business as usual" for the KDE folks when coming across the broken release statement has a basis in real life experience over years of using their project as a full time desktop. Further, it would seem that evidence of the basis for my position has been provided with the release of the 4.7 edition of KDE SC.





    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    What, the ones in older threads where I say I am a KDE 4 user? The ones where I describe the behavior of KDE 4 and Gnome 2, both good and bad for both?
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Ok, enough. You're sticking to wrong point like described above.
    You're making statements saying I'm a fanboy yet my posts in the past and the ones here don't bear that out. If you're going to make inaccurate statements about me then I'm going to point that out to you and I can't see anything wrong with doing that.





    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    I did look into consideration that on occasion the problems could lay somewhere else but I also noted that the same infrastructure was also supporting a nice and stable Gnome 2 desktop and that didn't appear to sit well with some.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Heh, but it was explained to you by some people KDE could trigger bugs in some parts which wasn't used before (by Gnome 2 in example).
    And it was explained to you that when one is to make a selection for a desktop environment where stability is a prerequisite, it makes no sense to select a desktop environment that bases itself on buggy infrastructure. I see you didn't understand my post above. It is directly in the KDE team's control upon what they base their project and in what way they use it. See my statement regarding Strigi. Not to mention of course that over a prolonged period of use, where the base infrastructure had seen TLC, KDE 4 was there, still banging out the bugs.





    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    I noted that I was prepared to switch distros to test it's reliability on another teams packaging yet found problems there too. Also, it's not like the problems disappeared over quite a prolonged usage of KDE 4. I said that I didn't buy your assertion that it's all "someone else's fault" for KDE 4's issues when at the same time Gnome 2 could manage and certainly not in the face of an extended usage over years.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    There are many people who doesn't have problems with KDE. Like I said I had problems with Gnome 2, so I could write about its issues, instability etc. However, I know it works sometimes without problems I was facing and I found it strange you didn't want to realize that the same situation can be with KDE. It's one of the main reasons I considered some of your posts to be trolish.
    As far as your experience with KDE 4 is concerned, I consider you the outlier here. To clarify, by outlier I mean not the common experience and more the exception than the rule. I gave KDE 4 a jolly good run. Even after I'd come to the conclusion it was time to move to an alternative I still stuck with KDE 4 for a while, but then one too many issues occurred, and that was that.





    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Just as we have the drivers we have, and not the drivers we want, we also have the distro infrastructure we have and not the distro infrastructure we want. In the face of that I think it reasonable that the current state of infrastructure should be taken into consideration when developing software.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    That's true and with such attitude it sounds far different. If there are problems in drivers and only KDE suffers from it, both sides should cooperate (KDE should report issue and track the progress of fixing it and driver guys should make a patch), but it wouldn't be fair to say it's simply a KDE's fault. My another point is there were no evidences pointing to KDE's faults, but maybe it was different from your POV - I follow KDE development, read and post some bug reports, so maybe I'm in a better position to point where some problems may be.
    I followed KDE's development while I used it. As I was a programmer for a while (when the Amiga was on the market) it's not surprising that I found an interest in the design approaches of the environment so I'd kept an eye on KDE 3 & 4. More recently just to keep my eye in, a very simple patch for the KDE 3.5 help system, a patch for the kernel module for reading temps for k8 CPU's, and various other minor odds and sods so I do understand the concepts that you're getting at.

    Having said that, when the need to turn your attention away from just micro managing problems and issues with the computer you're using and instead go and get some actual work done, it matters not why a particular desktop environment is problematic, only that it is problematic. If I'd found the same situation with Gnome 2 then Windows would've been the next stop at that point. Damingly, over a long period of time KDE 4 was problematic. Part of being a professional programmer is dealing with the realities of the target platform. As a hobbiest there's less consequences of taking a more pure academic approach that may lead to a more technically elegant solution, but lead to a real world end user experience that is sub-optimal. Conversely, a more pragmatic approach that is prepared to deal with the realities of the target platform in its current state can lead to a less pure program from a code beauty perspective but at the same time lead to a much more pleasant experience for the end user. It can be wise sometimes to not base ones project on libraries that are unreliable, or it can be worthwhile coding around weaknesses in a somewhat reliable library which may have particular corner case issues that are wise to stay away from. If the KDE 4 team have dependencies on broken code, that in itself is a weakness of the KDE 4 desktop. Ultimately, if Gnome 2 is reliable in an environment where KDE 4 is not, then don't be surprised if someone who doesn't have the time to patch the code themselves finds another environment.





    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    If the issues were experienced over only a short period of time, with perhaps only one set of hardware and only one distro, perhaps the possibility increases, but not when a lack of quality control was observed over a prolonged usage with varied hardware and distro bases that other desktops were happy with.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Ask yourself: quality control of what Linux's stack? Many things points to graphic drivers related problems and some other to dbus (this one is already proven). About graphic drivers - there's a thread on Phoronix describing problems with kwin and the drivers which expose 'features' as complete even if they're not, so this can lead to problems on some configurations. Keep in mind many other don't suffer from the problems you've described, so if you didn't post a bug reports or if devs aren't able to reproduce problems it will be hard to fix.
    Pointing to one particular KDE 4 bug that's due to a particular dbus issue doesn't help me with the rest of the bugs. Also, a display driver bug isn't very likely to cause an international time conversion bug in a calendaring program, especially not when the program was used with multiple display drivers over multiple machines. When it came to the performance issues with window preview in the task bar on an Intel 945 based system I simply disabled window previews. If I really needed previews that badly I'd of used Compiz instead of KWin. Easy. If there's graphics glitches, I have enough hardware to test over Intel, AMD and nVidia. If the problem exists on all platforms, that's interesting in itself. If there's performance issues with a mail program that have been present for years, and present on multiple vendors hardware, they're not likely to be graphics driver related. If I only had to deal with the sub-set of bugs that could be traced further down the stack that'd be one thing, but as a user you have to deal with all of the other bugs in KDE 4 as well.

  9. #129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    You think I'm trolling? Well you're wrong. Simple. (and in one sentance.)
    Well, I think I'm right, but it's not only about trolling, but also about nonsense. EDIT: however, if that's true you were thinking I called your first post a trollish one, you were wrong and this makes a lot of sense now. :P This changes a lot, but I wonder why did you consider I was talking about your first post? I should edit some parts of this response, because now I probably know why you were writing about all of that things. However, I'll leave it as it is.

    I'm not ignoring others experiences. I've noted that I've read many more complaints about KDE 4's stability than I've read good reports. That'd be other peoples experiences. Make sense?
    But I have read opposite, so it doesn't make sense at all and that's why it's a nonsense.

    You think it's OK to ignore the meaning behind what I'm saying. At the same time you ask that I not ignore the experience of others, yet I did mention the experience of others. It's helpful to read with comprehension.
    It's OK to ignore what's your saying when you're talking about things which doesn't really matter and which does lead to nowhere. I tried to show you this 'disscusion' can lead to nowhere, because of some obvious reasons. Your experience is different than mine and me and other folks showed you, you can be simply wrong by judging KDE basing on some problems which can be related to something else.

    I don't even know what this means. Perhaps you're becoming more irrational over time.
    This means you're simply not so smart to realize why all this talk is crap.

    Here you demonstrate more lack of understanding.

    If for example one person out of 100 has a bug free experience with KDE 4, that leaves 99 that don't have a bug free experience with KDE 4. See how that could explain your own experience? Now, I did say in my previous post in this thread that my own personal experience is just that, my own experience. But I also said that I'd read many, many more reports of buggy KDE 4 experiences than reports of fault free ones, and that that correlated with my own experience as well.
    I'm really sorry, but this is just meaningless. You still don't get it can be different? For example 99 persons out of 100 has bug free experience with KDE 4. Mine own (and many other people) experience is far different, so we've got a balance. However, it was showed some or all of the problems you were experiencing were or could be related to non KDE 4 parts, so saying 'balance' I'm really a good man here.

    You directly called my first post a troll. You were wrong. I explained in detail the meaning of the post. You then called it a troll again. You're still wrong. If I've misunderstood you then you must be telling me that you don't consider my first post a troll. Perhaps we do have progress here.
    Oh man, but I didn't call your first post 'a troll', but the one I gave you link to. I wouldn't call your first post trollish, because I would have done this in my first comment in this thread (which was neutral). About the post I linked to I said it was a flame bit. In my opinion you could troll, because of the ignorance I was talking about (but it starts from the post I linked to). It seems you didn't want to accept problems can lay somewhere else. However, if you considered I called your first post trollish this can explain your other posts.

    So are you saying that the reason behind something's always irrelevant?
    No, it's sometimes irrelevant. In example when someone comes here to troll, he usually trolls, but there's always a chance he accidentally doesn't troll or someone doesn't want to troll, but his talk looks like a trolling to others and thus it probably can be said he's trolling etc.*

    If you're killing because you have a mental illness then that's a very, very bad thing. If a police officer shoots and kills the murdering psychopath before he can continue to kill half of the people, well I'd say the police officer's a pretty good guy. Lets look at the motivations, two guys, each one has killed, one is a murderer with no reason for doing so other than his/her mental illness, one is trying to stop the murdering. One has a bad motivation, one has a good one.
    I think you should got the point.*

    Now I didn't ignore other peoples reports of a completely fault free KDE 4 experience but I did refute that it was the overall prevailing one.

    My remark to the effect that I felt it was "business as usual" for the KDE folks when coming across the broken release statement has a basis in real life experience over years of using their project as a full time desktop. Further, it would seem that evidence of the basis for my position has been provided with the release of the 4.7 edition of KDE SC.
    Business as usual, but this can be said about dbus or graphic drivers if there were the culprits. While there are no proofs of KDE faults it's not fair to say this about it. I realize how someone can feel if he experiences problems only in KDE and this suggests there's something wrong with it, but if there are presumptive evidences pointing to other parts such person should at least take into consideration KDE can be 'innocent'. The 4.7 release wasn't the proof if your previous problems were related to dbus or graphics.

    You're making statements saying I'm a fanboy yet my posts in the past and the ones here don't bear that out. If you're going to make inaccurate statements about me then I'm going to point that out to you and I can't see anything wrong with doing that.
    It's about opinions. I was considering you as a Gnome fanboy, but the later part of your posts makes me to rethink this.

    And it was explained to you that when one is to make a selection for a desktop environment where stability is a prerequisite, it makes no sense to select a desktop environment that bases itself on buggy infrastructure. I see you didn't understand my post above. It is directly in the KDE team's control upon what they base their project and in what way they use it. See my statement regarding Strigi. Not to mention of course that over a prolonged period of use, where the base infrastructure had seen TLC, KDE 4 was there, still banging out the bugs.
    But this means nothing. For you Gnome can be more stable, but for me KDE 4 was always been more stable. Like I said I probably didn't even suffer from dbus bug. As far as I know dbus is a free desktop project and if its developers didn't want to fix it I don't know what KDE should do - if it worked without problems before, but something were broken later and some idiot didn't want to fix it, what KDE should do about this? Fork? No, wait for the next version which will be patched. It's more a distros task to decide what components and their versions should be picked up.

    As far as your experience with KDE 4 is concerned, I consider you the outlier here. To clarify, by outlier I mean not the common experience and more the exception than the rule. I gave KDE 4 a jolly good run. Even after I'd come to the conclusion it was time to move to an alternative I still stuck with KDE 4 for a while, but then one too many issues occurred, and that was that.
    And I think I'm not an outlier, but outliers are the people who have problems with KDE. However I have to say I've rarely had problems with Linux as a whole and I experienced many more problems in XP. In example there's some bug which hangs my mouse for a while when I do a fast move to the left in fps games. Never happens on Linux.

    Having said that, when the need to turn your attention away from just micro managing problems and issues with the computer you're using and instead go and get some actual work done, it matters not why a particular desktop environment is problematic, only that it is problematic.
    In this case I agree. If Gnome works better for you just use it. For me KDE4 works without problems, so that's why I'm using it.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •