Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 130

Thread: KDE Does Its Second 4.7 Release Candidate

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    When the alternative (Gnome) desktop can run happily on the same infrastructure it calls into question KDE's ability to craft a platform on top that is robust.
    Nothing to to with robustness. Just luck. GNOME 2.x simply has almost no compositing to speak of (Compiz is no GNOME project). GNOME 3 with Mutter has its own problems – caused by drivers: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic....939593#p939593

    And that Compiz uses OpenGL 1 for almost everything doesn't make it more robust than KWin with its plugable back-ends.

    Oh, speaking of robustness: Does GNOME Evolution still crash when a connection is interrupted? In KMail IMAP, POP3, and SMTP are separate processes that could even crash without anyone noticing (the process simply gets restarted by KMail).

    Are MBOX indices in Thunderbird still saved in that broken mork format (that need to be manually deleted and rebuilt after a TB crash) instead of a proper database?

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Also, to categorically state that it's never appropriate to code around lower levels is a nice position to take from a puritan perspective, but it also ignores some realities.
    The reality is that KDE is a volunteer project and volunteers simply don't have the resources to code around bugs caused by incompetent but well-paid programmers from multi-billion dollar companies (or in case of Google competent but malicious programmers who add IMAP bugs to GMail on purpose).

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Additionally, I don't accept that all of the problems presented to me by the KDE desktop were all due to infrastructure.
    No, most are likely the result of your vivid imagination because your favorite hobby seems to be to stay in KDE forum thread all day long to bash it. In popular term people like you are called trolls. Normal people don't visit forums about a disliked product and tell all visitors there how much it sucks.

    KDE is one of the most popular FOSS communities in existence. If it was so bad as you claim, it wouldn't be as popular.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Nothing to to with robustness. Just luck. GNOME 2.x simply has almost no compositing to speak of (Compiz is no GNOME project). GNOME 3 with Mutter has its own problems – caused by drivers: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic....939593#p939593
    Luck If only KDE could have some of that Gnome Luck eh?

    And what about Metacity's compositing.

    Though, I run Compiz with Gnome. I find Compiz to be pretty good. Although if I really had to and there were no reliable compoistors I'd have to consider not running one.



    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    And that Compiz uses OpenGL 1 for almost everything doesn't make it more robust than KWin with its plugable back-ends.
    But it does make it more robust given the platform upon which it must run. There's something to be said for choosing attainable goals I guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Oh, speaking of robustness: Does GNOME Evolution still crash when a connection is interrupted?
    Not that I've found though it still may. If it does I'm not likely to see it as I run Thunderbird now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    In KMail IMAP, POP3, and SMTP are separate processes that could even crash without anyone noticing (the process simply gets restarted by KMail).
    Indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Are MBOX indices in Thunderbird still saved in that broken mork format (that need to be manually deleted and rebuilt after a TB crash) instead of a proper database?
    No, Thunderbird provides a nice little button to press to correct a corrupt index if it does occur.


    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    The reality is that KDE is a volunteer project and volunteers simply don't have the resources to code around bugs caused by incompetent but well-paid programmers from multi-billion dollar companies (or in case of Google competent but malicious programmers who add IMAP bugs to GMail on purpose).
    Well then luckily the paid guys over at Redhat are able to strive for Gnome robustness.


    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz
    Additionally, I don't accept that all of the problems presented to me by the KDE desktop were all due to infrastructure.
    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    No, most are likely the result of your vivid imagination because your favorite hobby seems to be to stay in KDE forum thread all day long to bash it. In popular term people like you are called trolls. Normal people don't visit forums about a disliked product and tell all visitors there how much it sucks.
    And here we have a paragraph from you essentially saying that the problems KDE has displayed to me are a figment of my imagination. Patently wrong on this account.

    As for bashing KDE, is it bashing Windows to highlight its weaknesses? Is it bashing to highlight Gnomes weaknesses? And is it bashing to highlight KDEs weaknesses? I think not. At the very least it'd be playing favorites to pretend that the KDE issues didn't exist while also discussing the issues of other platforms.

    As for the amount of time I'm spending here, I'd say a fair amount of it is spent dealing with the inaccurate assumptions and statements being made about things I've said.

    Unsurprisingly there are those who cannot bear to hear one bad word said against their chosen desktop. I'm not surprised there are those who are upset that someone may dare to mention some of the failings of KDE.

    As for sitting in a KDE forum all day discussing KDE, I would've thought it's a pretty appropriate place to discuss KDE.


    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    KDE is one of the most popular FOSS communities in existence. If it was so bad as you claim, it wouldn't be as popular.
    But compared to Gnome it isn't all that popular.
    Last edited by mugginz; 07-15-2011 at 02:36 PM.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Well, I concur, this kde4-ness left me looking for something better around kde 4.2; kde3 is still my favorite DE, but I want updated software, so I've moved on to the openbox wm, which is 100% stable. (not 98-99% or less) Its lightweight enough for me... comparable to kde3; kde4 quite frankly eats a huge chunk of my ram, and I'm ok without the eyecandy. I do, however, still use some of the priceless kde apps.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Luck If only KDE could have some of that Gnome Luck eh?
    God forbid, no!

    GNOME's attitude is to adopt pre-alpha dependencies and stick to them no matter what (PulseAudio, GStreamer).
    All GNOME apps that rely on GStreamer crash here at some point. Something about memory access violations.


    https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=119990 shows what happens when GNOME runs out of luck in the driver department. I rather have KDE's approach of modular back-ends. When a driver fails one can simply switch to KWin’s XRender compositing back-end. Broken driver with GNOME Shell: No GS at all.
    Great robustness…

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    LAnd what about Metacity's compositing.
    As I wrote: Almost non-existent.

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Thunderbird provides a nice little button to press to correct a corrupt index if it does occur.
    Wow, adding stupid buttons instead of actually renovating the file format to be an actual database…

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Well then luckily the paid guys over at Redhat are able to strive for Gnome robustness.
    Yup. https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=119990 ………

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    As for bashing KDE, is it bashing Windows to highlight its weaknesses?
    If one who doesn't use Windows logs in into a Windows forum just to tell everyone that it sucks: Yes. It's not even bashing. It's trolling.

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Is it bashing to highlight Gnomes weaknesses?
    Same here.

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Unsurprisingly there are those who cannot bear to hear one bad word said against their chosen desktop. I'm not surprised there are those who are upset that someone may dare to mention some of the failings of KDE.
    Lame trolling attempt again…
    Nobody here is claiming that KDE software has no problems. KDE software just has different and not as bad problems as you make up.
    I wouldn't use Plasma Desktop and so many KDE applications if they were a bugfest as you claim. I would've stayed on Mac OS X.

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    But compared to Gnome it isn't all that popular.
    Either you have no correct facts or you lie on purpose. According to the 2010 Census of GNOME’s own Dave Neary there were a bit over 400,000 commits to GNOME's SCM since GNOME was founded: http://www.neary-consulting.com/inde.../gnome-census/
    At about the same time KDE already had 1,000,000 commits http://blogs.fsfe.org/padams/?p=140

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,106

    Default

    like i said before KDE vs Gnome is not about luck.

    gnome2 is basically designed and maintained and debugged for RHEL/SLES X (not sure 6), in that sense RHEL is years behind any modern distro from glibc to X11 to mesa, so gnome2 libraries like Gtk2 or bonobo or Atk or gconf, etc are almost always compliant to work in pre AIGLX environments like RHEL and SLES aka basic XAA rendering path only and very simple opengl 1.x path in some scenarios, which certainly make gnome able to bypass the whole graphic stack entirely except XAA and some very old X11 extensions.

    so yes gnome2 with crappy drivers (xfce is included here too) can be more stable because it never use 95% of the drivers api (an many other cool stuff like dbus which use very simply in gnome2) on the other hand KDE team took the other path which is to heavily exploit the new generation api's and architectures to provide a 201x desktop environment and not a state of art 90's desktop like gnome2.

    ofc the path that KDE choosed had more bumps in the road in near term because before KDE nobody try to exploit those path that aggressively and the drivers proved to be unexpectedly unstable or incomplete or ugly hacked.

    KDE4 and gnome2 choosing of path is correct whatever you may think, gnome2 being behind of KDE4 but more stable on crappy subsystem give you a comfortable fallback DE and KDE4 taking the hard road helped that many and many ugly hacks and bugs were detected and fixed which helped to polish a lot many subsystems needed for the things to come.

    after many revision and bugs fixed KDE4 has reached a nice level of stabilty at least in many systems (fglrx won't ever be fixed i understand that now, so all hope is loss here but gallium is catching up nicely so luckily in some time fglrx won't be needed much !yay!).

    thanks to kde4 now gnome3 can come out of the shadow with a lot less bumpy roads.

    so is not stability per se but design paradigms understand this gnome2 don't have less bugs or is more stable than kde4 it just don't use the same code path, gnome2 is not less affected by driver bugs it just that gnome2 use a very small part of the drivers with minimal acceleration so is very unlikely to hit them, is not like gnome2 use a hell of workarounds to bypass driver bug cuz their are cool, they just don't have to cuz they don't use that code at all, KDE4 can't magically workaround driver bugs (is not pragmatism is engineering) for example you can't bypass that some motherless developer instead of accelerate in the gpu trapezoids like it should just provided in the blob a ugly plain C loop that kill the cpu and hence half of your desktop with it, it have to be fixed in the drivers yes or yes.

    the analogy to driver bug will be something like these "you can workaround the construction of a bridge that need to handle hurricanes, 500 tons per square meter and last 50 years in the middle of the sea coast using wood because your material provider run out of steel and concrete"

  6. #106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Yet you've stated that KDE is perfect.

    I've responded that it's not perfect for me. My reports of KDE's failings are In addition to those of others. There is a meaningful level of discussion regarding KDE's stability or should I say, lack thereof.
    No, you started meaningless flame in this thread.

    Yet, pro KDE guys want to talk as if there's no issues with KDE of any consequence.
    Not true at all. If there are problems for some it doesn't mean there are problems for other as well. I have no single stability problem with KDE in current Arch.

    If other desktops had KDE's reputation of instability then I guess we'd all be in trouble.
    Do you know what value such bull has? Such reputation was made when 4.0 appeared. Gnome has even worse reputation, now. Thanks to gnome's hell it's not only unstable, but it's also unusable.

    For those having issues with KDE's stability, luckily there are alternative platforms to choose from.
    True, but for others it doesn't matter.

    Of course you'll likely point out the those suffering from any undesirable behavior of Gnome have the same options, and you'd be right. You might try to suggest that Gnome is as unstable as KDE, or even more so. Given that there are more Gnome desktops than there are KDE, I'd find it surprising that those using the supposedly inferior Gnome desktop wouldn't simply install KDE along side. Even those looking for the ubiquity of packages available for the Ubuntu platform could install KDE along side.
    I beg to differ. I didn't saw any proof there are more Gnome desktops. As for Gnome3 It seems there are many people who switched from Gnome3 to KDE or XFCE.

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    Never heard of that. Fortunately, there are many suitable browsers available (went for Opera&Chrome instead).
    Yep, I prefer Firefox and Chromium.

    Tried with both. Didn't really make a difference (the delay happened after clicking on a folder and before displaying its contents).
    There's also possibility you have some info panel (on the right) turned on. I have it disabled all the time and maybe this makes a difference.

    The animations are really smooth but take 1sec to finish! Move your mouse over the options and see how the selection box lags behind.
    True! However, I always thought it's some feature.

    Yeah, there's a lot of work to be done for Unity. It was better than I expected, though.
    I find Unity to be designed with logic in mind. Btw. It seems Ubuntu team is looking at qml, so maybe there's a chance we'll see some better co-operation between Ubuntu and KDE in the future.

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    But compared to Gnome it isn't all that popular.
    The best joke I've ever heard. While Ubuntu is no longer so Gnome centric (and it will ship with Qt) KDE and its apps will become even more popular. Even now, when you install Ubuntu they're advertising digikam.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    When the alternative (Gnome) desktop can run happily on the same infrastructure it calls into question KDE's ability to craft a platform on top that is robust.

    Also, to categorically state that it's never appropriate to code around lower levels is a nice position to take from a puritan perspective, but it also ignores some realities.

    Additionally, I don't accept that all of the problems presented to me by the KDE desktop were all due to infrastructure.
    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Nothing to to with robustness. Just luck. GNOME 2.x simply has almost no compositing to speak of (Compiz is no GNOME project). GNOME 3 with Mutter has its own problems – caused by drivers: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic....939593#p939593

    And that Compiz uses OpenGL 1 for almost everything doesn't make it more robust than KWin with its plugable back-ends.
    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Luck If only KDE could have some of that Gnome Luck eh?

    And what about Metacity's compositing.

    Though, I run Compiz with Gnome. I find Compiz to be pretty good. Although if I really had to and there were no reliable compoistors I'd have to consider not running one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    God forbid, no!

    GNOME's attitude is to adopt pre-alpha dependencies and stick to them no matter what (PulseAudio, GStreamer).
    All GNOME apps that rely on GStreamer crash here at some point. Something about memory access violations.


    https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=119990 shows what happens when GNOME runs out of luck in the driver department. I rather have KDE's approach of modular back-ends. When a driver fails one can simply switch to KWin’s XRender compositing back-end. Broken driver with GNOME Shell: No GS at all.
    Great robustness…
    So, your going to continue with

    Gnome 3 is at least as bad as KDE 4 therefore Gnome 2 is teh suck

    Notice that you compared Gnome 3 with KDE in order to attribute instability to Gnome 2.

    Notice that I'm discussing Gnome 2.

    Further, I don't know what state Gnome 3 is in as I don't use it, and is irrelevant to my dislike of KDE 4's instability. There is no level of instability which Gnome 3 can attain that will concern my Gnome 2 desktop.

    Say all you want regarding Gnome 3's instability, it doesn't address the Gnome 2 > KDE 4 issue.






    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Luck If only KDE could have some of that Gnome Luck eh?

    And what about Metacity's compositing.

    Though, I run Compiz with Gnome. I find Compiz to be pretty good. Although if I really had to and there were no reliable compoistors I'd have to consider not running one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    As I wrote: Almost non-existent.
    So is it your view that the lack of wobbly windows and such renders a compositor as relatively meaningless?

    Surely the biggest win from using a compositor is that individual windows no longer have their contents damaged by the actions of other windows leading to performance gains and a more visually appealing experience. Does the OSX compositor or Windows 7 compositor suck somehow in your view because they do not provide windows of the wobbly variety?




    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Oh, speaking of robustness: Does GNOME Evolution still crash when a connection is interrupted? In KMail IMAP, POP3, and SMTP are separate processes that could even crash without anyone noticing (the process simply gets restarted by KMail).

    Are MBOX indices in Thunderbird still saved in that broken mork format (that need to be manually deleted and rebuilt after a TB crash) instead of a proper database?
    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    No, Thunderbird provides a nice little button to press to correct a corrupt index if it does occur.
    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Wow, adding stupid buttons instead of actually renovating the file format to be an actual database…
    You consider it better to be manually fixing things when Kmail's storage becomes borked? I'd rather press a single button.





    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Also, to categorically state that it's never appropriate to code around lower levels is a nice position to take from a puritan perspective, but it also ignores some realities.
    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    The reality is that KDE is a volunteer project and volunteers simply don't have the resources to code around bugs caused by incompetent but well-paid programmers from multi-billion dollar companies (or in case of Google competent but malicious programmers who add IMAP bugs to GMail on purpose).
    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Well then luckily the paid guys over at Redhat are able to strive for Gnome robustness.
    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    That link is pointing to a discussion regarding Gnome 3, not Gnome 2.






    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz
    Additionally, I don't accept that all of the problems presented to me by the KDE desktop were all due to infrastructure.
    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    No, most are likely the result of your vivid imagination because your favorite hobby seems to be to stay in KDE forum thread all day long to bash it. In popular term people like you are called trolls. Normal people don't visit forums about a disliked product and tell all visitors there how much it sucks.
    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    And here we have a paragraph from you essentially saying that the problems KDE has displayed to me are a figment of my imagination. Patently wrong on this account.

    As for bashing KDE, is it bashing Windows to highlight its weaknesses? Is it bashing to highlight Gnomes weaknesses? And is it bashing to highlight KDEs weaknesses? I think not. At the very least it'd be playing favorites to pretend that the KDE issues didn't exist while also discussing the issues of other platforms.

    As for the amount of time I'm spending here, I'd say a fair amount of it is spent dealing with the inaccurate assumptions and statements being made about things I've said.

    Unsurprisingly there are those who cannot bear to hear one bad word said against their chosen desktop. I'm not surprised there are those who are upset that someone may dare to mention some of the failings of KDE.

    As for sitting in a KDE forum all day discussing KDE, I would've thought it's a pretty appropriate place to discuss KDE.
    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    If one who doesn't use Windows logs in into a Windows forum just to tell everyone that it sucks: Yes. It's not even bashing. It's trolling.
    Most of my discussion here is in response to claims that KDE has no issues. It would seem that you now want to move the goal posts wishing to discuss Gnome 3 when I've been discussion Gnome 2. Figures.

    My first comment

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    And in true KDE form, they even include brokenness in their announcement in the form of a broken link.

    Currently, http://kde.org/info/4.6.95.php goes nowhere
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    @Mugginz

    I can't believe what you wrote is true for gnome3.
    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    What I wrote relates to my experience with the KDE 4 series, Gnome 2 series, and now with Ubuntu's Unity interface.

    As someone who wanted KDE to be stable, I mean reeeeaaaalllly wanted it be because I liked its feature set and UI, I finally gave in.
    The first post was in response to the frustration I felt when I went to the release announcement as I was considering a switch back to KDE 4 and first wanted to try the RC2, only to be met by brokeness in the official announcement.

    Notice I said switch back to KDE 4.

    Your analogy
    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    If one who doesn't use Windows logs in into a Windows forum just to tell everyone that it sucks: Yes. It's not even bashing. It's trolling.
    would hold somewhat true if I was indeed "someone who doesn't use KDE" and logged in to here not because I genuinely wanted to use the product, but for the sole purpose of trolling.

    Instead, I logged in here not to troll against a product that I had no intention of using, but to voice my frustration at wanting to use it, but being reminded of why I stopped using it in a release announcement.

    Goodness, if they can't even get a simple link right, what hope does the rest of it have? was what that brought to mind.






    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Unsurprisingly there are those who cannot bear to hear one bad word said against their chosen desktop. I'm not surprised there are those who are upset that someone may dare to mention some of the failings of KDE.
    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Lame trolling attempt again…
    Nobody here is claiming that KDE software has no problems. KDE software just has different and not as bad problems as you make up.
    I wouldn't use Plasma Desktop and so many KDE applications if they were a bugfest as you claim. I would've stayed on Mac OS X.
    It has been said in this very thread that KDE has no problems, and right here you suggest that the problems I describe are not as bad as I make them out to be. So not only is your comment that "Nobody here is claiming that KDE software has no problems" is factually false, but so is your assertion that "KDE software just has different and not as bad problems as you make up."

    The problems I describe that I've had with KDE 4 are actual problems that I've experienced with KDE 4. You may not like that, I don't like it also, but there you are.



    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    KDE is one of the most popular FOSS communities in existence. If it was so bad as you claim, it wouldn't be as popular.
    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    But compared to Gnome it isn't all that popular.
    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Either you have no correct facts or you lie on purpose. According to the 2010 Census of GNOME’s own Dave Neary there were a bit over 400,000 commits to GNOME's SCM since GNOME was founded: http://www.neary-consulting.com/inde.../gnome-census/
    At about the same time KDE already had 1,000,000 commits http://blogs.fsfe.org/padams/?p=140
    So end user popularity of a platform is determined by how many commits a project has?

    That's an interesting stretch there, but it's also pretty transparently no so that the amount of commits a project has determines how many users of the project there are.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    No, you started meaningless flame in this thread.
    See my previous post.


    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz
    Yet, pro KDE guys want to talk as if there's no issues with KDE of any consequence.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Not true at all. If there are problems for some it doesn't mean there are problems for other as well. I have no single stability problem with KDE in current Arch.
    Not true at all? When people categorically state that the problems I'm having aren't as bad as I've described here, with some saying KDE is perfect, I think my statement there is valid.


    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz
    If other desktops had KDE's reputation of instability then I guess we'd all be in trouble.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Do you know what value such bull has? Such reputation was made when 4.0 appeared. Gnome has even worse reputation, now. Thanks to gnome's hell it's not only unstable, but it's also unusable.
    And here we have another wanting to move the goal posts to the Gnome 3 project and away from the Gnome 2 project.





    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz
    Of course you'll likely point out the those suffering from any undesirable behavior of Gnome have the same options, and you'd be right. You might try to suggest that Gnome is as unstable as KDE, or even more so. Given that there are more Gnome desktops than there are KDE, I'd find it surprising that those using the supposedly inferior Gnome desktop wouldn't simply install KDE along side. Even those looking for the ubiquity of packages available for the Ubuntu platform could install KDE along side.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    I beg to differ. I didn't saw any proof there are more Gnome desktops. As for Gnome3 It seems there are many people who switched from Gnome3 to KDE or XFCE.
    So you're suggesting there are more KDE desktops than there are Gnome ones. That doesn't match what I've seen when usage statistics have been reported in the tech press that I've read. Clearly we're each reading different material there.

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
  •