KDE 3.5.4

lumiwa · 2006-07-27 19:33:11

http://www.kde.org/announcements/change … o3_5_4.php

Looks that KDE 3.5.4 is out...

soloport · 2006-07-27 20:19:36

Slightly OT: I'd love to know why KDE has a reputation for being "bloatware". Is this substantiated, somehow? Or is it just an old myth that won't die? Has anyone quantified "bloatware", per se?

For example, I found this presentation exhilarating -- which refutes the old myth that Linux doesn't do plug-n-play. The conclusion: Linux has become the most plug-n-play OS of all time. Yet the myth persists. Why?

Has anyone come accross a recent article supporting or refuting the "KDE is bloatware" position? I'm just curious. For me KDE has been more than usable, very responsive and productivity-positive, for many years. But I know many who will not touch it. Is it due to the stigma, "Oh, you like that bloatware."? What if it were suddenly "cool to love bloat"? 8)
.

arooaroo · 2006-07-27 21:35:42

Soloport, a very interesting point you raise, and it's some thing I've discussed many times. The issue with KDE in this instance is that it *looks* bloated.

KDE comes bundled with loads off apps, and I believe it's this reason that people think it's bloated. Now, I feel that people quantify 'bloat' in different ways. For some it is excessive/unwanted functionality; sluggish performance; visual clutter, etc.

In my mind, KDE does come with a shed-load of apps that I wish weren't part of the default build. But, the fact that these packages are installed doesn't mean that KDE is any slower, in the same way that installing firefox doesn't make KDE any slower.

I personally find that KDE offers great performance and great functionality. I know there are DEs that start faster, but not *that* much faster. Perhaps if I had a low spec machine I might have a different view, I don't know.

I all reminds me of the Gentoo debate, and whether compiling the hell out of your system really produces a noticable benefit.

Then again, I program in Java, so what do I know?

Gullible Jones · 2006-07-27 21:41:52

soloport wrote:

Slightly OT: I'd love to know why KDE has a reputation for being "bloatware". Is this substantiated, somehow? Or is it just an old myth that won't die? Has anyone quantified "bloatware", per se?

KDE has 3 media players built in by default. None of them are that great. One still depends on GStreamer 0.8.x, which nobody uses if they can avoid it. It also has 3 text editors... And because it's monolithic in nature, the extra stuff is a bit of a pain to remove. That's one kind of bloat, I'd say.

(That said, KDE performs remarkably well even on slow computers provided sufficient RAM, and performs much better than Windows XP or 2k on ones that don't have as much RAM. And KDE 4 is supposed to remove a lot of extraneous applications and replace the media framework... Though unfortunately they seem to be going the GStreamer route, and GStreamer still isn't quite ready for prime time IMO.)

For example, I found this presentation exhilarating -- which refutes the old myth that Linux doesn't do plug-n-play. The conclusion: Linux has become the most plug-n-play OS of all time. Yet the myth persists. Why?

Probably because the people who spread it have never used Linux, or at least haven't touched it in a while.

Has anyone come accross a recent article supporting or refuting the "KDE is bloatware" position? I'm just curious. For me KDE has been more than usable, very responsive and productivity-positive, for many years. But I know many who will not touch it. Is it due to the stigma, "Oh, you like that bloatware."? What if it were suddenly "cool to love bloat"? 8)
.

The problem isn't performance, it's that some people don't like having stuff installed on their systems that they never use. If KDE were less monolithic these complaints would probably vanish.

arooaroo · 2006-07-27 22:17:16

Gullible Jones wrote:

... And because it's monolithic in nature, the extra stuff is a bit of a pain to remove. That's one kind of bloat, I'd say.
... If KDE were less monolithic these complaints would probably vanish.

Agreed. This is something that I'd like a say in when installing. I know I don't need kdeedu but it doesn't cause me sufficient stress to actually force me to do any thing about it.

And this is actually the crux. KDE may include all this stuff in their sources, but we are in fact entirely at the mercy of the distro package maintainers who actually produce the KDE binaries. God knows why several text editors have crept in - legacy I suppose and it's time for some depreciating to occur. But, some bold package maintainers could help improve the situation by forcing out some of the unecessary packages. However, which packages are entirely subjective.

For example, some people prefer kwrite because it's less "bloated" than kate! So how do you win? To keep KDE less bloated by your definition we need to cull apps - potentially the least bloated of the possible choices!

Ultimately, I don't believe the additional packages have any performance implications other than taking nanoseconds longer to draw the menus as they have a few more icons. It's just not terribly streamlined. But, once again, that's upto the packager to decide what is in and what goes out, right?

stavrosg · 2006-07-28 19:58:04

Last time I looked, the bload was on the UI.
The apps (and their preferences) looked extremely busy (or so I recall - it's more than a year and a half already) ang you could easily get lost among the different options.
Not that the gnome's way of having no options at all is better , but still...

BTW, I use Xfce.

scarecrow · 2006-07-28 21:04:25

kedit is supposed to be notepad's replacement, while kate is a "geek editor"... kwrite, uhmmm, I don't know!
I agree that only kate should be in there, but the KDE guys probably think that it would scare the average windows Joe, and candidate convert...

ducttapeBigSexy · 2006-07-29 03:39:29

This is something I've always thought about - generally speaking, any DE like KDE or GNOME is bloated (speed-wise) as compared to, say, Fluxbox.

However, just because your apps start faster doesn't necessarly mean that it's faster in the long run. Let's take, say, KDE vs Fluxbox (not starting a flame war here - just using them as examples ).

In KDE, a shortcut to a commonly used app can be put on the desktop - not in Fluxbox. So, while a Fluxbox user is digging through a menu to find the app, the KDE user simply clicks on the desktop shortcut. Although Fluxbox starts the app quicker, the KDE user started earlier, so the app will either be loaded at the same time in KDE and Fluxbox, or possibly sooner in KDE than in Fluxbox.

Just some food for thought

stavrosg · 2006-07-29 05:23:52

ducttapeBigSexy wrote:

This is something I've always thought about - generally speaking, any DE like KDE or GNOME is bloated (speed-wise) as compared to, say, Fluxbox.
However, just because your apps start faster doesn't necessarly mean that it's faster in the long run. Let's take, say, KDE vs Fluxbox (not starting a flame war here - just using them as examples ).
In KDE, a shortcut to a commonly used app can be put on the desktop - not in Fluxbox. So, while a Fluxbox user is digging through a menu to find the app, the KDE user simply clicks on the desktop shortcut. Although Fluxbox starts the app quicker, the KDE user started earlier, so the app will either be loaded at the same time in KDE and Fluxbox, or possibly sooner in KDE than in Fluxbox.
Just some food for thought

Not if the user has to minimize or move around several windows to unihide that shortcut
(Yes, I know about show desktop buttons / shortcuts but the average joe usually doesn't, I think)

Riklaunim · 2006-07-29 22:13:07

ubuntu, debina, suse, mandriva,gentoo... ship with splitted KDE build So the "problem" is gone for them.

tpowa · 2006-07-29 22:38:24

then enjoy thos splitted packages and distros

alexpnx · 2006-07-29 23:42:45

tpowa wrote:

then enjoy thos splitted packages and distros

nice attitude... :?

lucke · 2006-07-30 04:22:02

Just wait for KDE4, all the redundant packages should be removed there ;-p

tpowa · 2006-07-30 06:23:16

this splitted kde packages come up every now and then and i stated in kde wiki that i'll not split it until kde changes distribution of sources.

Romashka · 2006-07-30 08:26:02

Oh yeah! Let KDE4 arrives!
Gentoo already has splitted KDE packages, but I think doing so in Arch would be a bit of pain for all.
I there some unofficial repo that has most of KDE packages splitted?
Currently I use Xfce 4.2 (4.4 beta 2 still has broken xfce4-xkb-plugin).
I want to install KDE on home machine but this will lead to installing many useless programs too. The main problem with monolitic KDE for me is the size of packages and money I need to spend to upgrade them. (I can download packages at work but this requires more time).

deficite · 2006-07-30 16:29:13

alexpnx wrote:

tpowa wrote:
then enjoy thos splitted packages and distros
nice attitude... :?

I'm sure you'd have the same exact attitude if you had to maintain a large package like KDE practically by yourself.

sweiss · 2006-07-30 17:25:54

KDE's bloated alright, with features. Most of them are actually hidden and you have to look a bit on how to activate them. I've listed some in the "Smart desktop working tips" thread (maybe I should make a wiki page out of it when I have some time on the weekend).
There are quite useful features.

If you're talking about applications bloat then yes, it exists. I don't care much though, it doesn't take that much HDD space after all.

sweiss · 2006-07-30 17:44:20

ducttapeBigSexy wrote:

This is something I've always thought about - generally speaking, any DE like KDE or GNOME is bloated (speed-wise) as compared to, say, Fluxbox.
However, just because your apps start faster doesn't necessarly mean that it's faster in the long run. Let's take, say, KDE vs Fluxbox (not starting a flame war here - just using them as examples ).
In KDE, a shortcut to a commonly used app can be put on the desktop - not in Fluxbox. So, while a Fluxbox user is digging through a menu to find the app, the KDE user simply clicks on the desktop shortcut. Although Fluxbox starts the app quicker, the KDE user started earlier, so the app will either be loaded at the same time in KDE and Fluxbox, or possibly sooner in KDE than in Fluxbox.
Just some food for thought

If you are using a lot of KDE applications you'd better use KDE if you are in for speed, as parts of the application you want to launch are already loaded in memory. That's why I use Konqueror, Kopete, Kontact - They launch in an instant.

scarecrow · 2006-07-30 22:00:13

alexpnx wrote:

tpowa wrote:
then enjoy thos splitted packages and distros
nice attitude... :?

This attitude is 101% compliant to the Arch philosophy.
If you don't understand it, then you are simply using the wrong distro- either make your own fork (say named Archsplit), or use something else...

Bralkein · 2006-07-31 01:41:27

I often wondered if part of the philosophy behind KDE's default layout was to expose as many features as possible, so that the user knows that they're there. Many people complain that KDE is too "busy" or "bloated" or whatever, but the reality is you can turn off almost anything you dislike. Toolbars, icons, buttons, whatever. Many people complain about the overabundance of applications, and I agree to an extent, but it's really not a problem. All you need to do really is to edit the menu and delete the programs you don't want to use from there, and maybe also go into the control centre and delete the apps you dislike from the file-type associations. All in all this takes about 5 minutes, and the problem is basically solved. Yes, the files from the apps are still there. No, I don't think this is a big deal. I think for 95% of people, the extra space taken up by these files is probably trivial... so who cares?

KDE is incredibly feature-filled and configurable. I can't help but wonder that if a lot of the people who dislike it took the time (and it doesn't take much) to learn how to set up KDE, then they might like it a lot more. This isn't to say that KDE's default setup or general usability is good, and I really look forward to the improvements that should come with KDE4, but I think these particular problems in KDE are entirely overshadowed by the extent to which it makes my life easier.

JGC · 2006-07-31 11:09:56

What I've seen from KDE 4 until now is just a port to QT4, the only things that have been changed are mainly not visible to the end user, only to the developer.
It's the same as with GTK 2.10, it comes with a nice new printing api so we can drop libgnomeprint. Though this is a nice thing, the end user won't notice if he's printing via gtkprint or gnomeprint, as long as he can print.

detto · 2006-07-31 11:27:45

Bralkein wrote:

I often wondered if part of the philosophy behind KDE's default layout was to expose as many features as possible, so that the user knows that they're there. Many people complain that KDE is too "busy" or "bloated" or whatever, but the reality is you can turn off almost anything you dislike. Toolbars, icons, buttons, whatever. Many people complain about the overabundance of applications, and I agree to an extent, but it's really not a problem. All you need to do really is to edit the menu and delete the programs you don't want to use from there, and maybe also go into the control centre and delete the apps you dislike from the file-type associations. All in all this takes about 5 minutes, and the problem is basically solved. Yes, the files from the apps are still there. No, I don't think this is a big deal. I think for 95% of people, the extra space taken up by these files is probably trivial... so who cares?
KDE is incredibly feature-filled and configurable. I can't help but wonder that if a lot of the people who dislike it took the time (and it doesn't take much) to learn how to set up KDE, then they might like it a lot more. This isn't to say that KDE's default setup or general usability is good, and I really look forward to the improvements that should come with KDE4, but I think these particular problems in KDE are entirely overshadowed by the extent to which it makes my life easier.

100% agreed! 8)
thx for writing it this way down, i know i couldnt coz of my not-so-good english

everbody who complains about kde 'bloat' should install kdebase package only, remove unneccesarry menu entries and do a quick configuring turn throught the control center. after that u have a very nice kde set up that isn bloated but fast.
anyway im with gnome because i love the big availability of gtk-engines and themes and always its prettier than kde to me (!).

anybody here who got tips on theming and customizing the look of kde? (for example thouse rounded buttons... uff o0 find it ugly :S never managed to change them )

cheers!
detto

Riklaunim · 2006-07-31 12:56:49

detto wrote:

everbody who complains about kde 'bloat' should install kdebase package only

What if I want just konqueror with nsplugins, konq-plugins and ark? Using kde packages I get kdegames in dependecies :shock: "All in few big packages" is a bad idea and it has to change 8) If distros can splik KDE why the project itself can't do that ?

scarecrow · 2006-07-31 13:58:11

Riklaunim wrote:

"All in few big packages" is a bad idea and it has to change...

Ah, I see... I think you are right.
Why not telling the KDE people that their code stucture (if not the entire code) is a "bad idea" which needs to be addressed to your standards ASAP?

brazzmonkey · 2006-07-31 14:08:25

come on, hd space is not an issue anymore...
gentoo offers split ebuilds, but :
1) it takes time to compile them
2) it takes hd space to compile them (temp folders, compilation cache and stuff). i had a dedicated distfiles partition (about 5Gb), a dedicated var partition (about 10Gb) and a dedicated portae partition. talk about saving hd space ?
3) it doesn't make your system faster (if you don't want to use an installed program, don't use it !)

though i basically like the concept of installing only what i need, it appears to be a major pain in the ass. especially when you realize you forgot to install a program you need : wait for compiling before being able to use it... i prefer to waste a bit of hd space rather than wasting time AND hd space.

talk about bloat... i like when i have a good working basis out of the box, with nearly all the tools i need, and more. though having several apps to do the same task may be considered as bloat...

Arch Linux

#1 2006-07-27 19:33:11

KDE 3.5.4

#2 2006-07-27 20:19:36

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#3 2006-07-27 21:35:42

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#4 2006-07-27 21:41:52

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#5 2006-07-27 22:17:16

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#6 2006-07-28 19:58:04

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#7 2006-07-28 21:04:25

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#8 2006-07-29 03:39:29

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#9 2006-07-29 05:23:52

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#10 2006-07-29 22:13:07

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#11 2006-07-29 22:38:24

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#12 2006-07-29 23:42:45

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#13 2006-07-30 04:22:02

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#14 2006-07-30 06:23:16

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#15 2006-07-30 08:26:02

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#16 2006-07-30 16:29:13

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#17 2006-07-30 17:25:54

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#18 2006-07-30 17:44:20

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#19 2006-07-30 22:00:13

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#20 2006-07-31 01:41:27

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#21 2006-07-31 11:09:56

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#22 2006-07-31 11:27:45

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#23 2006-07-31 12:56:49

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#24 2006-07-31 13:58:11

Re: KDE 3.5.4

#25 2006-07-31 14:08:25

Re: KDE 3.5.4

Board footer