Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th Mar 2008 17:52 UTC, submitted by irbis
KDE Ars takes a look at KDE 4.0.2. "When KDE 4.0 was officially released in January, there were a lot of gaping holes in basic functionality. During the past few months, the codebase has matured considerably, and the environment is steadily approaching the point where it will be sufficiently robust for widespread day-to-day use. Although there are still many features missing, version 4.0.2 - which was released last week - offers an improved user experience. We tested KDE 4.0.2 with the recently released Kubuntu 8.04 alpha 6." In addition, there is a new 'visual changelog' for KDE 4.1.
Thread beginning with comment 304184
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Summary
by leos on Mon 10th Mar 2008 21:44 UTC in reply to "Summary"
leos
Member since:
2005-09-21

When KDE 4.0 was released it was pretty unusable. But today, the panel can be placed on various edges of the screen, via a clunky dialog, but is completely broken if you choose anything other than the bottom. The size can also be changed through the clunky dialog, but that breaks it, too. You can drag plasmoids around better.


You seem to be confusing KDE with plasma. KDE applications are usable just fine. Plasma just has some catching up to do. Hopefully by 4.1 or so most of the must have features will have landed.

And KDE is sort of getting to the point that it might be used for something by a determined user. Kinda like Gnome was back in the pre-1.0 days.


I know you like trolling KDE threads but even you must realize how silly that comparison is. Gnome 2.0 was pretty useless compared to the preceding 1.x release but that doesn't mean the developers shouldn't have gone down that road.

And, oh yeah. The cashew is still there.


More discussion about that here: http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2008/03/fixing-versus-working-around-pro... and here: http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2008/03/toolbox-roundup.html

Not that I'm a huge fan of the toolbox, but I'm content to wait and see. Not like it's a big deal.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Summary
by sbergman27 on Mon 10th Mar 2008 22:18 in reply to "RE: Summary"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Hopefully by 4.1 or so most of the must have features will have landed.

One can only hope.

I know you like trolling KDE threads

Well, I know that you like to accuse me of doing so.

Gnome 2.0 was pretty useless compared to the preceding 1.x release

You need to provide some concrete evidence of that. Gnome decided against including several kitchen sinks, in favor of providing only one kitchen sink. And that upset some people in the kitchen sink community, whom I suppose ended up in the KDE camp.

But Gnome 2.0 was *never* as embarassing as KDE 4.0.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Summary
by Erunno on Mon 10th Mar 2008 23:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Summary"
Erunno Member since:
2007-06-22

You need to provide some concrete evidence of that.


I'll admit that I've been lazy and only skimmed through the first couple of pages that Google gave me for "GNOME 2.0" and found some interesting tidbits:

http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/4264/1/

In general, GNOME 2.0 looks better and feels much faster and more responsive than GNOME 1.4. As a release candidate, it still has a way to go - many mandatory applications (such as the Control Center/Desktop Preferences application) are still actively being ported to GNOME 2.0. Many of the other usability enhancements that have been proposed for GNOME 2.0 are not yet present or completely implemented.


Emphasis mine. Note that even if these "mandatory" missing applications were finished in the short amount of time between RC1 and the final release (both saw the light of day in the same month) the GNOME people have been either applying the same broken method of ignoring feature freeze like KDE did for 4.0 (mostly with Plasma) or they deliberately shipped an incomplete desktop environment.

That said, GNOME 2.0 RC1 is indeed a preliminary release candidate. Many of the GNOME applets and applications that you may expect to find in GNOME are not yet present or are not yet completely functional in GNOME 2.0 RC1. GNOME 2.0 RC1 is fine for reasonably sophisticated users who are willing to work around problems, can put up with the occasional error message without panicking, and want to live on the bleeding edge.


Does this sound familiar? ;-)

Here are some quotes from OSNews staff itself:

http://www.osnews.com/story/1280/A_Users_First_Look_at_GNOME_2.0/pa...

The project was supposed to see this release almost a year ago, but GTK+ 2.0 was not ready in time, dragging Gnome's development down as well.


there are not many Gnome applications yet ported to the new framework, neither the Gnome itself includes many applications or preference panels as it used to. For example, the memu panel, merely includes 3 options. Same goes for the other setting panels


The Gnome menu panel now resembles a bit of MacOS. It sits on the top of the desktop, and no matter what I tried, I can't change its position


Déjà vu?

As far as stability goes, I experienced on the final version individual crashes of some preference panels and applications that come with Gnome 2, but I have not experienced any true crash of its memu panels or Gnome itself that could take X down.


The big question on any new release is 'Whats New?' or 'What does it do more?'. In the case of Gnome 2, it does less, not more. GTK+ developers will of course be happy with the new API, and users will possibly enjoy the AA fonts, but other than that, users will not gain much more from this desktop environment. Hiding behind the 'this is a mostly a release for developers' excuse is not good enough for me.


As a user, I expected more, and I want more. The new version removes the flexibility found on Gnome 1.x and it does not introduce anything really new or spectacularly interesting in its UI design. Gnome 2 fails to impress. It is not intuitive. It feels limited and not done yet. While it is not solidly stable yet on all of its respects, it is stable enough. But the 'not done yet' refers to the feature-set of the environment, not to its actual stability. It needs more work, it needs more enrichment at most places, and it needs even more refinement on the GUI and its scattered setting panels or on the small icons feeling 'glued' to the text on the menus. Because of this re-write of the Gnome environment, I keep feeling that this is version 1.0, and not 2.0.


EDIT:
I've been modded down? Don't shoot the messanger ;-)

Edited 2008-03-10 23:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[3]: Summary
by segedunum on Tue 11th Mar 2008 00:27 in reply to "RE[2]: Summary"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Gnome decided against including several kitchen sinks, in favor of providing only one kitchen sink.


What they did was they cut the kitchen sinks, and then left you with a single tap running cold water and no way to empty the water from the sink. You had to think ahead before you added more water, and you had to boil the water yourself because building this feature into the sink might mean that someone could scald themselves.

You can't cull features that Windows and OS X have and then tell everyone you're being usable. That isn't going to wash with the wider desktop using computer world.

But Gnome 2.0 was *never* as embarassing as KDE 4.0.


Gnome 2.x was pretty much unusable for several releases until things like gconf stabilised to an acceptable level, and then from 2.6 or 2.8 onwards everybody's performance dropped through the floor as GTK moved to Cairo and the whole process started again.

As much as you want to pretend otherwise, Gnome 2 didn't get the .0 release right and complete at all - and not for several point releases. KDE at least had the guts to admit that up front, because of course, once .1 stabilises and .2, .3, .4 and onwards add the features that people would really like to see, no one will care about KDE 4.0.

Reply Parent Score: 4