Linked by vivainio on Thu 14th Oct 2010 11:31 UTC
KDE In his lengthy and interesting blog post covering the future of Plasma, KDE's Aaron Seigo proposes Qt Quick and QML (a declarative language that embeds JavaScript) as replacement of the Graphics View architecture currently used by Plasma. This holds a promise of massive speedups and cheap effects as all paint operations become candidates for OpenGL acceleration, contrary to the aging Graphics View architecture that is still stuck with various inefficiencies caused by the underlying QPainter approach. Expressiveness and easy programmability of QML is a nice bonus, of course.
Thread beginning with comment 445193
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Just admit it...
by DeadFishMan on Fri 15th Oct 2010 14:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Just admit it..."
Member since:

All that you need to look at is what KDE is criticised for, and what about KDE is ignored. You might for example get a review and pages and pages of discussion about the design of KDE notifications and the gripe that an icon does not quite line up horizontally with the notification message or somesuch ... at yet there will be no mention at all in reviews that the KDE photo manager/editor application digikam is considerably better than FSpot in every way, or that K3b has been better for many a year than any GNOME desktop CD/DVD burner. You might get an article about the "inadequacy" of Linux PDF viewers that talks about Evince and XPDF, but entirely ignores Okular.

What gives with that? Why is it so? Who is driving the discussion along the lines of absolutely trivial and often plain incorrect criticism and bitching about KDE, and almost complete suppression of mention of its benefits and advanced features?

This is something that has been bothering me for a while as well. There are many cases where KDE and/or Qt applications are clearly better than the competition but online reviewers somehow manage to completely ignore them. And despite people trying their best to set the record straight in the comments section, when one is available, these "articles" and "reviews" keep coming up with the same old glaring omissions and the same old rehashed complaints about KDE faults that in some cases no longer apply or are not even valid to begin with!

Even worse is the trend of crediting Ubuntu for *everything* that happens on the Linux desktop, completely ignoring that other Linux distros have pretty much the same feature set and in some cases, as in with Fedora, having them before Ubuntu.

From the things that actually are unique about Ubuntu, the stuff that Canonical itself actually develops, the only thing that I can think of that is worth something is Ubuntu One - which can be easily replaced with Dropbox to some extent so no biggie there - and the integration of Rhythmbox with 7Digital's music store which is nice despite me not being a Rhythmbox user and Canonical's complete failure to integrate other music players such as Amarok in the same mold.

Funny thing is that even though I find KDE the best looking and more powerful DE out there, I am not even THAT biased towards KDE/Qt applications and will happily use GNOME/GTK applications when they're clearly better - GIMP, Audacity and Inkscape for instance - but these trends I discussed above and your observation have been really disturbing...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Just admit it...
by WereCatf on Fri 15th Oct 2010 14:52 in reply to "RE[5]: Just admit it..."
WereCatf Member since:

keep coming up with the same old glaring omissions and the same old rehashed complaints about KDE faults that in some cases no longer apply or are not even valid to begin with!

To be honest, it's no different in regards to GNOME either, you know.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Just admit it...
by DeadFishMan on Fri 15th Oct 2010 16:01 in reply to "RE[6]: Just admit it..."
DeadFishMan Member since:

I am not sure we're talking about the same thing here. The way I see it, there are mainly two high profile writers out there that judge KDE fairly on their reviews, giving brownie points when it gets something right and calling the developers on it when it gets something wrong. These are Joe Brockmeier and Bruce Byfield.

Byfield's reviews tend to be as neutral as possible to the point that it becomes annoying to read them sometimes, but they are usually fair, pretty balanced and reasonably accurate even though one can easily spot faults here and there every now and then. Brockmeier was formerly community manager or some such for OpenSUSE which is, by most accounts, a KDE-centric distro so he might have a little bias there but his articles related to both GNOME and KDE and its applications look reasonably fair to me, for what it is worth.

Most other reviewers and columnists appear to evaluate KDE based on what they can get from Kubuntu or Ubuntu with the kubuntu-desktop meta package which, frankly, sets the bar pretty low. It is not a big secret that KDE is not exactly loved over there in *buntu waters and it shows. Even smaller profile distros such as SimplyMEPIS can claim to be a lot better than any of the *buntus as far as KDE is concerned.

Heck, recently I engaged on an online discussion on someone's blog because he/she was claiming the upcoming GNOME Shell Activities as the pinnacle of usability and a revolution on the desktop "when it arrives" especially when compared to previous iterations of KDE's Activities disregarding completely the fact that Activities were completely revamped on KDE SC 4.5 and that the ground breaking work that the KDE developers did when taking the plunge and going ahead with their plans to implement said Activities back when KDE 4.0 came out despite the shitload of crap that was thrown on them for daring to do so did draw a blueprint for GNOME developers to know where are the usability pitfalls, what to do and what not to do when working on theirs!

It is somewhat ironic that KDE SC 4.5 actually offers something closer to a traditional desktop with taskbar on the bottom, menu launchers, (optionally) icons on the desktop for those that want it even though Plasma does offer many of the same advantages of other composited desktops and many of its own while retaining the familiar work flow whereas GNOME Shell will be much more of departure of the classic GNOME DE when it arrives.

Like Lemur said above, it is not unusual at all to find articles evaluating GNOME and its related tools and correctly finding that they leave something to be desired when compared to proprietary alternatives available on Linux and elsewhere and completely disregarding KDE and its applications which does make some of us wonder why is that so.

Reply Parent Score: 4