caryb wrote:
The ability to manage printers from with the system settings applet & also ability to configure network settings (IP address etc) from the network settings applet in the system settings come to mind off the top of my head.

Both are managed by yast on my computer
I guess you should choose a more adult linux distribution that at least offers some basic graphical tools for system management.

alukin wrote:I think that KDE developers can be blamed for only one thing. They haven't provided separate config/work environment for 3.x and 4.x to have both 4.x and 3.x in one place. That's why people can not use KDE3.5 for everyday work and KDE4 for fun.

Odd statement, considering that (on opensuse), kde3 resides in /opt/kde3, and kde4 in /usr, while kde3 settings appear in ~/.kde and kde4 settings in ~/.kde4
I'm currently using kde3 and 4 at the same time: e.g. i use konqueror 3 and 4, kmail 3, knetworkmanager 3, amarok 3 and 4 and k3b 3, all together under kde4, without any problems with the configurations clashing.

(why both konqueror 3 and 4 for example? because when i click on a link in kmail3, konqueror 3 gets started, which even more proves that the settings of both kde-versions are completely seperate on my system.)

If your distribution doesn't use seperate directories for kde 3 and 4, you can change that yourself by setting the apropriate environment variables. (like $KDEHOME)

Janne wrote:

caryb wrote:

apps missing

Such as?

The ability to manage printers from with the system settings applet

I do believe that printing has been significantly beefed up in 4.2 Although I don't print with Linux, so I don't have personal experience.

also ability to configure network settings (IP address etc) from the network settings applet in the system settings come to mind off the top of my head.

To my knowledge that functionality has never been provided by KDE itself, but by a third-party (usually the distro). That said, it seems to me that Knetworkmanager works just fine in KDE4 (I use it all the time) and it can manage network-settings....

Please don't take this as criticism I love KDE & have been using it for a long time but I feel there are some missing features still.

It seems to me that the two features you mentioned are included (although I'm not 100% sure about printing, since I don't print).

I beg to differ but both items mentioned were present in KDE3.x my motivation for commenting is only that when you "upgrade" something you don't expect to loose functionality! As to the comment degrading Kubuntu that is a little counterproductive, It's a little sad to be attacking each other. I thought the foe was the Micro$oftites & Gnomies:-)

Cary

caryb wrote: As to the comment degrading Kubuntu that is a little counterproductive

Well, it is kubuntus responsibility to provide the tools you mentioned.
Apperently, kubuntu doesn't live up to that, so they are to blame.

caryb wrote:I thought the foe was the Micro$oftites & Gnomies:-)

There, there can't we just get along
I just recently read a "story" on Digg where Gnome developer (he's developing games for Gnome) said that KDE4.2 rocks. I am sure that we KDE users can find a few good words for Gnome. It might b not to our taste, but it's still cool. Or it wouldn't be used so much as it is.
I think that Gnome is nice and clean desktop but can be blinged up if user wants.
Even though I'm still waiting to see Gnome that would look as good (in my eyes) as (my) KDE.

caryb wrote:I beg to differ but both items mentioned were present in KDE3.x

IIRC, I have never configured my network with KDE. I MIGHT have used a separate KDE-app to do it (like Knetworkmanager, which is working fine in KDE4, so I don't understand the complaint) or some tool provided by the distro.

my motivation for commenting is only that when you "upgrade" something you don't expect to loose functionality!

It does happen from time to time. GNOME 1.4 to GNOME 2.0 for example. Or MacOS9 to MacOS X. Or XP to Vista. Every singole major upgrade has had teething-problems.

I was just reading OSnews, when I ran to this article:

http://www.osnews.com/story/20862/Don_t ... _to_Change

It's pretty damn true. Many (but not all) complaints (folderview, anyone) about KDE4 center around the fact that it's different from KDE3. That the user might need to do some things differently than he has done so far.

And the people making those complaints are the exact same people who urge Windows-users to abandon their existing UI's and workflows and switch to Linux... Yet, when they are facing a situation where their UI changes, they complain and whine.

And the weird thing is that they then move to GNOME, a desktop that behaves differently and where they need to adjust their workflows....

One of the comments in that article was quite insightful: KDE 3.5 is Netscape Communicator. KDE4 is Mozilla Firefox.

Netscape Communicator worked just fine for most users. It's users were probably happy with it, and if asked, the idea of switching to something else would seem pointless. But it wasn't suitable platform to build the future on. So Mozilla ripped the codebase apart, and created Mozilla Firefox. In the beginning, Firefox was "lacking" as well. But as time went on, the fact that a lot of the cruft had been removed started to pay off. Today, people think of Netscape Communicator with fear and loathing, and everybody loves Firefox.

The one difference between Mozilla and KDE is that while using Netscape Communicator is not really an option anymore, using KDE3.5 IS a valid option.

And to continue even further (I'm on a roll here): What exactly would have been accomplished if KDE-devels had postponed release of KDE4 by one year? In other words, if the just released 4.2 was instead KDE 4.0? What would we have accoplished? We would still be at the exact same spot, as far as quality of the software is concerned.

That said, delaying KDE would have made the end-result WORSE. If 4.2 was 4.0, it wouldn't be as good as 4.2 in reality is. The NVIDIA-bugs that caused performance-regressions would have gone unnoticed, and we would suffer from bad performance at this very moment. Loads of bugs that were reported during the last year would have gone unreported and unfixed.

KDE 4.2 builds upon 4.0, 4.1 and wishes/bug-reports filed against them. If KDE was making their first KDE4-release right now, that foundation would not exist, and the end-result would be that much worse that what we have right now. Yes, this "alternative" 4.0 would have been of higher quality than the real 4.0 was in 2008. But it would still be significantöy worse than what 4.2 is at right this very momen.

So what would have been achieved? Nothing. We would have worse desktop that we have at this very moment. But I guess the whiners wouldn't be whining that much. Even though the actual software was worse than it is now.

Janne wrote:But I guess the whiners wouldn't be whining that much. Even though the actual software was worse than it is now.

Of course they would. They would be whining about all the bugs that would have been fixed for KDE 4.2 but because the numbering system was changed didn't get noticed. They would be whining about how they had an extra year to work on it and all it had were the same features from KDE 3.5, none of the "revolutionary" stuff they were promised.* They would be whining about it being different, or that it looks too pretty, or perhaps even some other complaint we can scarcely imagine. Whiners will always find something to complain about.

* This is definitely the most absurd complaint I have seen about KDE 4.1/4.2. People have complaining, with more than a little justification, that KDE 4.0 and 4.1 lacked many of the features of KDE 3.5 (a fact that plasma devs made no secret of). They say plasma devs should be working on getting the features they are used to from KDE 3.5 implemented first before spending time on new stuff and eye candy. So the plasma devs set pretty much everything else aside and focus on getting plasma stable and giving all the same features as KDE 3.5. And when KDE 4.2 comes along, people start complaining that KDE 4.2 just copies all of the features of KDE 3.5. Where is all the new, revolutionary stuff the plasma developers said KDE 4 would have? Well it isn't there because everyone was demanding that the plasma devs give KDE 4 the features KDE 3.5 had first. My irony meter about exploded when I saw that.

caryb wrote:I thought the foe was the Micro$oftites & Gnomies:-)

No. The new foe are the threeites. I've been using KDE since before 1.0. I went through the 1.0->2.0 transition. And went through the 2.0->3.0 transition. I've tested, logged bugs, wrote docs, helped in packaging, contributed code, and even donated some money. But some people treat me as the foe because I happened to notice some transition problems.

Brandybuck wrote:

caryb wrote:I thought the foe was the Micro$oftites & Gnomies:-)

No. The new foe are the threeites. I've been using KDE since before 1.0. I went through the 1.0->2.0 transition. And went through the 2.0->3.0 transition. I've tested, logged bugs, wrote docs, helped in packaging, contributed code, and even donated some money. But some people treat me as the foe because I happened to notice some transition problems.

Like you I have been using KDE since V1 on Debian & Caldera (with the SCO stuff thats almost embarrassing to confess to) On the Ubuntu forums for the last 6 months has been this KDE4 bashing (not by all) how do I compile V3.x on Kubuntu V8.x & why are we using KDE4 etc. I have been watching it from the sidelines shaking my head, why are you playing with Dev software if you don't want to play with innovation?

To defend the "missing" bits in Kubuntu if it is a distro specific problem I am playing with Beta software ATM & you cant judge performance or applications at this stage. I only have stable software for approx 10 days every 6 months. Mind you I have withdrawal symptoms for those 10 days:-$

Cary

caryb wrote:why are you playing with Dev software if you don't want to play with innovation?

KDE 4.1 and beyond is not supposed to be "Dev software". Neither is Kubuntu 8.0. Innovation isn't about burning bridges. It's not about change merely for the sake of change. People will gladly embrace the new if it is better than the old. But if it is merely different, there's no point in it.

Brandybuck wrote:

caryb wrote:why are you playing with Dev software if you don't want to play with innovation?

KDE 4.1 and beyond is not supposed to be "Dev software". Neither is Kubuntu 8.0. Innovation isn't about burning bridges. It's not about change merely for the sake of change. People will gladly embrace the new if it is better than the old. But if it is merely different, there's no point in it.

I don't think it is... Do you?
And KDE4 isn't just different from KDE3.5 it.
I hope that this is clear for every user.
But it might be a problem for those that are upgrading only LTS / normal versions and nothing else. I can't imagine how did they reacted when they updated and got KDE4.0 instead of KDE3.5.10. And we all know how "unstable" was KDE4.0...
But I can't really imagine as I had KDE4.0 since it was available on Kubuntu...

Probably Linus hates desktops? A few years ago, he did not like gnome and now he do no want to go with KDE. Anyway, I do not think that it is bad PR, an advanced user does not care what Linus uses and a new user does not even know Linus...

Primoz wrote:I don't think it is... Do you?

No, I do NOT think the new stuff in KDE 4 is pointless. I have heard from numerous people, however, that we are supposed to lavish praise on the new KDE 4 paradigms merely because they are new.