Re: kde 3.* in sid will it ever happen?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 13 September 2002 09:08 am, James Lindenschmidt wrote:
> Though I wouldn't know from experience, by most accounts I've heard KDE
> 3.x has several advantages over KDE 2.x, speed and stability being two. Of
> course, the improved eye candy doesn't hurt either (so much for speed!
> LOL).
I am running KDE 3.1 on debian sid, and it is nice and stable, and the speed
is good, but I honestly don't believe that the desktop environment is faster
as a whole - individual applications, like Konqueror's HTML rendering speed,
yes, - but the overall 'snappiness' and memory usage is (AFAICT) about the
same as 2.2.
> You raise some good points. I am quite productive in KDE 2.2.2, but many
> of the applications I am using have moved to KDE 3.x, and as such I don't
> get bug fixes and/or new features since KDE 3 isn't yet in sid.
Yup. This is one of the reasons I moved up also.
> I am definitely a non-geek end-user type, with a strong ethical commitment
> to Free software, which is why I turned to Debian in the first place. I
> would love to run LibraNet, but they seem to want to not have users, since
> they don't allow downloads of their latest versions. This seems contrary
> to the spirit of the GPL to me (though it is apparently within the 'letter
> of the law') :-(
The spirit of the GPL is not to give away software for free. That's free as
in "free beer". The spirit of the GPL is that the source is always included,
and you can do what you like with your own software. That's free as in
"freedom".
> I agree that I don't relish going back to RedHat, but it looks to me that
> RH8 may have what I need as an end-user type. But I would certainly miss
> apt-get.
IMHO, RedHat is not more "bleeding-edge" than Debian. They're just crazy
enough to release software that still has major bugs - that the upstream (the
folks who work on individual projects like Gnome, KDE, E, gcc, etc.) are
issuing warnings about. I'd rather have a stable OS that works as it should
than one that looks really cool if and when it runs. That's why most
ex-windoze linux users converted to using Linux, right? For the stability.
IMNSHO, the RedHat Package Manager is far less powerful and flexible than
Debian's dpkg. Forcing users to go searching for RPM's that may or may not
have that dependency you need to compile/run an important program is idiocy.
The situation is worsened because of all the RPM's that are built by upstream
authors who may or may not adhere to the FSH and the LSB. Heck, Suse is
different enough from RedHat to cause wierd problems with some
distributor-inspecific RPMs. My point is that Debian has FAR more pro's than
con's. It will install and run on more architectures than many distributions,
and if you stick with the potato or woody distribution, you are almost
guaranteed that your software will run flawlessly. Sure, the version may be
2.2 instead of 3.1, but that will be ameliorated when gcc-3.2 enters
unstable/sid. Don't get discouraged - and if you need more 'bleeding edge'
unstable/sid, take a look at http://www.golum.org/aptgetlinks.shtml. That is
my local LUG homepage, where we have published some of the more popular
'unofficial' apt-getables. Just add the lines indicated to your
/etc/apt/sources.list and dist-upgrade. When the unofficial packages enter
sid, just remove the line. It doesn't get much easier than that.
Nathan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9ghkm4e9YdOpQYMsRAuauAJsFjkZFcV5J0HBZpePXNW7c5y2DKgCfT5/4
NjhEBxPLSek+/HfVPFPGIJU=
=t1JF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: