In <[🔎] 201010130052.36788.mgb-debian@yosemite.net>, Mike Bird wrote: >On Tue October 12 2010 22:46:14 Kelly Clowers wrote: >> Akonadi and Strigi and similar technologies are critical to taking the >> desktop to the next level of efficiency and effectiveness. Admittedly, >> that's still in the early stages, but it is clearly where we need to go. > >People are working fine in KDE 3 without Akonadi and Strigi and NEPOMUK. > >People try KDE 4 and work slower. > >I don't object to your choice of KDE 4 as a religion, but please >don't expect people who have to work for a living to waste their >time worshipping KDE 4 during office hours. I use KDE at work and at home and I've been using KDE SC 4 ever since 4.2 was released. By that time, I was able to configure my Plasma desktop the way Kicker + KDesktop worked in KDE 3. Plasma was also much more stable that the 4.1 or 4.0 release, still I would occasionally have to restart it until 4.3 came out. I used it without Akonadi until KDE SC 4.4, when KMail would hang while sending mails unless I installed Akonadi. While I dislike their back-end of choice, I've not noticed any slow downs due to Akonadi. It mostly "just worked", even when Kontact/KMail indicated that their might be problems. Still haven't seen many benefits of using a common storage backend. Kopete is not a good IM client, and Konversation doesn't seem to tie into Akonadi. Nepomuk is a different story. I've fought with it a number of times for no benefit. It has a habit of slowing down the system just when I need it to be more responsive, so I'll often have to manually turn off the file indexer or the whole Nepomuk infrastructure, finish my work, and manually restart Nepomuk. I've tried semantic searching, and it gave me poor results. I certainly don't do it often, so the CPU cycles indexing and the disk space spend storing the indexes are mainly lost. I've yet to actually see someone using a desktop Plasmoid on a day-to-day basis and getting any type of productivity increase. I put up with KDE SC 4 because it is what is supported in the future. Also, I find that Plasma does actually respond faster than KDesktop + Kicker. But, the new technologies that were supposed to change the way I work? No benefits so far, and they do cause a few problems. Is KDE SC 4 as good as KDE 3? If you ask me, someone who worked and played in KDE 3 and works and plays in KDE SC 4: probably. I know I had some internalized work-arounds for KDE 3's cruft, and the stuff that was available in KDE 3 is now either more consistent or faster or both in KDE SC 4. I do wish people would stop preaching how great Akonadi, Strigi, Nepomuk, etc. are going to be awesome so I have to put up with their crap now. I want a desktop that works, preferrably without your socio-technologic experimentation. If you must include it, it needs to stay the fsck out of my way. KDE SC 4 works for me, but it could be improved. It would be nice if KDE 3 (via Trinity) and KDE SC 4 (via KDE) were both available in Squeeze, even if they were not co-installable. The KDE/Qt packaging team doesn't want to deal with supporting that though, and I know they don't have enough person-power as is. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.