14 Oct
2010
14 Oct
'10
7:15 p.m.
High guys. This may have been spelled out somewhere, but if so I
missed it, so please bear with me.
I've been a KDE user since 1.x which was part of SuSE v5.3. Up till
KDE4, I was always found KDE to do what I needed.
I have some questions about the future direction of KDE3:
1. Qt4 port - I saw that this is one the roadmap. Is this really
neccessary? I know that a lot of my complaints about KDE4 was the
useless revamp of the interface, but having to have both Qt3/4 libs
was also a huge pain. I'm not against a port if there are compelling
reasons for it, but I have seen no compelling reason for KDE4. It
uses more memory and space.
I have a lot of older laptops that I find KDE3 to be snappy and KDE4
to be like molassas.
2. What about the other KDE projects like KOffice? I've always made
use of KOffice instead of anything else. I find OpenOffice to be
bloated.
3. Removal of HAL in favor of udev - Is this something that is going
to affect KDE3?
4. Dependencies - I'm not sure how it is on other distros, but I've
always found SuSE/openSUSE to suffer from unneccessary dependencies.
Not everyone has a Palmpilot device, and most PIMs assume you do and
force you to install support for something you don't have. I'm not
sure how the core KDE and the other projects handle this. How is
Trinity planning to do it?
5. XOrg and KDE3 - on openSUSE 11.3, I can't setup my displays
because openSUSE removed it's config program SaX2 and I can't get XOrg
to work with my displays. Works fine in openSUSE 11.0/KDE3 because I
have SaX2. Is there an alternative for configuring displays?
Sorry if some of this is a repeat. I'm new to the list, but a
longtime KDE user.
Thanx
14 Oct
14 Oct
7:42 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Furture of KDE3 questions
High guys. This may have been spelled out somewhere,
but if so I
missed it, so please bear with me.
I've been a KDE user since 1.x which was part of SuSE v5.3. Up till
KDE4, I was always found KDE to do what I needed.
I have some questions about the future direction of KDE3:
1. Qt4 port - I saw that this is one the roadmap. Is this really
neccessary? I know that a lot of my complaints about KDE4 was the
useless revamp of the interface, but having to have both Qt3/4 libs
was also a huge pain. I'm not against a port if there are compelling
reasons for it, but I have seen no compelling reason for KDE4. It
uses more memory and space.
Well, KDE4 performance is not indicative of Qt4 performance; rather, it
shows the level of bloat that KDE e.V. introduced with their
rewrite/reboot of the KDE series. Qt4 should in theory be faster compared
to Qt3 when it is executing equivalent code, primarily due to the improved
graphics support.
I am currently looking at the possibility of absorbing most of Qt3 into
the Trinity project, and only using the core portions of Qt4 for the
abstracted access to low-level system interfaces. The Trinity project
needs to add support for multitouch, true window transparency etc. to both
stay relevant on newer hardware and to improve performance of existing
components where possible. A good example of this is the Amarok OSD;
since it uses fake transparency it both presents a very dated/bad
appearance to the user and eats CPU cycles unnecessarily. Graphics
devices from 15 years ago have had hardware shader capability, and if the
Qt4 base components will allow such tasks to be offloaded to the GPU
instead of slowing down the CPU, I would consider that an improvement.
The Trinity codebase will keep full Qt3 support for quite some time; Qt4
support and the enhancements that stem from it are a separate project at
this time.
I have a lot of older laptops that I find KDE3 to be snappy and KDE4
to be like molassas.
2. What about the other KDE projects like KOffice? I've always made
use of KOffice instead of anything else. I find OpenOffice to be
bloated.
The last KDE3 version of KOffice is part of the Trinity distribution, but
no active development is occurring at this time.
3. Removal of HAL in favor of udev - Is this something that is going
to affect KDE3?
That's why its on the roadmap. If Trinity does not support udev soon,
then compatibility issues will eventually arise with newer distributions,
primarily in the areas of power management and hotplug support.
4. Dependencies - I'm not sure how it is on other distros, but I've
always found SuSE/openSUSE to suffer from unneccessary dependencies.
Not everyone has a Palmpilot device, and most PIMs assume you do and
force you to install support for something you don't have. I'm not
sure how the core KDE and the other projects handle this. How is
Trinity planning to do it?
You may want to ask Robert Xu; he is in charge of the
OpenSUSE/RedHat/Fedora packaging. You can find him on the trinity-devel
list.
Hope this helps!
Timothy Pearson
Trinity Desktop Project
8:46 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Furture of KDE3 questions
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Timothy Pearson
<kb9vqf(a)pearsoncomputing.net> wrote:
Well, KDE4 performance is not indicative of Qt4
performance; rather, it
shows the level of bloat that KDE e.V. introduced with their
rewrite/reboot of the KDE series. Qt4 should in theory be faster compared
to Qt3 when it is executing equivalent code, primarily due to the improved
graphics support.
How much is this going to matter for older video chipsets tho? My
Thinkpad 390X has a Neomagic 256AV chipset with 2.5MB VRAM. It's not
like that's going to support any fancy graphics. I'm not against it
so long as I can TURN IT OFF, which is something that the KDE4 devs
can't seem to understand.
http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Neomagic_MagicMedia256AV
I am currently looking at the possibility of absorbing
most of Qt3 into
the Trinity project, and only using the core portions of Qt4 for the
abstracted access to low-level system interfaces. The Trinity project
needs to add support for multitouch, true window transparency etc. to both
stay relevant on newer hardware and to improve performance of existing
components where possible. A good example of this is the Amarok OSD;
since it uses fake transparency it both presents a very dated/bad
appearance to the user and eats CPU cycles unnecessarily. Graphics
devices from 15 years ago have had hardware shader capability, and if the
Qt4 base components will allow such tasks to be offloaded to the GPU
instead of slowing down the CPU, I would consider that an improvement.
Which chipsets? The ATI Mobility M3(Rage128 Based)? Or
Radeon/GeForce and higher?
As for Amarok, I don't use it. MPlayer is my media player. A Qt port
of Firefox would be great tho........
The last KDE3 version of KOffice is part of the
Trinity distribution, but
no active development is occurring at this time.
Not an issue so long as it's maintained IMO.
You may want to ask Robert Xu; he is in charge of the
OpenSUSE/RedHat/Fedora packaging. You can find him on the trinity-devel
list.
Will do. Thanx
9:25 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Furture of KDE3 questions
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Timothy Pearson
<kb9vqf(a)pearsoncomputing.net> wrote:
It won't matter at all. Qt4 will fall back to software based overlay if
it needs to, in which case the performance difference between the KDE3/Qt3
software overlay and the Qt4 software overlay should be minimal to
nonexistent. Also, there will still be the Qt3 version available...
Well, KDE4 performance is not indicative of Qt4
performance; rather, it
shows the level of bloat that KDE e.V. introduced with their
rewrite/reboot of the KDE series. Qt4 should in theory be faster
compared
to Qt3 when it is executing equivalent code, primarily due to the
improved
graphics support.
How much is this going to matter for older video chipsets tho? My
Thinkpad 390X has a Neomagic 256AV chipset with 2.5MB VRAM. It's not
like that's going to support any fancy graphics. I'm not against it
so long as I can TURN IT OFF, which is something that the KDE4 devs
can't seem to understand.
http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Neomagic_MagicMedia256AV
Not sure OTOH, but I would expect that any non-vesa-framebuffer drivers
(e.g. ATI, Intel, nVidia, etc.) would permit at least partial GPU
acceleration of alpha blending functions.
I am currently looking at the possibility of
absorbing most of Qt3 into
the Trinity project, and only using the core portions of Qt4 for the
abstracted access to low-level system interfaces. The Trinity project
needs to add support for multitouch, true window transparency etc. to
both
stay relevant on newer hardware and to improve performance of existing
components where possible. A good example of this is the Amarok OSD;
since it uses fake transparency it both presents a very dated/bad
appearance to the user and eats CPU cycles unnecessarily. Graphics
devices from 15 years ago have had hardware shader capability, and if
the
Qt4 base components will allow such tasks to be offloaded to the GPU
instead of slowing down the CPU, I would consider that an improvement.
Which chipsets? The ATI Mobility M3(Rage128 Based)? Or
Radeon/GeForce and higher?
As for Amarok, I don't use it. MPlayer is my media player. A Qt port
of Firefox would be great tho........
Try gtk-qt-engine-kde3 and kgtk-qt3-kde3; they will skin GTK apps with Qt
widget and allow the use of Trinity file open/save dialogs, respectively.
The last KDE3 version of KOffice is part of the
Trinity distribution,
but
no active development is occurring at this time.
Not an issue so long as it's maintained IMO.
You may want to ask Robert Xu; he is in charge of
the
OpenSUSE/RedHat/Fedora packaging. You can find him on the trinity-devel
list.
Will do. Thanx
9:36 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Furture of KDE3 questions
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Timothy Pearson
<kb9vqf(a)pearsoncomputing.net> wrote:
Try gtk-qt-engine-kde3 and kgtk-qt3-kde3; they will
skin GTK apps with Qt
widget and allow the use of Trinity file open/save dialogs, respectively.
Doesn't that still have to load the GTK libs? It would be nice to
drop Firefox's mem footprint some.
On the Mac side, there's a browser for MacOS 8.6-9.2.2 called
Classilla that works reasonably well in 80MB RAM. It doesn't have all
the Java and stuff, but I can actually use a 13 year old laptop with
144MB RAM and check my email and even log into Paypal. Now that's
lean......
31 Oct
31 Oct
6:49 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Furture of KDE3 questions
On Thursday 14 October 2010 20:42:39 Timothy Pearson wrote:
The Trinity project
needs to add support for multitouch, true window transparency etc. to both
stay relevant on newer hardware and to improve performance of existing
components where possible.
Please, please, if you do that, have Trinity set to ask what you want _before_
the desktop opens for the first time. I was so pleased when Trinity started
up; for many reasons, but not insignificant is the fact that in KDE 3.5.10
(and previous KDEs) I never have to be subjected to all that awful glitz - I
can turn it off without ever having been subjected to it.
Lisi
7:28 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Furture of KDE3 questions
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 14:49, Lisi <lisi.reisz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday 14 October 2010 20:42:39 Timothy Pearson
wrote:
+1
A user should be free to make decisions.
--
later, Robert Xu
The Trinity project
needs to add support for multitouch, true window transparency etc. to both
stay relevant on newer hardware and to improve performance of existing
components where possible.
Please, please, if you do that, have Trinity set to ask what you want _before_
the desktop opens for the first time. I was so pleased when Trinity started
up; for many reasons, but not insignificant is the fact that in KDE 3.5.10
(and previous KDEs) I never have to be subjected to all that awful glitz - I
can turn it off without ever having been subjected to it.
9:58 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Furture of KDE3 questions
On Thursday 14 October 2010 20:42:39 Timothy Pearson
wrote:
No desire to change the defaults at all. In fact, what I was mentioning
were primarily backend improvements; there are places (e.g. Konsole,
Amarok's OSD) where software transparency is used; I would prefer that Qt4
handle that instead of a buggy software routine in Trinity itself.
Tim
The Trinity project
needs to add support for multitouch, true window transparency etc. to
both
stay relevant on newer hardware and to improve performance of existing
components where possible.
Please, please, if you do that, have Trinity set to ask what you want
_before_
the desktop opens for the first time. I was so pleased when Trinity
started
up; for many reasons, but not insignificant is the fact that in KDE 3.5.10
(and previous KDEs) I never have to be subjected to all that awful glitz
- I
can turn it off without ever having been subjected to it.
Lisi
1 Nov
1 Nov
2:25 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Furture of KDE3 questions
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Timothy Pearson
No desire to change the defaults at all. In fact,
what I was mentioning
were primarily backend improvements; there are places (e.g. Konsole,
Amarok's OSD) where software transparency is used; I would prefer that Qt4
handle that instead of a buggy software routine in Trinity itself.
I had repeatedly asked that KPersonalizer be ported to KDE4/Qt4 when I
had hopes of it actually being useful. Having used KDE since 1.x in
S.u.S.E. v5.3, I miss having that pop up on first login. Such a great
way to do things.......
openSUSE didn't use it. I can't remember the last version it was
used. The package was still there, but not installed by default.....
4:20 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Furture of KDE3 questions
Ark Linux uses it and it was the first thing that pops up in a new
install. It important NOT to over customize trinity because users
always customize to their own needs, All 108 of my test volunteers
always did. The biggest complaint for all distros in general was over
customization. It made it had to set it up to anything usable for
them. Its like having to clean up someone else's mess when moving into
a new home. As far as my studies show, starting with as simple a kde
setup as possible is best. We need sane defaults.
For example, konqueror should be set to treeview, the most popular
setting, yet, because MS windows uses icon view (to show off how cool
they are) rather than realizing its a file manager and treeview gives
the user a big advantage.
I receive tons of tech magazines with research articles about the
least liked features of windows, icon view is one of them.
Simple, sane defaults and minimal customization, will make trinity a
better UI. KISS is a good idea here.
:)
Kate
On 11/1/10, Larry Stotler <larrystotler(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Timothy Pearson
No desire to change the defaults at all. In
fact, what I was mentioning
were primarily backend improvements; there are places (e.g. Konsole,
Amarok's OSD) where software transparency is used; I would prefer that Qt4
handle that instead of a buggy software routine in Trinity itself.
I had repeatedly asked that KPersonalizer be ported to KDE4/Qt4 when I
had hopes of it actually being useful. Having used KDE since 1.x in
S.u.S.E. v5.3, I miss having that pop up on first login. Such a great
way to do things.......
openSUSE didn't use it. I can't remember the last version it was
used. The package was still there, but not installed by default.....
13 Jan
13 Jan
10:07 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Furture of KDE3 questions
On 01/11/2010 17:20, Katheryne Draven wrote:
For example, konqueror should be set to treeview, the
most popular
setting, yet, because MS windows uses icon view (to show off how cool
they are) rather than realizing its a file manager and treeview gives
the user a big advantage.
Funny to read this, I though about exactly the same while reading the
beginning of this thread!
+1
Nicolas.
14 Jan
14 Jan
7:42 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Furture of KDE3 questions
Great minds think alike or is it crazy people? I forget.
On 1/13/11, Nicolas BERCHER <nbercher(a)yahoo.fr> wrote:
On 01/11/2010 17:20, Katheryne Draven wrote:
For example, konqueror should be set to treeview,
the most popular
setting, yet, because MS windows uses icon view (to show off how cool
they are) rather than realizing its a file manager and treeview gives
the user a big advantage.
Funny to read this, I though about exactly the same while reading the
beginning of this thread!
+1
Nicolas.
4848
days inactive
4940
days old
11 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Katheryne Draven -
Larry Stotler -
Lisi -
Nicolas BERCHER -
Robert Xu -
Timothy Pearson