KDE version is 4.4.5 Is Too Old
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Fettoosh Oct 12, 2011 8:31 PM EDT |
Quoting: KDE version is 4.4.5. Freshly booted system takes just above 180 Mb, which is very good result. Why in the world would anyone be interested in KDE 4.4.5 when 4.7.1/2 is already out? Get the latest here http://www.kde.org/info/4.7.1.php Or try Kubuntu .deb binary files |
| jezuch Oct 13, 2011 1:51 AM EDT |
Well, that's the version in Debian stable. |
| Fettoosh Oct 13, 2011 9:55 AM EDT |
Quoting:Well, that's the version in Debian stable. I understand, and, in my opinion, there is no reason for not trying the latest KDE. The title is all about performance, comfort, and stability, and the latest KDE 4.7.1/2 is the best KDE version yet in all those aspects. |
| jdixon Oct 13, 2011 10:16 AM EDT |
> ...in my opinion, there is no reason for not trying the latest KDE... And how would you recommend someone running Debian Stable do so? |
| slacker_mike Oct 13, 2011 10:43 AM EDT |
You can get unofficial Debian Stable iso's with KDE 4.6 or Xfce 4.8 here http://www.debian-desktop.org/doku.php. By the way using Kubuntu .debs on Debian Stable would be a bad idea. |
| Fettoosh Oct 13, 2011 10:49 AM EDT |
Quoting:And how would you recommend someone running Debian Stable do so? Compile his/her own KDE SC 4.7.x |
| Fettoosh Oct 13, 2011 10:55 AM EDT |
Quoting:By the way using Kubuntu .debs on Debian Stable would be a bad idea. Bad idea because of Kubuntu .deb incompatibilities with Debian or because Kubuntu itself? I have been running KDE on Kubuntu for a while now and I can't complain. It had issues but recent versions are pretty good. I would prefer Chakra but unfortunately it doesn't use dpkg/Aptitude, which I prefer over any other. |
| slacker_mike Oct 13, 2011 11:04 AM EDT |
It is a bad idea because you would introduce stability issues or dependency issues mixing Kubuntu and Debian packages. The best way to use the latest KDE on Debian is to run Debian Sid or look at Aptosid. |
| jdixon Oct 13, 2011 12:08 PM EDT |
> Compile his/her own KDE SC 4.7.x I don't believe the base Debian desktop install includes the necessary tools to compile KDE. And compiling and installing outside of the package manager breaks your system. You would have to compile a package from the source, which is beyond the skill set of most users. Essentially, running KDE 4.7 is not an option for your average Debian stable user. > The best way to use the latest KDE on Debian is to run Debian Sid or look at Aptosid. Undoubtedly. |
| Grishnakh Oct 13, 2011 12:42 PM EDT |
The problem here is that they claim this is "Debian Stable", but then they include an unstable and really ancient version of KDE. KDE4 didn't even start getting usable until 4.5; anything before that should be considered an unstable beta version, and avoided now that we have newer and better versions. Only the most recent versions are really stable and bug-free and usable. Yes, I know in a lot of places, you don't want to just go with the latest software release because you want to make sure all the bugs are worked out, so you want to stick with an older, stable version. That's not the case here: the older version is NOT stable or bug-free, it's really quite full of bugs. Hasn't the whole Firefox version number debacle (and of course the KDE4 debacle) taught anyone anything about version numbers, that you can't trust them and they're not really worth anything? Debian is making itself look really bad and incompetent with this move. jdixon wrote:And how would you recommend someone running Debian Stable do so? I'd recommend they find a distro that values stability, because this one obviously doesn't. |
| jdixon Oct 13, 2011 12:50 PM EDT |
> The problem here is that they claim this is "Debian Stable", but then they include an unstable and really ancient version of KDE The problem is that alpha and beta versions of KDE were released as stable versions. > KDE4 didn't even start getting usable until 4.5; anything before that should be considered an unstable beta version... Well duh. Many of us had been saying that since KDE 4.0. And I believe unstable versions are usually considered alpha, not beta. |
| mbaehrlxer Oct 13, 2011 1:06 PM EDT |
Grishnakh: i don't think it's a move. when debian stable was going for release kde 4.5 was not even out yet. they probably had the choice to release with what was there, or wait another half year or longer at the risk of not gaining anything. (who would have been able to predict that 4.5 finally becomes stable enough?) and once debian stable was released a major update was no longer possible. so it wasn't a bad move, more like it was a bad stop :-) greetings, eMBee. |
| Grishnakh Oct 13, 2011 2:52 PM EDT |
jdixon wrote:The problem is that alpha and beta versions of KDE were released as stable versions. Yes, but it's the distro's responsibility to make sure all the software they provide (especially major components like a DE) are actually stable, if they want to call it a "stable" distro, rather than just stupidly and blindly following some version numbers. The whole KDE4.0 debacle was largely the fault of the distros, for just blindly accepting that "4.0" meant "ready for general consumption", when that was certainly not the case with KDE4.0. Or do you believe that Firefox 7 really is a giant, major new release compared to Firefox 6? It's very simple: you cannot go by version numbers. They are utterly meaningless, except within the context of that one project, and even that can change overnight as seen with Firefox. Quoting:Many of us had been saying that since KDE 4.0. And I believe unstable versions are usually considered alpha, not beta. Alpha, beta, whatever, if you want to call KDE 4.0 alpha-quality I'll agree with that. The point is that it was unstable and unusable; what if Debian Stable decided to include KDE 4.0 (rather than 4.4.5), because its version number implies that it's "stable", when that's obviously far from the truth? It isn't that much better with 4.4. The Debian team is showing serious incompetence here. mbaehrlxer wrote:i don't think it's a move. when debian stable was going for release kde 4.5 was not even out yet. The fact that this article was just written my Mr. Darkduck implies that this version of Debian just came out. Why else would he be reviewing it now? 4.5 was released, what?, over a year ago? If 4.5 wasn't even out at the time, then they should have stuck with 3.5.10, the last stable version before 4.5 came out. |
| jdixon Oct 13, 2011 3:45 PM EDT |
> The whole KDE4.0 debacle was largely the fault of the distros, for just blindly accepting that "4.0" meant "ready for general consumption", when that was certainly not the case with KDE4.0. You'll get no argument from me on that matter. > The fact that this article was just written my Mr. Darkduck implies that this version of Debian just came out. Debian 6.0.3 was released October 8th, 2011. Debian 6.0.0 was initially released on February 6th, 2011. The point releases in Debain stable are (I believe) strictly security fixes. I'm not a Debian user, so I can't say for certain. > If 4.5 wasn't even out at the time, then they should have stuck with 3.5.10, the last stable version before 4.5 came out. Again, I agree. But the KDE devs have been saying it's production quality since 4.0. How do you think they would have reacted if Debian had refused to include it? And if 4.5 wasn't stable, how are we supposed to know 4.7 really is? |
| mbaehrlxer Oct 13, 2011 3:52 PM EDT |
kde 4.5 was released august 10th, 2010. current debian stable was frozen august 6th. (note that waiting would not have helped. updating kde is an effort that would have taken more than a month at least) debian was finally released in february 2011. in the meantime, kde 4.5 was skipped completely and they went to kde 4.6 for now... so, yes, it appears that it was a close race. but hindsight is 20/20. i don't know why mr darkduck is only writing this review now. it could be that he is conservative like me. even when i new stable debian release comes out i wait at least half a year before installing it to let the initial release issues settle. but then, i only run debian on servers. not on the desktop. greetings, eMBee. |
| Fettoosh Oct 13, 2011 4:02 PM EDT |
Quoting:The best way to use the latest KDE on Debian is to run Debian Sid or look at Aptosid. I tried Aptosid and it is pretty good distro but unfortunately, it does not keep up with KDE latest releases and updates. Quoting:I don't believe the base Debian desktop install includes the necessary tools to compile KDE. And compiling and installing outside of the package manager breaks your system. You would have to compile a package from the source, which is beyond the skill set of most users. You asked and I suggested compiling for testing and evaluation and for the purpose of the article, not for average users. Average users should be using standard Distro release. It doesn't make sense to use Debian stable with older less stable version of KDE when a much better one already exists. My suggestion was Chakra, which as good as Aptosid but keeps up to date with KDE. Quoting:Release of Alpha Beta version and such ...KDE team fault, distro fault... etc It is an old argument beating a dead horse that has been buried a long time ago. No sense getting into it again. |
| jdixon Oct 13, 2011 4:23 PM EDT |
> Average users should be using standard Distro release. Which would be Debian stable, if you're a Debian user. > It doesn't make sense to use Debian stable with older less stable version of KDE when a much better one already exists. There is no better version if you're an average Debian user. > You asked and I suggested compiling for testing and evaluation and for the purpose of the article, He was reviewing what the distro provides, which is what your average user will be using. > My suggestion was Chakra, which as good as Aptosid but keeps up to date with KDE. Chakra isn't Debian. My question was: And how would you recommend someone running Debian Stable do so? You haven't provided an applicable answer. Compiling an environment such as KDE from source simply isn't an option for your average user, or even most relatively advanced users. It's not something I'd be interested in doing, and I use sbopkg to compile packages for Slackware fairly regularly. Simply put, even trying KDE 4.7 on Debian Stable, much less using it, isn't an option for anyone but the most advanced users, and there's no reason to expect someone simply reviewing Debian stable to even attempt to do so. They should review what the distro provides. |
| Grishnakh Oct 13, 2011 4:27 PM EDT |
jdixon wrote:But the KDE devs have been saying it's production quality since 4.0. How do you think they would have reacted if Debian had refused to include it? And if 4.5 wasn't stable, how are we supposed to know 4.7 really is? I think most KDE4 users will agree that 4.5 was pretty stable, and where things finally really came together, and that 4.7 is better still. This isn't an exact science obviously. I think a large distro like Debian refusing to include it would have been a good lesson for the KDE devs. Just because some software developers throw something out there and call it "production quality" doesn't mean it is. Look at Gnome3; users are rebelling. Look at Unity: users are rebelling. Look at Firefox: corporations are no longer allowing employees to use it because it causes too many problems for their IT departments with the dumb version numbering scheme. You can't just take software developers at their word, whether it's a FOSS project or even your own internal developers at a company; developers always want everyone to use their latest-and-greatest, and usually don't understand or undervalue stability. That's why most larger companies separate software development into two sections: development, and testing (sometimes called QC). The testing guys are totally different from the developers, and have a totally different mindset. The company then won't release anything to customers until the QC guys have tested it out and pronounced it good. This is the job the distros are supposed to be doing, and they're failing at it utterly. The distros are supposed to be the testers, to make sure the software they include is stable and high quality, before putting it out there for everyone to use with important data. This might not really apply so much to a distro that has a reputation for being cutting-edge and experimental, but this goes doubly for a distro that calls their release "Stable". Why call your distro "stable" if the software you include isn't actually stable, and is alpha quality? Just because something is old doesn't make it stable or high-quality. What would happen if someone got all the old design specs and plans for the original Ford Pinto and started building that again (fuel tank defect and all), claiming it's "stable and reliable" just because it's old? Or heck, just about any of the 70s cars? Fettoosh wrote:It is an old argument beating a dead horse that has been buried a long time ago. No sense getting into it again. Nope. It would be an old argument and beating a dead horse if there weren't a prominent distro still releasing old, unstable software and trying to call it "stable". Everyone else has (for good reason) moved to the latest KDE releases of 4.6 and 4.7, which most users seem to agree really is stable. But for some dumb reason, Debian Stable can't be bothered to include stable software in their current "Stable" release, so we're going to have this argument until they finally catch up with everyone else. |
| Ridcully Oct 13, 2011 5:36 PM EDT |
Ummm......Fettoosh........I am running KDE4.4.4 and love it and have no need to upgrade at the moment. The reason, which you appear to overlook, is that all my software and data are happy, stable, upgraded automatically and I am spared the onus of several days work in order to swap over to a new version of KDE. Why bother when what I have does all I want ? The time spent will not justify the nausea at the moment. Oh sure, ultimately, I will move up, but to be honest, the way I use KDE means I could just as easily be running Trinity KDE and get the same results. I don't use Debian based software anyhow. And for the record, KDE4.4.4 in openSUSE 11.3 is amazingly stable. This is now over 9 months I have been running this DE and in all of that time, the only way I have managed to bring it to a halt was entirely due to Windows based software running in Crossover Office......and I think that was precisely once. Thems as likes upgrading and enjoying the latest, go for it......I'm happy to just wander along with something that works and upgrade only when it is absolutely necessary.......probably when I have explored openSUSE 12.1, (and extensively at that) to make sure that the upgrade does exactly what I require. |
| slacker_mike Oct 13, 2011 7:00 PM EDT |
@Grishnakh are you basing your comments off of your own experience running Debian Stable or off of your experience running KDE 4.4.5 on another distro? I haven't experienced any horrendous issues with KDE on Debian and I actually find that KDE on Debian tends to run much snappier than most other implementations of KDE on other Distros. Plus I wouldn't equate missing features with lack of stability. As long as the version they shipped with Stable is well tested and clear of show-stopping bugs I don't feel they have tarnished their reputation at all. Let's face it if you are a person running Debian Stable you don't want the latest and greatest. @Fettoosh, Aptosid tracks Debian Unstable so it will only have the latest and greatest when Debian decides to have the latest in greatest. If someone wants to track the latest and greatest KDE they should run Arch, Chakra, or openSUSE. Even Slackware and Fedora make the latest available either through Alien Bob's Ktown repo or Rex Dieter's repo. |
| Fettoosh Oct 13, 2011 7:52 PM EDT |
Quoting:I am running KDE4.4.4 and love it and have no need to upgrade at the moment. @Ridcully, Good for you. My point wasn't to upgrade for the sake of running the latest and greatest, but simply to make sure to achieve the best in performance and reliability, which the title is addressing. Quoting:Nope. It would be an old argument and beating a dead horse if there weren't a prominent distro still releasing old, unstable software and trying to call it "stable". @Grishnakh, Your point is well taken. The dead horse issue I was referring to is whether the KDE team was at fault or the Distros were in releasing KDE 4.0 so early and as a stable complete DE, which JDixon is referring to and always taken it against the KDE team. Quoting:Aptosid tracks Debian Unstable so it will only have the latest and greatest when Debian decides to have the latest and greatest. @slacker_mike, Aptosid is pretty good Distro, but that is why I don't use it. In my opinion, Chakra is as good as Aptosid if not better, but doesn't use Debian dpkg/Aptitude, which I prefer and believe it is the best package manager. |
| jdixon Oct 13, 2011 8:08 PM EDT |
> ...is whether the KDE team was at fault or the Distros were in releasing KDE 4.0 so early and as a stable complete DE, which JDixon is referring to and always taken it against the KDE team. Actually Fettoosh, I hold it against both the KDE team and the distros. But I do give the KDE team slightly more blame, so your analysis is fairly accurate. |
| ComputerBob Oct 13, 2011 8:10 PM EDT |
It's a common misunderstanding, but, because Debian Stable generally only gets security updates -- not new functionality -- it gets its name "Stable" from the fact that it is relatively "stable" (as in unchanging), not "stable" (as in bug-free or reliable). I have personally found Debian Stable to be very bug-free and very reliable for my purposes, but those who equate the name "Debian Stable" with either bug-free code or reliability are misunderstanding the term "stable" as it refers to Debian. |
| Grishnakh Oct 13, 2011 8:16 PM EDT |
@slacker_mike: I'm still using 4.5.5 actually as I haven't had the time to upgrade to a newer Kubuntu, and it's not bad, but it's not the most stable thing in the world either, and needs to be restarted about weekly due to things in KDE getting corrupted over time. I had 4.4.x before and it was worse. I'm running 4.6.x on Linux Mint on my work laptop and that's better; I don't recall any issues with it. I'm not equating lack of features with lack of stability; I'm equating lack of stability with lack of stability :) If I can't leave a DE running for a month straight without any visible problems, or having to restart it (due to the panel crashing, D-bus crashing, or whatever), then it's not stable. Lacking in features is a separate issue, though annoying if those features were present in an earlier release. This doesn't seem to be a problem in KDE any more. |
| gus3 Oct 13, 2011 8:22 PM EDT |
@ComputerBob, "stable" as in "when it breaks, we'll have a pretty good idea which part broke". |
| Steven_Rosenber Oct 14, 2011 1:43 PM EDT |
If somebody wants to package a newer version of KDE for Debian Backports, that's your best option in Debian Stable, I think. With Debian Stable (or any distro release, really), you kind of roll the dice. Some applications/packages will be great for the run of the release, and some will be poor or even unusable. But you can bet that things that are working when the Stable release starts its life will continue to work throughout that life. The version of any particular package/application that makes it into Debian Stable has a lot to do with where that particular package is in the development process when the release is frozen. You're always going to have some parts of the system more "mature" than others because many if not most upstream projects have their own development timetable that doesn't coincide with Debian's roughly timed cycle (though these days there's a Stable release just about every two years). For major packages there are often Backports to bring newer software onto a Stable base. But if running a newer KDE is that important, I'd say run Debian Testing, or another distro. Ubuntu has all of those PPAs, and if that works for you, I'd go for that. You can always jump back into Debian in the future when there's a newer KDE in there. Right now Debian Stable is a great place to be for people who like GNOME 2, since you can pretty much stick with it through early 2013 or even a year after that. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!