On 10 March 2010 03:48, David C. Rankin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 03/09/2010 05:02 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
>> On 10/03/10 08:58, David C. Rankin wrote:
>>> * * Latest updates to poppler require the removal of poppler-qt3 which
>>> fails due to
>>> kdemod3-kdegraphics-pdf (kpdf) dependencies. How do we handle this? Do
>>> we just
>>> remove poppler-qt3? Won't that break kpdf? Thought I would check before I
>>> started breaking things on my own
>>> * * The actual error is:
>>> :: poppler conflicts with poppler-qt3. Remove poppler-qt3? [Y/n]
>>> error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies)
>>> :: kdemod3-kdegraphics-kpdf: requires poppler-qt3>=0.6
>> The correct way to handle it is to ask kdemod to either provide a
>> poppler-qt3 package or fix their deps on the kdemod3-kdegraphics-kpdf
> Thanks Allan, Dave, Isaac & Ty
> * * * *I'll pester the guys at kdemod. I keep pushing for KDE to embrace the concept
> of "KDE Classic".
You use arch, yet you want legacy softwere?
> We see how smart the Coke board was when it tried to replace
> Coke with "New Coke".
Yes, but Coke have to sell their product. KDE don't. KDE renamed
because they felt they were not a project anymore, they were a
community of developers. If others don't like it, they can fork. And
thus we have kdemod. And if you don't like kdemod for some reason, you
could always fork again. And again. And again. However at a certain
point, the naming convention would probably implode... (somewhere
around kdemodmodmod I think). The KDE developers are developing it for
themselves. Remember the first rule of missing features. Open Source
> In less than two weeks the board bowed to consumer demand
> and rather than loosing market share, brought back Coke as Coke Classic. If KDE
> had any brains it would do the same thing.
Don't insult them. Disagreeing with you doesn't make them mentally
deficient. Why would they throw away 2 years of work, and however many
years of work?
> Like it or not k4 is still in beta
> stage with little direction and little guidance in what it will ultimately look
> like or how it will behave.
Like it or not, this claim is still thrown around... How best to
explain it? A look at each KDE release:
KDE 4.0 - Though labeled as a stable release, it was meant for early
adopters. This is probably where the 'KDE4 is still beta!!' saying
comes from, as truly, 4.0 was not totally stable.
KDE 4.1 - Nothing much, basically the same as KDE 4.0 but with more features.
KDE 4.2 - Considered a stable release, and a replacement for KDE 3.5
for most users. Several thousand bugs fixed. Generally, people become
KDE 4.3 - Incremental release. Focused on polishing interface. So yes,
the dreaded... 'bling'
KDE 4.4 - Based on QT4.6, so moderate performance increases deriving
from that. Added features such as tabbed window management
> * * * *I have been using KDE4 for about 1 years now since the kde4.3 beta phase and I
> like the desktop, but it is still very difficult to get things done on it. If I
> need to work, I use kde3 or flux or enlightenment. If I want to write bug
> reports endlessly or check the latest bling, I'll use kde4.
Much as your phrasing has the satisfaction of a well cooked meal, it
lacks any sauce. You must tell us, how do you manage to get KDE 4.4 to
crash so often? I've done all my work for the past 2 years in KDE 4.*,
and I'm not too cRaZy...
Yes, back with 4.0, plasma did crash on me a fair bit, and I did have
some trouble with KWrite a couple of months back. I guess I could have
stopped using KDE because of it - I don't think I ever touched KDE 4.1
- but it's not worth it. It's certainly not worth spending the time
complaining about it...
> * * * *But there is still no Quanta, etc.. in kde4 and simple things like trying to
> have konqueror "back up" and remember what file it was on in the parent
> directory just annoy the Sh17 out of me...
Good for you
I'm satisfied with my KDE 4.4, and though I realise
not everyone can be, I shan't be loosing too much sleep over it
FUD and Unsubstantiated claims however... Well they're a worry
> David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
> Rankin Law Firm, PLLC
> 510 Ochiltree Street
> Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
> Telephone: (936) 715-9333
> Facsimile: (936) 715-9339