christian.loose at hamburg.de
Fri Jan 2 21:34:35 GMT 2004
Am Freitag, 2. Januar 2004 22:19 schrieb Frans Englich:
> On Thursday 01 January 2004 01:56, Scott Wheeler wrote:
> > On Tuesday 30 December 2003 22:05, George Staikos wrote:
> > > I agree that it needs to be removed. I have already asked for it
> > > (along with other dead code) to be moved to kdenonbeta but I did not
> > > receive a reply.
> > For what it's worth I've had a lot of problems with it too. It's
> > difficult to get it to build on an older distro -- much less work. There
> > are a lot of code paths that aren't hit because of ifdef's that don't
> > seem to have been tested much that cause problems if you're missing some
> > of the soft dependencies. I'd also prefer to see it moved back to
> > kdenonbeta for 3.2 and if it's in better shape in a few months discuss
> > bringing it back for 3.3...
> I can't comment on the technical merits of kpdf/ghostview but there clearly
> is a usability disadvantage in including more than one.
> I find the discussion whether to include kpdf a little bit ridiculus. We,
> the developers, knows that there's a difference between kpdf and ghostview.
> Somehow, we got this idea that a typical KDE user also knows the
> differences, and in case not, will be able to tell from the descriptive
> texts "PDF Viewer (KPDF)" and "PS/PDF Viewer (KGhostView)". Someone tell
> me: How do a user know which pdf to open with kpdf and which one with
> kghostview? When do the user /know/ when stability respective speed is most
AFAIK KPDF can only display PDF but it can show PDFs that KGhostView can't. So
there is a difference in functionality and I thought the big plan was to use
KPDF for all PDF files and KGhostView for PS files (please correct me). This
way it would makes sense to include both and it wouldn't hurt usability.
More information about the kde-core-devel