[kde-linux] Thought in desperation

[Gmail]

On Thursday 03 December 2009 10:49:01 Duncan wrote:
> Gmail posted on Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:05:43 +0800 as excerpted:
> > On Wednesday 02 December 2009 23:46:35 Esben Mose Hansen wrote:
> >> Not KDE, IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) by
> >> recommandation of IUPAC and NIST. See e.g.
> >> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Binary_prefix
> >>
> >> One man's essentials is another man's fluff. Personally, I welcome the
> >> new precision, I was too often caught by the imprecise units that were
> >> previously common. 10% error is not acceptable in my opinion.
> >
> > First:
> > "Binary multiples.
> > The new prefixes and symbols for binary multiples standardized in IEC
> > 60027-2 are not part of the SI metric system of units."
> 
> This is for the users (not just the players).  The simple fact of the
> matter is that SI units are, by definition, powers of 10 (1000).
> Unfortunately, "borrowing" those same terms for use with powers of two,
> (2^10=1024) is now and has always been confusing, particularly when file
> and memory sizes are standardized to the 2^10 units system, while other
> things, including disk sizes, are standardized to the SI 10^3 units
> system.  My so-called 1 terabyte hard drive is only 931 GiB, because
> they're using powers of ten, but I want to know how I'm going to layout
> powers-of-two based partitions and how many powers-of-two based files
> (using 2-based sector and filesystem block sizes, and 2-based memory
> units when in actual use on the computer, etc) I can fit in them and
> ultimately on the hard drive and in memory.
> 
> The "i" suffix abbreviations and the powers-of-two units they stand for
> simply clarifies things, allowing people to just get their work done,
> instead of futzing about trying to figure out whether 10-based or 2-based
> units are involved, etc.  Over time, they'll no longer seem strange, and
> more and more applications begin using the more accurate (and already
> standardized) terms and abbreviations.
> 
> > Second:
> > OK I might have misunderstood for whom the KDE is. Users here refers to
> > people that want to have fun and play around with their computers. Real
> > users that use the computer for productive work should use something
> > else. I can understand that some very few are interested in binary
> > values. But I can assure you most are only simple and plain ISO people.
> > It is a pity that all those brilliant ideas and good things in KDE have
> > to get lost because some wants to play around with KDE for their own
> > fun. Why can they not use their own computer for that and not pollute
> > the rest of the world.
> 
> The problem is that the 2-power values are standard for file and memory
> sizes, and have been for many years.  That's not changing.  All that's
> changing is that the labels used to describe the 2-power units are now
> more accurate.  For years, KB/MB/GB have normally referred to the power-2
> units when displaying file sizes, etc.  The only thing that's changing
> now is that there's an "i" inserted, so one /knows/ that's what's being
> used.
> 
> > Third:
> > Why not introduce an additional configuration option, A fun switch. Then
> > those who want all this fun can get it. But the default should be For
> > ordinary users who use their computers for work.
> 
> Actually, a config option for this function is a very good idea.  Much
> like the various CLI fileutils have both --human-readable (-h) and --si
> switches, graphical clients can and arguably should have the same.
> 
> Meanwhile, it's worth noting what the clearly assumed default is for
> "human readable".  From the ls manpage:
> 
> -h, --human-readable
>        with -l, print sizes in human readable format
>        (e.g., 1K 234M 2G)
> 
> --si   likewise, but use powers of 1000 not 1024
> 
> So "human readable" is considered powers of 2 (2^10=1024), not powers of
> 10 (10^3=1000).  Why?  Because that has been how file sizes have been
> displayed for decades.  I bet if you look at the changelog, you'll see
> that the -h/--human-readable switch was available quite some time before
> the --si switch became available, because when talking about filesizes,
> powers of 1024 is simply assumed, because that is what has always been
> used.
> 
> Now the labels are simply clarified to clear up the ambiguity.
> 
> But about that config option...  I'd strongly suggest that if you feel as
> strongly about it as you seem to, you go put in a request for it.  KDE
> has an idea-storming site just for such ideas, with users voting on
> them.  It's possible you could even get it in for 4.4, to be released in
> February, if you hurry, as this one should be relatively simple to
> implement.
> 
> All that said, regulars here will certainly confirm that I don't believe
> kde4 is ready for ordinary use either.  There's waaayy to many bugs, etc,
> remaining.  I routinely run beta and even scm/alpha versions of various
> applications, so I have a reasonable level of experience with pre-release
> software on which to rely.  The kde 4.2 that KDE first claimed to be
> ready for ordinary use... was more like a late alpha.  There were way too
> many even basic features still missing to be even beta, let alone ready
> for ordinary use.  kde 4.3 is certainly vastly improved, but it's not
> ready for ordinary use either.  Still some features missing, tho mostly
> they are there, but broken in various ways when you actually try to use
> them.  That's normally considered beta.  Based on the rate of improvement
> and various reports, 4.4, scheduled for February, will probably be
> getting to release candidate level -- usable by ordinary people in most
> cases, but still some frustrating bugs that should be fixed before
> release.  Some software projects release their .0s at that level -- the
> observation behind the common wisdom to wait for the .1 releases before
> actually trying to depend on something.  If 4.4 indeed qualifies as rc
> level, then 4.5 should be the first real generally usable kde4.  Given
> the 6-month release cycle, 4.5 should come out in August.
> 
> Again, this is nothing new to regulars, as I've written the same thing
> many times, but it's worth repeating.  The FLOSS community has a saying,
> release early, release often, and I 100% support that.  Thus, I don't
> have a problem with the state of the kde4 releases per se, and in fact,
> appreciate the opportunity to use them and get a good jump-start on
> what's coming (I DID say I regularly run beta and even development
> sources!).  There are, however, two problems.  The first isn't the
> quality of the releases, it's that the quality of the releases doesn't
> match what they're claiming.  The second is that they dropped support for
> their very well polished and still very good previous version, 3.5.10,
> the one that actually works, WAAYYY before the new version is even CLOSE
> to sufficiently well working to properly replace it.  Altho... there have
> been some recent developments in that area, and it seems kde3.5 will
> continue to be supported, at a very basic/minimal level, but one hopes
> well enough to continue to work against modern versions of various system
> libraries and compile with a reasonably new gcc, plus get security
> updates, etc, for another year or so, leaving some months to switch to
> kde4.5, which looks to be the first reasonably comparable to kde3.5 kde4
> we'll get.
> 
> But as of 4.3, there's absolutely no way I could with integrity and in
> good conscience recommend kde4 for normal use.  And honestly, given the
> issues with such basic things as printing, I must seriously doubt the
> judgment or integrity, if not both, of anyone trying to make that claim,
> yes, including the KDE folks that ARE making it.  And what's worse, 4.2,
> when they /started/ making that claim, was even worse, so much so one
> must wonder if the claim was intended for comic effect!  Either that, or
> they simply haven't the foggiest what it is to actually /use/ the
> software, not just play around with it.  Too bad people actually trying
> to /use/ the software actually believed them!  So I certainly agree with
> you in that regard!
> 
> Never-the-less, while 4.2 was certainly a stretch to try to work with,
> even for this guy accustomed to running betas, 4.3 is much improved and
> reasonably easy (and fun) for me, /as/ a guy used to running betas, to
> work with.  I've been watching the changes since before 4.0's release
> (which I mistakenly thought I could run, as a .0 should at /least/ be
> beta quality, boy was I wrong about that!), and every release *IS* vastly
> improved.  It's getting there.  It's just taking some time, and all these
> premature claims about how it's ready for ordinary use aren't helping
> things.  But it WILL and IS getting there, and along about 4.6, kde4
> should be getting very impressive indeed, as it should have surpassed 3.5
> and everything else out there, and it won't be slowing down or looking
> back! =:^)
> 
I am sorry for my frustration. I have about 100 openSUSE 11.1 running.
We were looking forward for the openSUSE11.2. We now also wanted to switch 
from Windows to Linux in one of our other companies. But it has to wait.
I really did try to contribute with both having two milestones downloaded and 
1 rc. The root for my disappointment is perhaps the way the KDE, as you 
describe above, not can classify their releases but give impression of full 
featured release. Why not call it beta or even rc. The mistake then was that 
openSUSE made it as main desktop and even did remove the KDE3.5.
I did look at Gnome, but no. KDE is superior. IE taskjuggler is one of the 
important apps we now lost. They are waiting for oddities in Qt.
If we lost our project management system we are lost.
Well this is not the first time it happens with Novell. It was the same with 
the first SUSE release under Novell when they distributed a beta openOffice.

Now back to work.

/Lars