Techical Reason Why Konqueror File Management Engine Can't be Restored in KDE4?

[James Richard Tyrer]

Please note that despite the use of a middle initial that 'DCR' is NOT
'JRT'.

David C. Rankin wrote:
> Listmates,
> 
> Is there some reason the konqueror file management engine ( "backend"
>  or whatever you want to call it) in kde4 cannot be restored to the 
> kde3 konqueror file manager engine instead of the dolphin backend? 
> There are numerous basic problems with band-aiding the dolphin engine
>  as the backend for konqueror file management that make it very very 
> frustrating to work with. You cannot even make konqueror behave like 
> konqueror since it now shares setting with dolphin.
> 
While I admire your enthusiasm, you do need to tone it down a bit
without losing your passion for excellence. (Tom Peters would be proud
of you!).

I have to tell you that this is not the proper list to discuss these
issues.  This list of for: "For discussion of all KDE-related
development issues" but developers are more specific that it is for
discussions of how to write code although it wanders off of that track
fairly often.

You should have probably posted this to the 'KDE<kde at mail.kde.org>'
list.  You probably still should after you remove any accusations.  KDE
has a high standard of political correctness and there is a committee
that monitors what we say. :-)

But seriously, good engineering practice requires that you limit your
discussion to objective issues and not speculate on why.  Clearly state
what you think is wrong and how you would improve it.  Be prepared to
defend your position in an argument.  But defend it only with facts.

Actually, there isn't a proper list to post this to.  No list to discuss
bugs in general. ?

<SNIP>
> 
> There were reasons that the konqueror file management backend worked 
> the way it did and now all the efficiency and elegance of that engine
>  has gone up in smoke because somebody had the cute idea to break 
> konqueror to make dolphin instead of being smart about it and leaving
>  konqueror as konqueror.

First you need to know that there is no Konqueror that is a file
manager.  Konqueror is little more than a shell that runs plugins
(called KParts).  The old (KDE-3) file manager which is correctly called
KFM was actually a set of 2 KParts one for icon view and one for list
view.  I have to agree that I liked them better than the current state
of the DolphinPart.

However, I see no reason why filemanagement in Konqueror can't be just
as good with the DolphinPart, it is just a question of implementation.
Some simplification was probably a good idea, but I do not agree with
some of the design decisions -- although I do think that Dolphin is
excellent work, it can still use some work.

<SNIP>
> 
> I'm doing my best to understand why all of this stuff is still broken
>  on the eve of the .3 release,

I am also at a total loss to understand this.  My best theory is that
something has gone terribly wrong with the corporate culture of KDE, or
that the KDE project has simply become too big to be run on the
principle of constructive anarchy.

> and I am doing my best to help fix it (38 bug reports in 30 days), 
> but I must tell you it is very frustrating to have developers take 
> the position that "yes, we know what you could do with konqueror in 
> kde3, we know you can't now, but that isn't a 'bug', that is a 
> 'wishlist' item." Huh??
> 
I see this as part of to politicization of the bug process.  The way
BugZilla works, if they close a bug which you reported, you can reopen
it.  However, if they change it to a "wish list" there is nothing that
you can do about it.

> Is mediocrity the new gold standard for kde? With kde3 shut down, one
>  would think more emphasis would be placed on making sure its 
> functionality at least existed in kde4 as a priority and not simply 
> an afterthought.
> 
I don't think that there is any intent to have a mediocre product.  That
said, someone wise said that 'if you are willing to accept poor quality,
that is what you can expect'.

<SNIP>

> We all have to same goal of helping make kde4 "the desktop" for Linux
>  and one by which all others are measured. If we are going to
> succeed, more attention has to be placed on making sure it is usable
> and that the basic expected things work. Now fixing the way konqueror
> works may not be a glamorous as coding the new "plasma", but if the
> simple things don't work, nobody is going to care how good it looks.
> 

You are 100% correct there.  The problem is that the KDE project is run
by self taught hackers and they simply do not have the same mindset as
engineers do.

<SNIP>

What you see in the answers from the KDE developers is indicative of the
problem.  There is a corporate culture which includes a set of beliefs
-- a belief system [BS] if you will.  This BS includes a set of canned
excuses (or dodges) as to why things don't get done.

Would it help to send them all a copy of a Tom Peters book?

Well, that is interesting but the fact is that things haven't gotten
done and the person in charge (or at least the head of the project, AJS)
needs to figure out:

1.	Why things haven't gotten done.

2.	How to see that they do get done.

Discussion of those issues probably belongs on the:
KDE-Quality<kde-quality at kde.org> list.

And I note that you should always remember the prime principal of
eXtreme Programing: it is all about the users.  Remember that without
users, there would be no reason for the KDE project.

And might I mention:

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=197715

I notice that it hasn't been resolved yet.

-- 
James Tyrer

Kde Sudo User +1