MEPIS Community Forum

I think most would say yes KDE4 is an improvement. but that was the intent of my last post, choice. Expressing an opinion does not mean I want everyone to do as I do. And if one wants to use KDE3 they still can, Mepis 8.0 for example.

But can people 'really' use MEPIS 8?
As fas as I know, it is not supported as the repos no longer exist.

http://www.mepiscommunity.org/node/714

One cannot expect any new packages being uploaded there, but it appears they still exist.

I think this whole discussion is really moot. However there were changes to the interface used between KDE 3.x and KDE 4.x that were counter-productive. The better-structured code of KDE 4+ was a real and tangible benefit. Personally I think the interface change wasn't done very well. I never thought that throwing out the baby with the bathwater was a good idea. You're supposed to keep what's good.

But I'm here because of 'CHOICE' in capitals being available. That's my bottom line.

Again, this is an opinion I do not share.

I have to agree with Rich here. Given the length of time I've used Mepis with KDE4 and Mepis with KDE3, I can not identify any single interface change that was counter-productive.

What I can identify is how KDE4 has changed or extended concepts of the desktop. If I might be honest, I think a lot of people are still turned off on KDE4 because of the KDE4 development cycle and the actual KDE 4.0 release. "Everybody," and we'll put quotes on that, thought that the KDE 4.0 release was a complete desktop environment that was 100% ready for use. It wasn't. The KDE 4.0 release was simply the completion of the underlying libraries and API's that backed the KDE Software Complication. That didn't stop major vendors such as Red Hat and Novell shoving KDE 4.0 releases into their Linux Distributions, so a lot of people who used those distributions got the idea that KDE 4.0 was an incomplete mess.

The problem is that the KDE developers never intended to permanently remove features or functionality from the KDE Software Compiliation. By the KDE 4.4 release almost all of the comparitive functionality that had been lost in going from KDE 3.5.x to sub KDE 4.4 was already back in the interface. As of the KDE 4.7 branch more of KDE's "new" features, such as activities, were starting to mature into useful tools.

Additionally the separation of the System Functionality from the User Interface has also shown it's own direct benefits. KDE Software Compilation 4.5.x already includes the Plasma Netbook interface which completely changes the entire user-interface layout, as well as changing background services in order to provide a desktop that requires less system resources and resolution to run. Additionally the user can make the switch from Plasma-Desktop to Plasma-Netbook and back at any time, even while programs are still running.

On top of that advancement several KDE Developers are working on Plasma Active, which provides for a user-interface centered around Touch-Controls. Like Plasma-Desktop and Plasma-Netbook, users can swap in real-time between Plasma-Active and the other User-interfaces, while programs are running. I've kind of been over this on an outside site.

In light of what's possible with the KDE4 software compilation, projects like KDE-Trinity just look completely boneheaded. If the code-monkeys keeping KDE-Trinity alive were really interested in maintaining an exact replica of KDE 3.5.x... they should have just made a KDE 3.5.x. interface under KDE4 Plasma. Would have saved a lot of time, trouble, and distributions shipping KDE could be offering both Plasma-Desktop and Plasma-3.5.x UI's with minimal increase in file-size or art assets, just like KDE distributions offer both Plasma-Desktop and Plasma-Netbook.

The real issue between changes from the kde3 series to kde4 (same with gnome 2 and 3) is that you cannot use all those 'nice' new features on old boxes. As people have tried, running any full kde4 version on any kde4 centric distro results in more RAM and CPU power being needed than what was the case when using the mature kde3. This is a fact. For those with older computers, the 'choice' of using a modern kde distro has gone.
This is not the same for xfce, nor any of the windows managers.

And that has been and always will be true as software outpaces existing hardware. When KDE3 was introduced there was no doubt older hardware people were using it would not run on. That is why the choices we have for lighter weight Linux DE's for older hardware are important.

I'm kind of new at this, but it seems to me that if everyone, including software developers, acknowledge that different opinions exist and are tolerant of those differing opinions, we should all be able to get along. I just don't want anyone telling me what is best for me, or what I should like or prefer. I am perfectly capable of making those decisions m'self.

Yeah, it was too complicated for me too.