Talk:KDE/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Compatible? 2 Versioning 3 Screen Shots 4 Major KDE apps 5 KDE Timeline 6 Konsole Kalendar 7 Gnome vs. KDE

[edit] Compatible?

What does "about version numbers binary compatibilty, API compatible" mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoe (talk • contribs) 20 April 2003.

Unfortunately I did not finish my additions last night, sorry. This was just meant as some keywords for me, so that I do not forget about the important points. I'll write this subsection in a moment. --mkrohn 11:18 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Versioning

Should the KDE versions list be moved to a seperate article, leaving only the minor versions on KDE? Its getting really big, and even though I tablized it, it is still hard to read because of its size. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.33.67 (talk • contribs) 10 March 2004.

The table version isn't as good (to my taste) as the indented bulleted list, which sets out major and minor versions nicely. We can leave it here for now. Until the article hits 32k, maybe ;-) --David Gerard 08:43, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

I noticed that the Mozilla and Mandrake article has a table, similar to what I had designed. Should there be more consistant method of presenting version histories? --82.32.33.67 21:53, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If it doesn't work as well here, I see no reason to change it gratuitously --David Gerard 22:00, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

I think that the KDE list should stay in its current stle for a few more versions, but once it gets really big like the Mozilla one then it should switch. Maybe after KDE 4 is released it would be a good time? --Anonymous

I would say strictly according to what seems to work. The two-level bulleted list here works because KDE has so many minor versions, for instance. --David Gerard 23:18, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Screen Shots

Do we want a new screenshot seeing as we are now on 3.2? --Anonymous

I don't think this is necessary for now, since 3.2 uses the same default style as 3.1, namely keramik. --mkrohn 21:20, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Major KDE apps

What's the criterion for a major native applications section? Is the CVS client really a major application the way Konqueror is? If it's just a list of all native apps, it should be named accordingly. --David Gerard 12:18, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Good question. I copied the term from the GNOME article and started adding applications which are part of the main distribution and which I considered "major". I interpreted "major" in the sense of "large". O.k. I didn't count the lines of code (LOC), but the ones I added should be all an order of a magnitude bigger than small applets and programs like kgpg or kspaceduel. Well actually this is not quite true, I just used sloccount for fun (LOC C++):

konqueror (without addons): 27.300 + (8500 for libkonq)

cervisia: 12.800

kmail: 72.700

kspaceduel: 3.300

kgpg: 13.000

kword: 46.200

kdevelop: 234.600

kate: 8.900 + (24.700 kdelibs/kate)

kpovmodeler: ~80.000

kghostview: 9.800

As a rule of thumb I would say >10.000 LOC + being part of KDE CVS is a major application. --mkrohn 21:07, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good :-) I've put in a note that it's largest by size included in the distribution. It probably needs rewording, or a better criterion if someone thinks of one. --David Gerard 13:36, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

I removed Kexi for now (not in KOffice, not in Debian).--Chealer 08:58, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Kexi is part of koffice, see [1]. --mkrohn 10:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BTW: it has >70.000 LOC

[edit] KDE Timeline

I've done a bit of rewrite (consolidate single-sentence paragraphs, tighten up the writing, grammar tweaks) and reshuffling.

One question: should the timeline go at the top of the article or the bottom? Would a separate written history section make any sense?

Also, does the controversy over Qt's licensing - which was a MAJOR ISSUE at the time - need any more detail? --David Gerard 14:26, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

Hi David. I looked at the changes you did this and they all are very good IMHO. The article looks much better now :-) The timeline should, for the moment, stay where it is. Having such a list at the top of an article would disturb and looks bad from an aesthetical point of view. The timeline has more the character of an appendix. Nevertheless I very much agree that it would be great to have a written section about the history of the KDE project. Within this section the Qt license contorvery should be mentioned and some part of the "KDE and GNOME" section could be incorporated too. --mkrohn 23:43, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Konsole Kalendar

KonsoleKalendar is a tiny stub article at the moment, and needs some loving attention to be rescued from Votes For Deletion (see MediaWiki:VfD-KonsoleKalendar) --David Gerard 15:42, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

If KonsoleKalendar is a part of KDE, but folks have concern about adding it and other apps to the overall KDE article, might I suggest a KDE applications supplementary article. That would avoid stub pages like KonsoleKalendar and provide room to organize and discuss individual apps. If any description became too large, it could always be moved to a separate page. Just a thought. --Jeff Q 23:08, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

The article was kept. Debate archive at Talk:KonsoleKalendar/Delete. --Cyrius|✎ 06:36, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gnome vs. KDE

Shouldn't there be a section comparing and contrasting Gnome and KDE? I mean, that's one of the major disputes these days isn't it? Or at least a better description of the controversy. I know as a current Gnome user thinking of switching over, I had hoped for at least some pros and cons. -- Maru Dubshinki 01:32 Sunday, April 17 2005

If you are looking for a review/shootout of GNOME and KDE, then you are in the wrong place. --Motor 09:22, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

You don't think a comparison with its biggest competitor is relevant? Okay... -- Maru Dubshinki 13:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you are joking, but I would find that information to be fine for the wikipedia, and very informative 66.75.49.213 01:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not relevant to Wikipedia -- which isn't about marketing or reviews. If you want a feature comparison or pros and cons of each compared to the other, or even a heated partisan fight try osnews or slashdot[...] --Motor 13:59, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

• No one asked for reviews, but comparisons to see what the differences between the two is. The differences are very relevant. To illustrate an example, wouldn't the differences in business strategies between Microsoft and Apple be an important part of an article? It does serve a purpose, and that purpose is not to advertise anything. Differences can be stated without promoting one or the other. I find your quick dimissal of the other user's thoughts silly. Stiles 20:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You forgot the <sarcasm> tag. --maru 16:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If anybody want's this comparaison please put it on another page, it's gonna get ugly ! 84.102.180.203 00:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There is Comparison of Linux distributions. I think Comparison of free and open source desktop environment would be useful too.193.52.24.125 13:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

a comparison like this won't go anywhere and won't help anyone. if you do a search for KDE vs GNOME it is really inconclusive, at least the sites I visited were inconclusive. Bob Plano 02:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)