OpenBSD Journal

KDE4 First Impressions

Contributed by jl on from the more-is-less dept.

Ian Darwin (ian@) writes:
Marc Espie (espie@) has put in a port of KDE 4, and I wrote down my initial impressions based on a few days of using it as my desktop. While KDE 4 is not yet ready for prime time, it is certainly becoming usable.
From the article...
KDE4 is nothing if not innovative. The new desktop shell, Plasma, tries to move away from the old desktop-as-directory paradigm using more dynamic features, which you can read about here. It supports widgets, similar to those on Mac OS X but which can be written in any of half a dozen modern languages, not just JavaScript. The graphical effects are also quite impressive. Plus, it's faster at some operations; opening a file chooser on a large directory used to be painful, but is now quite fast.

So why do I say "almost ready for prime time"? First, I'm seeing some instability - Plasma disappears every so often and has to be restarted, for example, or kwin crashes and gets restarted - but these might be because the KDE developers are only coding for Linux, not for portability (though parts of KDE4 - not including Plasma - can also run on MS-Windows and Mac OS). However, more significant is that the system just doesn't feel "finished". Many of the optimizations and features (especially configuration) that we took for granted in 3.5 are not in 4.0 yet.

(Comments are closed)

Comments

  1. By Jason Dixon (71.248.7.186) jason@dixongroup.net on http://www.dixongroup.net

    From what I've read in other reviews, these issues are typical of KDE4. The focus for the KDE team was to get KDE4 out early to stimulate developers to get their stuff ported to QT4/Plasma/etc quickly.

    I'm not a fan or user of KDE, but I thought I should clarify Ian's experiences insofar as these are not OpenBSD problems. :)

  2. By Brad (216.138.195.228) brad at comstyle dot com on

    KDE 4.0.x is definitely not "finished" and that was what was to be expected as it is a development release. The real problem is that the KDE project did not do enough to set peoples expectations, so a lot of people seem to think that the 4.0.0 release should have been 100% perfect. KDE 3.0.0 was far from perfect and KDE 3.x has had 8 years for feature additions, refinement and bug fixing. GNOME 2.0 was no better off either.

  3. By Viking (viking) on

    Good review, Ian - thanks for that!

    A big "thanks!" as well to Marc for all of his hard work doing this port.
    Ok, KDE 4.0 is a bit beta-ish at the moment, but by the time OpenBSD 4.4 comes around on 1st November, KDE 4.0 (probably 4.1 by then) should be ticking over pretty well.

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (67.159.47.170) on

      > Good review, Ian - thanks for that!
      >
      > A big "thanks!" as well to Marc for all of his hard work doing this port.
      > Ok, KDE 4.0 is a bit beta-ish at the moment, but by the time OpenBSD 4.4 comes around on 1st November, KDE 4.0 (probably 4.1 by then) should be ticking over pretty well.
      >

      ...having to wait until Nov of 2008 to use an outdated KDE version. Wow, I guess it's true that security and usability will never share the same OS.

      The exact reason I switched form using OpenBSD to using FreeBSD.

      OpenBSD's lack of interest in a current desktop is why it will never be taken seriously in a world of free operating systems.

      Comments

      1. By Simon (62.146.139.10) on

        > The exact reason I switched form using OpenBSD to using FreeBSD.

        Well good for you. Why are you still trolling here?



      2. By Brad (216.138.195.228) brad at comstyle dot com on

        > > Ok, KDE 4.0 is a bit beta-ish at the moment, but by the time OpenBSD 4.4 comes around on 1st November, KDE 4.0 (probably 4.1 by then) should be ticking over pretty well.
        > >
        >
        > ...having to wait until Nov of 2008 to use an outdated KDE version. Wow, I guess it's true that security and usability will never share the same OS.
        >
        > The exact reason I switched form using OpenBSD to using FreeBSD.
        >
        > OpenBSD's lack of interest in a current desktop is why it will never be taken seriously in a world of free operating systems.

        What the f$%k are you talking about? Where do all of these BRAIN DEAD retards come from?!?!

        KDE 4.0.x is a development release and is NOT intended for everyday use. Until KDE 4.1 is released some KDE apps cannot even be ported to KDE 4 yet. By the time OpenBSD 4.3 is released the KDE project will be approaching the release of KDE 4.1 and that will be included with OpenBSD 4.4. By then the majority, if not all of the KDE programs which have ports in the OpenBSD ports tree will have KDE 4 releases of their programs and a clean cut over can be made.

        Engage your half a brain cell before making such stupid comments.

      3. By Marc Espie (213.41.185.88) espie@openbsd.org on

        > ...having to wait until Nov of 2008 to use an outdated KDE version. Wow, I guess it's true that security and usability will never share the same OS.
        >
        > The exact reason I switched form using OpenBSD to using FreeBSD.
        >
        > OpenBSD's lack of interest in a current desktop is why it will never be taken seriously in a world of free operating systems.

        How about getting correct information before trolling like that ?

        Outdated ? how so ? we track KDE releases pretty closely.

        You can try KDE 4.0.1 right now, just cd /usr/ports/x11/kde4 && make install

        Have fun, it's a rough ride. In fact, it's a rough ride on any OS out there.

        As far as OpenBSD 4.3 is concerned, why should we spend valuable resources on providing KDE 4 packages ? it's not a finished product. A lot of things don't work yet. The people who build the release have better things to do.

        The office suite isn't there (the koffice beta isn't compiling correctly, and is unlikely to do so until I've finished a rather scary compiler change), there is no mailer, no newsreader (not part of kde 4.0). https:// is not working right, and konqueror crashes every 4 sites.

        Did you read Ian's post ? All those things that don't work simply do not exist in kde 4 yet.

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward (64.38.10.111) on

          > > ...having to wait until Nov of 2008 to use an outdated KDE version. Wow, I guess it's true that security and usability will never share the same OS.
          > >
          > > The exact reason I switched form using OpenBSD to using FreeBSD.
          > >
          > > OpenBSD's lack of interest in a current desktop is why it will never be taken seriously in a world of free operating systems.
          >
          > How about getting correct information before trolling like that ?
          >
          > Outdated ? how so ? we track KDE releases pretty closely.
          >
          > You can try KDE 4.0.1 right now, just cd /usr/ports/x11/kde4 && make install
          >
          > Have fun, it's a rough ride. In fact, it's a rough ride on any OS out there.
          >
          > As far as OpenBSD 4.3 is concerned, why should we spend valuable resources on providing KDE 4 packages ? it's not a finished product. A lot of things don't work yet. The people who build the release have better things to do.
          >
          > The office suite isn't there (the koffice beta isn't compiling correctly, and is unlikely to do so until I've finished a rather scary compiler change), there is no mailer, no newsreader (not part of kde 4.0). https:// is not working right, and konqueror crashes every 4 sites.
          >
          > Did you read Ian's post ? All those things that don't work simply do not exist in kde 4 yet.
          >

          Marc, you are the perfect leader for a community of dolts. Won't Theo be mad at you for taking his job?

          The OpenBSD project would never 'provide' KDE 4 packages when finished. The OpenBSD project would WAIT until the next OpenBSD release. Make all the excuses you want to this FACT but the OpenBSD project will always be third rate at best. God forbid the OpenBSD project provides it's users updated packages before a release *gasp, "That would mean we would have to be nice to the average user, but our difficult to use OS is only for people like us."

          OpenBSD has NEVER made any attempt to improve the average user experience, the community would rather criticise the average user as not being tech savvy enough to use such "an outstanding and *cough *cough secure OS". What rubbage. Okay, okay. We get it, it's a secure operating system ... now why don't you guys tackle the difficult (sarcasm) idea of being user friendly and updated.

          All other Unix-like operating systems have moved forward in this area of being considerate to the average user but OpenBSD still sits behind the smug, bigoted developers who either don't have the social skills (like Linus) to get their OS out there or are too stupid to properly code for what's new out there.

          ps, Yes, it's funny when people say OpenBSD is dead ... to the OpenBSD community this is not true but from the perspective of EVERYONE else out there, nothing could be more true.

          Comments

          1. By Anonymous Coward (89.77.162.243) on


            > ps, Yes, it's funny when people say OpenBSD is dead ... to the OpenBSD community this is not true but from the perspective of EVERYONE else out there, nothing could be more true.

            I know feeding trolls is bad, but since you can actually spell and construct sentences, and internet postings have a habit of sticking around for a long time, I will reply to your ramblings so that people are not left confused by their seemingly coherent form.

            I'm a dabbler, but I have used dozens of operating systems over the past 25 years, and as such feel qualified to state that OpenBSD is the most consistent and easy to use system I have ever come across. Why? Quality docs and rock-solid hardware support. Sure some things are not supported, but at least you know they're not once you boot the kernel. There are no half-baked third-party LKMs or arcane compilation or config options. The only thing you might have to get is non-redistributable firmware for your wireless card. Over time this saves a major amount of frustration, but don't believe me or anyone else, try it out and think for yourself. There's no better way.

            Comments

            1. By Wouter (2001:888:10:b6b::2) on

              > I'm a dabbler, but I have used dozens of operating systems over the past 25 years, and as such feel qualified to state that OpenBSD is the most consistent and easy to use system I have ever come across. Why? Quality docs and rock-solid hardware support. Sure some things are not supported, but at least you know they're not once you boot the kernel. There are no half-baked third-party LKMs or arcane compilation or config options. The only thing you might have to get is non-redistributable firmware for your wireless card. Over time this saves a major amount of frustration, but don't believe me or anyone else, try it out and think for yourself. There's no better way.

              I'd like to second this. I'm a programmer (though without the time and thick skin to contribute), and OpenBSD's documentation and code quality is second to none.

              Comments

              1. By Anonymous Coward (67.126.86.224) on

                > > I'm a dabbler, but I have used dozens of operating systems over the past 25 years, and as such feel qualified to state that OpenBSD is the most consistent and easy to use system I have ever come across. Why? Quality docs and rock-solid hardware support. Sure some things are not supported, but at least you know they're not once you boot the kernel. There are no half-baked third-party LKMs or arcane compilation or config options. The only thing you might have to get is non-redistributable firmware for your wireless card. Over time this saves a major amount of frustration, but don't believe me or anyone else, try it out and think for yourself. There's no better way.
                >
                > I'd like to second this. I'm a programmer (though without the time and thick skin to contribute), and OpenBSD's documentation and code quality is second to none.
                >
                Heh you are mistaken only in that this guy reads man pages or documentation. I think its more like "OMG where is teh KDE!".
                Then shortly there after hes on misc@ pestering folks for the
                command to install it.

                Id like to add OpenBSD treats average users just fine. Its the
                average trolls and those that refuse to read that get the stick.

          2. By Anonymous Coward (24.37.242.64) on

            It's all about choice and when you have the knowledge to choose from the choices, then the choice is yours to choose your choice of choices to choose from those choices. In other words, choose your choice, because you have the choice to choose from those choices of your choice and so the choice is yours to choose from.

            Disclaimer: The author has no idea if that made any sense.

          3. By Matthias Kilian (91.3.38.201) on

            > The OpenBSD project would never 'provide' KDE 4 packages when finished. The OpenBSD project would WAIT until the next OpenBSD release. Make all the excuses you want to this FACT but the OpenBSD project will always be third rate at best.

            It has been clearly stated that KDE 4 isn't ready for production, so why do you insult espie@ by calling his comments "excuses"?

            > God forbid the OpenBSD project provides it's users updated packages before a release

            Use -current. Or backport yourself. Or wait fucking six months to get solid working KDE packages.

            Unfortunately you didn't mention your name nor your mail address, else I'd suggest to switch to KDE 4 for the 4.3 release and point all complaints to your address.

            Ciao, Kili

          4. By face (71.94.13.41) face00 at gmail_com on http://myutil.com/

            > OpenBSD has NEVER made any attempt to improve the average user experience, the community would rather criticise the average user as not being tech savvy enough to use such "an outstanding and *cough *cough secure OS". What rubbage. Okay, okay. We get it, it's a secure operating system ... now why don't you guys tackle the difficult (sarcasm) idea of being user friendly and updated.


            Sorry for feed this troll....but:

            OpenBSD is the most user friendly OS for an average System Administrator. Sure, if you are a MS Windows user, it may not seem "user friendly". However, from a unix perspective, it is extremely user friendly (best documentation out there, stable platform, easy to install/upgrade).

            For example, I've been doing lots of OS upgrades for one of my clients recently. I was able to upgrade 4 OpenBSD boxes in about 2 hours. Now, their linux boxes (used for the SMP performance) take on average 3-6 hours per box to upgrade. But I guess for this guy, the 4 hour linux upgrade is "user friendly" because it has a GUI. I'll take a 20 minute OpenBSD upgrade any day.

            -R. M.

          5. By iru (189.25.23.113) on

            > > > ...having to wait until Nov of 2008 to use an outdated KDE version. Wow, I guess it's true that security and usability will never share the same OS.
            > > >
            > > > The exact reason I switched form using OpenBSD to using FreeBSD.
            > > >
            > > > OpenBSD's lack of interest in a current desktop is why it will never be taken seriously in a world of free operating systems.
            > >
            > > How about getting correct information before trolling like that ?
            > >
            > > Outdated ? how so ? we track KDE releases pretty closely.
            > >
            > > You can try KDE 4.0.1 right now, just cd /usr/ports/x11/kde4 && make install
            > >
            > > Have fun, it's a rough ride. In fact, it's a rough ride on any OS out there.
            > >
            > > As far as OpenBSD 4.3 is concerned, why should we spend valuable resources on providing KDE 4 packages ? it's not a finished product. A lot of things don't work yet. The people who build the release have better things to do.
            > >
            > > The office suite isn't there (the koffice beta isn't compiling correctly, and is unlikely to do so until I've finished a rather scary compiler change), there is no mailer, no newsreader (not part of kde 4.0). https:// is not working right, and konqueror crashes every 4 sites.
            > >
            > > Did you read Ian's post ? All those things that don't work simply do not exist in kde 4 yet.
            > >
            >
            > Marc, you are the perfect leader for a community of dolts. Won't Theo be mad at you for taking his job?
            >
            > The OpenBSD project would never 'provide' KDE 4 packages when finished. The OpenBSD project would WAIT until the next OpenBSD release. Make all the excuses you want to this FACT but the OpenBSD project will always be third rate at best. God forbid the OpenBSD project provides it's users updated packages before a release *gasp, "That would mean we would have to be nice to the average user, but our difficult to use OS is only for people like us."

            http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20061011142519
            If a blind man can use it, the problem is totally yours if you can't.
            >
            > OpenBSD has NEVER made any attempt to improve the average user experience, the community would rather criticise the average user as not being tech savvy enough to use such "an outstanding and *cough *cough secure OS". What rubbage. Okay, okay. We get it, it's a secure operating system ... now why don't you guys tackle the difficult (sarcasm) idea of being user friendly and updated.

            Now go learn some computing history and see that 3d popping is not exatcly 'improving average user experience'.

            >
            > All other Unix-like operating systems have moved forward in this area of being considerate to the average user but OpenBSD still sits behind the smug, bigoted developers who either don't have the social skills (like Linus) to get their OS out there or are too stupid to properly code for what's new out there.
            so let's do the shit everyone does, right?
            have you even tried to read other OSes code? without books and the web? yeah right.
            new out there? you really forgot to read all the relevant papers, didn't you? now go and read
            http://herpolhode.com/rob/utah2000.pdf.
            >
            > ps, Yes, it's funny when people say OpenBSD is dead ... to the OpenBSD community this is not true but from the perspective of EVERYONE else out there, nothing could be more true.
            if refactoring the code every single week and having the need of a Release Engineering Team is being alive and well... I'd prefer to be dead.

      4. By me (202.7.166.173) on

        > > Good review, Ian - thanks for that!
        > >
        > > A big "thanks!" as well to Marc for all of his hard work doing this port.
        > > Ok, KDE 4.0 is a bit beta-ish at the moment, but by the time OpenBSD 4.4 comes around on 1st November, KDE 4.0 (probably 4.1 by then) should be ticking over pretty well.
        > >
        >
        > ...having to wait until Nov of 2008 to use an outdated KDE version. Wow, I guess it's true that security and usability will never share the same OS.
        >
        > The exact reason I switched form using OpenBSD to using FreeBSD.
        >
        > OpenBSD's lack of interest in a current desktop is why it will never be taken seriously in a world of free operating systems.
        >

        So where's KDE 4.x in the FreeBSD ports tree?????

        http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cgi?query=kde&stype=all

        I guess that's why trolls live in damp dark places away from society. I guess your a social outcast.

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward (89.77.162.243) on


          > I guess that's why trolls live in damp dark places away from society. I guess your a social outcast.

          hey, I'm a social outcast and I resent being associated with trolls in this manner. unlike trolls, we're people too :)

      5. By Anonymous Coward (216.68.198.1) on

        FreeBSD is a good compromise for those who want a compromise overall.
        OpenBSD is a good system for those who want little compromise in there system, but compromise with the mainstream trend curve.

        It all depends upon you. I have learned how priceless having a minimum system is, the genius of UNIX design principles. Simple ncurses, ASCII, and command line skill, with quality programs, priceless for a lot of solid business needs. Businesses who go to modern linux web crap and crying for their old tty systems, they worked. Read up on some cases, very instructive.

        OpenBSD is like SGML, the Billion dollar secret, for those who know better and accordingly.

        As to the KDE4 port, I'm glad that top OpenBSD coders get the heavy work done, so that OpenBSD can lag in mainstream, but still stay solid. That is a beautiful compromise, which takes time to see it all.

        Besides, all OSS, use a 3 level of current, stable, release cycle, with different utilizations. Best compomise for all of us, but pick your compromises for yourself.

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward (85.178.88.147) on

          > As to the KDE4 port, I'm glad that top OpenBSD coders get the heavy work done, so that OpenBSD can lag in mainstream, but still stay solid. That is a beautiful compromise, which takes time to see it all.

          I'm pissed about this. Marc should improve soemthing except of porting a Windowmanager...

          But that's the disadvantage of not having OpenCVS ready so you can't realy controll the commit rights...

          A user/experienced user/free time developer who would be responseable for KDE and who has commit rights to this part of the tree only would be a lot better then a MAIN developer porting "crap" wich is eyecandy even there's work to do...

          It's his freetime but I'm sad that the community can't help except with "testing"....

          Comments

          1. By sthen (85.158.45.32) on

            > I'm pissed about this. Marc should improve soemthing except of porting a Windowmanager...

            Here's another of espie@'s projects: 

            $ cvs -q di -r OPENBSD_4_2 usr.bin/make | diffstat           
 Makefile                   |   19 
 PSD.doc/tutorial.ms        |  312 ----
 arch.c                     | 1277 ++++++++----------
 arch.h                     |   16 
 buf.h                      |    6 
 cmd_exec.h                 |    4 
 compat.c                   |  681 ++-------
 cond.c                     | 1395 ++++++++++----------
 config.h                   |   25 
 defines.h                  |    4 
 dir.c                      |  744 ++--------
 dir.h                      |   45 
 direxpand.c                |  344 ++++
 direxpand.h                |   53 
 engine.c                   |  806 +++++++++++
 engine.h                   |   80 +
 error.c                    |   27 
 error.h                    |    5 
 extern.h                   |    6 
 for.c                      |    8 
 for.h                      |    6 
 garray.h                   |   44 
 generate.c                 |   47 
 gnode.h                    |  133 +
 init.c                     |    4 
 job.c                      | 3137 +++++++++++++--------------------------------
 job.h                      |   12 
 lowparse.c                 |  529 +++----
 lowparse.h                 |    4 
 lst.h                      |    4 
 lst.lib/lstAddNew.c        |    2 
 lst.lib/lstAppend.c        |    2 
 lst.lib/lstConcat.c        |    2 
 lst.lib/lstConcatDestroy.c |    2 
 lst.lib/lstDeQueue.c       |    2 
 lst.lib/lstDestroy.c       |    2 
 lst.lib/lstDupl.c          |    2 
 lst.lib/lstFindFrom.c      |    2 
 lst.lib/lstForEachFrom.c   |    2 
 lst.lib/lstInit.c          |    2 
 lst.lib/lstInsert.c        |    2 
 lst.lib/lstMember.c        |    2 
 lst.lib/lstRemove.c        |    2 
 lst.lib/lstReplace.c       |    2 
 lst.lib/lstRequeue.c       |   54 
 lst.lib/lstSucc.c          |    2 
 main.c                     |  110 -
 main.h                     |    8 
 make.1                     |   27 
 make.c                     | 1010 +++++---------
 make.h                     |    8 
 memory.c                   |   35 
 memory.h                   |    7 
 node_int.h                 |   61 
 parse.c                    | 1816 ++++++++++++--------------
 parse.h                    |    6 
 parsevar.c                 |   16 
 parsevar.h                 |    6 
 str.c                      |  652 ++++-----
 suff.c                     | 2789 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------
 suff.h                     |   22 
 symtable.h                 |    6 
 targ.c                     |  574 +++-----
 targ.h                     |   24 
 timestamp.c                |   18 
 timestamp.h                |    8 
 util.c                     |    8 
 var.c                      |  173 --
 var.h                      |   20 
 varmodifiers.c             | 1539 +++++++++++-----------
 varmodifiers.h             |    8 
 varname.h                  |    4 
 72 files changed, 8777 insertions(+), 10039 deletions(-)

            Comments

            1. By Anonymous Coward (67.126.86.224) on

              Dont forget all the pkg_* goodness.

          2. By Johan M:son Lindman (jl) on .

            > > As to the KDE4 port, I'm glad that top OpenBSD coders get the heavy work done, so that OpenBSD can lag in mainstream, but still stay solid. That is a beautiful compromise, which takes time to see it all.
            >
            > I'm pissed about this. Marc should improve soemthing except of porting a Windowmanager...
            >
            > But that's the disadvantage of not having OpenCVS ready so you can't realy controll the commit rights...
            >
            > A user/experienced user/free time developer who would be responseable for KDE and who has commit rights to this part of the tree only would be a lot better then a MAIN developer porting "crap" wich is eyecandy even there's work to do...
            >
            > It's his freetime but I'm sad that the community can't help except with >"testing"....

            Actually no, you don't get it, you don't get it at all.
            While you are correct in that Espie is a very skilled developer, if you think that this is a waste of time you couldn't be more wrong.

            Importing KDE4 actually helped discover and diagnose a big problem in libpthread ( http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=120155516530424&w=2 ) which potentially affected several ports.

            So this goes to show that importing "bloated eyecandy" can be useful because in doing so bugs are encountered, debuged and fixed that affects other parts of the tree and thus benefits even those who don't use said port.

            Please think about this before you try to diminish the work of a developer again.

            Comments

            1. By Anonymous Coward (216.68.198.1) on

              Re: Inclusion of my comment: "As to the KDE4 port, I'm glad that top OpenBSD coders get the heavy work done, so that OpenBSD can lag in mainstream, but still stay solid. That is a beautiful compromise, which takes time to see it all." With some other troll comments in this undeadly KDE4 section.
              Re: Your comment: 'Actually no, you don't get it, you don't get it at all.' WTF, I may not get it fully, but at all? I know OpenBSD looks for flaws with new stuff, and use weird stuff like VMS to expose flaws, I just was being brief. A compromise in communication.

              Actually, I have a hard time putting much weight in your comments TO ME, I; although to some others, ok; because you threw them all in the trash can, with my comments that perhaps do not fit the others. Perhaps the ncurses simple world I praised, contrasted too much for, and made my last KDE port heavy work PRAISE statement, to be thought of a crap=heavy work? My "...lagging in mainstream...," hope that didn't affect your impression of the positive work of KDE4 port. Assumptions. GRR, but I'll try to clarify a few more points.

              Re: Your comment: '...if you think this is a waste of time, you couldn't be more wrong.' < Thats is why I called the port heavy work. Seems reasonable that heavy is serious talent and knowledge to do big ports, fitting code into an OS exposes lots of subtle issues, good testing environment. I just didn't spell it out, although it seems reasonable that I do get it? No? However, I guess your comments go to others in the group.

              Re: Your comment, hope this doesn't apply to me, but others in the group comments, sure: 'Please think about this before you try to diminish the work of a developer again.' I have thought about this, hope it fits your qualifications.

              To be explicit: Your = Johan M:son Lindman, (jl)
              I = Anonymous Coward 216.68.198.1 Tues Feb 19 18:45:54

              Hope this helps whoever. Just trying to be CLEAR. Perhaps my mixing of negative and postive isn't the most clear and assumptions can be made when feelings are hot.
              Would be interesting if I still do not get 'it at all,' according to (jl) now. But written anonymous communication fails a lot, I try to remember that. It is why I'm ~explicit here, perhaps painfully.

              Peace all.

              Comments

              1. By Anonymous Coward (216.68.198.1) on

                GRR, to (jl), I guess cancel my above RE: to you! AC, 85.178.88.147, quoted me, and you replied to his post, and I missed the point!
                Anyways, hope my post made my point more clear?!? In one sense, I didn't get it at all. :)
                Peace all. These >> and > and reply with undeadly, sometimes with lynx, and a few screws loose, things get a bit weird.

      6. By sloppy updater (71.237.209.121) jakemsr@sdf.lonestar.org on

        > The exact reason I switched form using OpenBSD to using FreeBSD.
        >
        > OpenBSD's lack of interest in a current desktop is why it will never be taken seriously in a world of free operating systems.
        >

        say what?

        how is OpenBSD lacking a "current desktop"?

        I guess you could point to some *BINARIES* that don't work
        on OpenBSD, like Skype, or adobe flash. but if that's your problem,
        then why are you using OpenBSD in the first place, or why aren't
        you running those binaries on a supported platform via qemu or some
        such?

        I guess you could talk about the lack of 3D video accel, but, maybe
        you just need a different graphics device? I get good performance
        on some machines, rather poor on others. however, things work,
        and are being improved. I'd much rather discover something is slow
        than discover a way to crash my system.

        but, look at -current ports. what is really missing or out of
        date as far as a "current desktop"?

        I bet if you actually compare what's in -current, with what other
        OSes have in their "latest and greatest", they will be pretty close.
        now, how long is it before "latest and greatest" becomes a "stable
        release"? probably much shorter in OpenBSD ...

        anyway, perhaps I'm being a bit ironic, since I seem to spend
        time adding/tweaking desktop-ish ports ;/

  4. By Anonymous Coward (67.126.86.224) on

    Thank you Marc for all the work. Is pim still being a pain? last time I checked cvs it was not in the list.

    Comments

    1. By Marc Espie (213.41.185.88) espie@openbsd.org on

      > Thank you Marc for all the work. Is pim still being a pain? last time I checked cvs it was not in the list.

      Pim is simply not there. Check kde.org, it's scheduled for kde 4.1.

      (any more proof this is not ready for prime-time ?)

  5. By lawrence hordy (lawrephord) lawrephord@lycos.com on lawrephord

    where would i find a tutorial to understand this ? it would be nice if
    a few metaphors were used and similies also ? What is this like in
    hexadecimal thinking ? for 8080 and 8085 and z80 and 8086 and 6502 and
    80286 and 80386 and 80486 and quad AMD64 ?

    ===================================================================
    RCS file: /usr/OpenBSD/cvs/ports/x11/kde4/accessibility/Makefile,v
    retrieving revision 1.3
    retrieving revision 1.4
    diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4
    --- ports/x11/kde4/accessibility/Makefile 2007/09/15 20:04:22 1.3
    +++ ports/x11/kde4/accessibility/Makefile 2008/01/27 13:00:19 1.4
    @@ -1,17 +1,22 @@
    -# $OpenBSD: Makefile,v 1.3 2007/09/15 20:04:22 merdely Exp $
    +# $OpenBSD: Makefile,v 1.4 2008/01/27 13:00:19 espie Exp $

    -COMMENT= K Desktop Environment, accessibility
    -DISTNAME= kdeaccessibility-${VERSION}
    -PKGNAME= ${DISTNAME}p0
    +COMMENT = K Desktop Environment, accessibility
    +DISTNAME = kdeaccessibility-${VERSION}
    +PKGNAME = ${DISTNAME}

    -LIB_DEPENDS+= kdecore.>=8,kde3support,kdefx,kdeprint,kdesu,kdeui,kio,kparts,kutils,kwalletclient,phononcore::x11/kde4/libs \
    - kickermain::x11/kde4/base
    +SHARED_LIBS += kttsd 3.0 # .4.0
    +
    +LIB_DEPENDS += kdecore.>=8,kde3support,kdeui,kio,kparts,kutils,kfile,kpty,phonon,solid::x11/kde4/libs

    WANTLIB += ICE SM X11 Xau Xcursor Xdmcp Xext Xft Xi Xinerama Xpm
    WANTLIB += Xrandr Xrender Xtst c fontconfig freetype m png pthread
    WANTLIB += stdc++ util z
    -WANTLIB += Qt3Support QtDBus QtGui QtSvg QtXml
    +WANTLIB += Qt3Support QtDBus QtGui QtSvg QtXml QtNetwork
    WANTLIB += bz2
    +WANTLIB += Xfixes fam glib-2.0 gthread-2.0 iconv intl streamanalyzer
    +WANTLIB += streams
    +

    +CONFIGURE_ARGS += -DKDE4_KTTSD_ALSA:BOOL=OFF

    .include <bsd.port.mk>

    Comments

    1. By lawrence hordy (lawrephord) on lawrephord

      CONSIDER A THREE D SPREADSHEET ? WOULD THAT HELP TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESSES ?

  6. By lawrence hordy (lawrephord) lawrephord@lycos.com on lawrephord

    consider a 3 three d spreadsheet would that help to
    understand the process ?

Latest Articles

Credits

Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]