KDE 3.4.2 is the second maintenance release which provides corrections of problems reported using the KDE bug tracking system and greatly enhanced support for existing translations and new translations. Changelog and download.
KDE 3.4.2 Released
56 Comments
-
2005-07-30 7:42 pm
-
2005-07-31 6:08 am
2005-07-29 12:56 am
-
2005-07-29 1:43 am
2005-07-29 2:48 am
-
2005-07-29 5:56 am
-
2005-07-29 9:50 am
2005-07-29 7:06 am
2005-07-29 8:26 am
Earlier released this week: http://www.koffice.org/announcements/announce-1.4.1.php
To be announced later: http://osdw.org
First rule of OSDW: You do not talk about OSDW.
From Aaron J. Seigo’s blog http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2005/07/kde-in-north-america.html
(Emphasis added) “you can see the OSDW draft website here, but please don’t submit it slashdot quite yet. it’ll be moving to a faster server and needs copy adjustments before we do that
the pr engine around OSDW is about start this coming week, so we’ll have lots of time to spread the word about it!
It’s linked on http://www.kde.org and you want to bash me with some last week blog?
He wasn’t bashing you. You’re a bit touchy don’t you think?
Let’s talk about GNOME.
I stand corrected.
As for the “you want to bash me with some last week blog?”: Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. Wounded through the heart, he was.
Why is it called “Open Source Desktop Workshops”, if it’s only about KDE?
Why is it called “Open Source Desktop Workshops”
Since KDE is a open source desktop and it is about workshops, it may be the reason it got that name.
,,Why is it called “Open Source Desktop Workshops”, if it’s only about KDE?”
It’s says ,,desktop” not ,,desktops”. That’s why it focus on one desktop rather on few desktops.
“It’s says ,,desktop” not ,,desktops”. That’s why it focus on one desktop rather on few desktops.”
yeah, that must be it. You figured it out yourself?
What’s wrong with name that tells that the workshops are about KDE? That would give KDE more publicity. I understood that one of the reason for these workshops is to give KDE more publicity in USA.
> What’s wrong with name that tells that the
> workshops are about KDE?
well, several things =) first, not everyone in our target market (software developers looking to get involved with this “open source” stuff
really know what “KDE” is (or GNOME for that matter). they all know what “open source” is (more or less) and they all know what a “desktop” is.
moreover, i specifically kept it very generic in naming so it could be expanded over time to include projects that are of interest to open source desktop developers but which aren’t strictly KDE. things like X.org technologies or some of the more interesting and practical projects that have reached production quality at FreeDesktop.org.
Besides KDE and KOffice is k3b a must-have: http://www.k3b.org/support/k3b-0.12-new-features
Does anyone know if there’s going to be a third maintennance release ie 3.4.3 before 3.5 comes out ??
According to the KDE release guy (Stephan Kulow): “50/50”
At the moment KDE4 development takes off, while KDE 3.5 is developed in parallel by people that decided to jump onto the KDE4 train later (kdepim for example), so I won’t expect too much work on the 3.4 branch, except for fixing critical bugs of course.
Thanks guys – on a related point, does anyone know how the 3.5 “team” have been recieved by the KDE 4 “team” – have their differences been smoothed over – are most KDE devs happy that 3.5 is going to be released? – the end-users are happy
, I’m just wondering about the majority of KDE devs ??
Point releases after the second one are usually done in a “there are important backports” basis. So it will depend on how important the new fixes are.
coincidently, i’m writing a blog entry about osdw right now =)
the news is: feel free to spread the word! the website has moved to a production server in a proper co-lo, the registration link is active … we’re ready to rock!
mainstream press announcements will be hitting the wires on monday, but there’s no reason to not get the word out in the community on the net sooner…
visit http://www.osdw.org to get more information and register!
I use archlinux and 3.4.2 is in testing for about a week or two :-D.
Damn now I’m up-to-date !
I’m not aware of any such split in the KDE community. Half the 3.5 team is the 4.0 team, and vice-versa.
at OSDir – http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=396&slide=1…
We had to stand up fight the bullying from Gnome
http://www.linuxbase.org/LSBWiki/DesktopWG
Please help me in fighting the politics
http://www.linuxbase.org/LSBWiki/DesktopWG
I get a rounded popup, the size of my thumb, telling me what the application is.
Other than that, it still looks the same as previous KDEs.
Too bad slicker doesn’t exist anymore, as the concept aimed for better usability and look.
http://www.slicker.org/
It’s only a maintennance release so it will broadly look the same – if you don’t like the Kicker pop-up then go to KControl – Panels – Appearance – and disable icon mouse-over effects
That should be:
KControl – Desktop – Panels – Appearance – and disable icon mouseover effects.
well.. looks like i have to wait a day or 2 till the gentoo team unmasks it…
bite me arch boy… jk lol, i have an arch box to lol
KDE has to be the standard
http://www.linuxbase.org/LSBWiki/DesktopWG
KDE has to be the standard
We know about this – it’s over, OK? Quite frankly if people are using KDE, and Qt as a result, then it doesn’t matter what is or isn’t in the LSB. It’s their loss. Real world usage, not standards cooked up for the sake of it. That’s what matters.
End.
“Real world usage, not standards cooked up for the sake of it. That’s what matters. ”
Exactly. What is the major network protocol of today? Oh yea TCP/IP, not that crappy ISO 7-layer stack, designed by comittee. The best product will usually win out. A standard has a better chance to succeed if politics is left out. I don’t see the LSB doing this so it will have an up hill fight.
Somtimes a standard by comittee is better and sometimes not, the market will sort it out. Venice, Munich and many others, have have already made their choice, LSB be damned.
“The best product will usually win out. A standard has a better chance to succeed if politics is left out. I don’t see the LSB doing this so it will have an up hill fight.”
Hmm, that explains why something like 90% of all desktops run Windows, and DOS before that go such a huge popularity, and why VHS won the home video market… oh wait, never mind.
“that explains why something like 90% of all desktops run Windows, and DOS before that go such a huge popularity, and why VHS won the home video market… oh wait, never mind”
yes it does. Although Betamax and others were technically superior, it did not matter. MS and VHS were better for the consumer. Price is very important and so was the freedom both platforms offered consumers.
” Price is very important and so was the freedom both platforms [MS and VHS] offered consumers.”
How is MS (I presume you are refereing to Windows) cheaper than alternatives, with more freedom?
In the beginning they were, an OS costed easily $10000, and dos costed $100, at that time they delivered an operating system that was so much less expensive that they became a monopoly, at the moment the other OS’s are cheaper, but to breake through a monopoly you’ve got to fight hard, but I’m sure that the linux market will succeed in getting the market share it deserves.
What the lsb is doing is completely wrong, from what I’ve read it seems that they use the same old arguments they used to get started with gtk+ … in the first place. They prefer the combination: lgpl and gpl, above a gpl and propietary combintation license. What’s wrong with the statement: we put money in a product and everybody who doesn’t want to get profit out of it can use and change our product, everybody who wants to create a product that’s ment to bring up money is suposed to pay us. It sounds more than fair, even better than what the lgpl was supposed to be for.
We know about this – it’s over, OK? Quite frankly if people are using KDE, and Qt as a result, then it doesn’t matter what is or isn’t in the LSB. It’s their loss. Real world usage, not standards cooked up for the sake of it. That’s what matters.
But if gtk+ becomes the standard then the better KDE might lose users. How come the community isn’t talking to the LSB into getting Qt into the standard?
about 65% use kde… gtk will never be the standard
Where did you find that statistic?
He found that statistic here:
http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT2127420238.html
You probably want to throw an closer eye on this one
http://www.desktoplinux.com/files/article016/dl-window-mgrs-1.jpg
But if gtk+ becomes the standard then the better KDE might lose users.
Very, very, very doubtful. The problem for the LSB is that people are using KDE, and hence Qt, in large numbers regardless of any existing standards or what people want to make standard. Standard or no standard, it won’t make any difference. Did people start using Windows because it was a standard? No. People used it because Microsoft pushed it and others, especially Unix, could not get their act together to actually make something usable.
I’m all for standards with Linux and desktops, but they have to be practical. Many people still actually use Motif and can’t use Lesstif, but it’s in the same boat. The LSB don’t want it for licensing reasons that ordinary companies don’t care about, making the LSB useless for companies like Computer Associates and Oracle who still have very old existing Unix systems they want to move to Linux.
How come the community isn’t talking to the LSB into getting Qt into the standard?
People have tried, but the reasons given on the libqt page are quite simply laughable. The comments on mailing lists from people supposedly representing the LSB are even worse. The word royalty comes into the comments many times, and goes on to C++ stability being a joke to the way the wind is blowing on a particular day. Even after a conference call with Trolltech there was still totally huge ignorance as to how Qt’s licensing actually works. Whether that is innocent ignorance or deliberate, who knows? There seems to be this strange attitude that things will get polluted, but they simply won’t. Sounds vaguely like something Microsoft might say, and having read around it’s put me off the LSB completely. I trust people who come up with stuff like this less than Microsoft.
A Trolltech guy made a posting on a mailing list and didn’t take it any further than that – quite wisely. He knew what he was getting himself into politically, and that’s all it is – politics.
Of course KDE people are going to say that the LSB doesn’t matter because they don’t like the position that the LSB is taking….duh.
The reasons on this http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/ideas/issues/libqt/
page are completely clear and it was inevitable that KDE would find itself in trouble because of the Qt license.
The proprietary Qt toolkit could never be in the standard because there are too many strings attached. And by strings attached that means a straight GPL license. And nope, the linux kernel and end-user GPL apps don’t have strings attached so you can forget that talking point.
Don’t forget that the effects of the QT license are already being felt. Things like Eclipse and OpenOffice have already been gtk+ified because IBM and Sun and Novell don’t really use Qt. Firefox still doesn’t have a Qt port. Even if these things do eventually get ported to Qt they’ll always lag behind the gtk+ version because the gtk+ versions are being worked on by paid employees.
> Novell don’t really use Qt
That’s news to me. What is about YaST?
> Firefox still doesn’t have a Qt port.
Soon, be patient.
> they’ll always lag behind the gtk+ version because the gtk+ versions are being worked on by paid employees.
FYI, full time paid employees work on KDE integration of OOo and Firefox. And the support for a GUI toolkit on a plattform is only a fraction of the cross-platform development effort for the whole framework/application.
Don’t forget that the effects of the QT license are already being felt.
In terms of real-world usage, not many would agree.
Things like Eclipse and OpenOffice have already been gtk+ified
Since the vast majority of people use those three pieces of software on Windows, GTK is pretty irrelevant. And as for Open Office:
http://kde.openoffice.org
There is a full Qt/KDE port of Open Office within Suse and the Novell Linux Desktop.
IBM and Sun and Novell don’t really use Qt.
IBM have used Qt pretty extensively, they have a large license with Trolltech for using Qt in Websphere (what Eclipse is based on) and Novell is basing their core products in the Open Enterprise Server around it (YaST, KDE etc.).
GTK is only a toolkit I’m afraid, and has no bearing on what deskop environment people will be using like you’re trying to infer ;-). People can and do use GTK on Windows, and can on KDE believe it or not.
I think this is all quite funny. Everyone here is complaining about the LSB because they chose GTK+ over QT and they gave their reasons, whether legitimate or not. But you should all look at it this way….
The LSB said that to be part of the standards base, a distro must have rpm. Look at all the distros. I can guarantee that all of them have rpm in them in one form or another (alien requires it), Debian has it, Slackware, etc.
As far as requiring gtk+ to be LSB compliant, well, pretty much all distros have that as well. Even the precious KDE only distros have it. It’s simply a library.
Though I do agree that they shouldn’t really choose one toolkit over another. If I recall correctly, the LSB was originally supposed to only state where specific configuration files were supposed to be. For example, all distros should use /etc/networks/interfaces (debian does this) so that if you’re administrating several different boxes all with different distributions on them, then you wouldn’t have to fight against the small differences.
In my opinion the standards base should include things like basic applications (vi/nano/emacs I think should be standard on all distros, so at least text editing on the console is easy). Not even X.org should be a requirement (that way servers can still be LSB compliant).
The fact that this KDE/Gnome war is still continuing is just funny in my eyes. Personally, I’m a Gnome user, but that’s only because certain things about KDE irritate the shit out of me. (Namely the default sound set up, and that it reminds me too much of windows). I like the default Gnome set up, it reminds me a lot of the Amiga/Atari ST OS, with the menu/application launcher at top.
Anyhow, enough of a rant. I hope the LSB does go back to what it orignally was and stops trying to standardise the GUI at all. Next thing you know, they’ll be saying that you HAVE to use Clearlooks-blue… The LSB was also intended to make it so that the commercial developers would be able to release software that was distro-neutral. And I don’t see them forcing anyone to use QT.
“Of course KDE people are going to say that the LSB doesn’t matter because they don’t like the position that the LSB is taking….duh.”
Actually, it’s true. Very simply, because of the free and open nature of Linux, a body defining standards will only have as much authority as is given by the developers and users. In taking a position directly contrary to a large chunk of developers and users (by some accounts a majority), the LSB has made itself unimportant, since a (by all accounts) significant portion of the Linux developer and user base do not recognize them as the base of Linux standards.
“The reasons on this http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/ideas/issues/libqt/
page are completely clear and it was inevitable that KDE would find itself in trouble because of the Qt license.”
You mean of course to say it is inevitable, KDE is advancing at a rapid pace, without so much as a wound from the LSB.
The proprietary Qt toolkit could never be in the standard because there are too many strings attached.
If there are any strings attached, then that is for an ISV or a developer to decide – not the LSB.