faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
Re: Distro Integration issues
by not me on Thursday 26/Apr/2001, @19:38
|
>they need to be sure that there is at least one easy way for a _standard user_ to get KDE (and JUST KDE) working on the system.
There are KDE packages available for every distro I'm aware of, and surely any distro that a _standard user_ would be using. That _is_ one way for users to get KDE on their system, and as I have been arguing, it is a better way*. Look at it this way. A user would have only four reasons to want your binary KDE packages:
1. Their disto doesn't provide KDE packages.
I don't know of any distro that would be used by people who couldn't compile KDE on their own that doesn't have KDE packages available. Heck, I don't know of ANY distro that doesn't offer KDE packages! No one needs binary KDE packages for this reason.
2. Their distro's KDE packages are a couple days late and they want the NEWEST KDE RIGHT NOW!!!
This is not really a valid reason. I mean come on, a couple of days is NOT too long to wait for better* packages!
3. Their distro's KDE packages are broken.
This is a valid reason to want KDE binaries. However, it hardly ever happens - most problems are due to errors such as rpm --force when it's not really necessary. When it does happen, distros upgrade their packages promptly, as KDE is an important package for them and it is essential that it work properly.
4. They don't know that their distro has KDE packages available.
In this case, it is better to direct users to their distro's KDE packages than give them inferior* binaries.
There is no other reason for users to want or need official KDE binaries.
>Kind of like saying you want people to have the best desktop possible, and then doing nothing to facilitate the process of attaining and installing it.
You think the KDE people have done nothing to facilitate the process of attaining and installing KDE?! You're crazy. The KDE people care very much about this - they work with the individual distro packagers closely, and a KDE auto-installer program is in the works.
Simply because one guy got fed up with all the newbies asking him to help them with packages that he didn't make and posted this article to the dot doesn't mean that the entire KDE project doesn't care about its users. Simply because the KDE project doesn't see the need to release inferior* binary packages doesn't mean it doesn't care about its users.
*You claim that I am just speculating when I state that official KDE binaries would be inferior? You must not have been reading my comments! That is exactly what I have been arguing (and, IMHO, proving) in most of my comments! I have given reasons galore! Let me respond to your latest objections:
>Tying in to a distro is a *nicety*, not a *requirement*.
It may be a nicety, but it makes distro packages superior. Themeing is a nicety. Heck, all of KDE is a nicety! Do you want to go back to the command line? It's just as capable (and in many cases more capable, once you learn how to use it!) GUIs are just a nicety. I claim they are superior because of their niceties. I claim that distro packages are superior to proposed KDE binary packages because of their niceties. What is wrong with this?
Besides, having an icon for a distro control center, auto-updater, etc isn't just a nicety for some people - perhaps even your _standard user_ - because they wouldn't know otherwise how to start it, or even that it exists!
>The only "inferior" binary I can think of is one that _doesn't work_, or only works halfway
How about one that is bloated and doesn't have as many features as compared to another that's also available? Doesn't that qualify as inferior?
>Look at Mozilla and StarOffice - complete binaries, free of dependencies, are available for each different Version of Glibc (there aren't that many), and include all files required to run each package
Oh, now KDE has to provide a seperate binary package for every permutation of Glibc and libstdc++ versions that is out there? Give me a break! Now, instead of having one, canonical, easy KDE binary package, you have many, only one of which will work on a given user's system. To tell them apart and tell which one will work on their system, users have to poke around in their system directories looking for library version numbers. I prefer distro packages, of which there are only one set and they always work. If the distro packages are out there, KDE's packaging obligations are fulfilled.
OK, I found the page on the KDE site. You seem to be most worried about this part or a part like it:
"It is our hope that the combination UNIX/KDE will finally bring the same open, reliable, stable and monopoly free computing to the average computer user that scientist and computing professionals world-wide have enjoyed for years."
You seem to be saying that because of this statement KDE has an obligation to see that all users can enjoy an easy way to install and use KDE, without mucking around with source code or obscure command-line interfaces. And here I agree with you. You also seem to be saying that because of this, KDE has an obligation to provide universal binary packages. The second statement does not follow from the first! If there is *already* an easy way for users to install KDE, then KDE has no such obligation. I argue that distro packages are *already* an easy way for users to meet their KDE needs and therefore, KDE's packaging obligations are already met.
>MD 8.0 is supposed to be uber-excellent
That's über :-) |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Ideas and Clarifications
by WorLord on Thursday 03/May/2001, @14:06
|
">they need to be sure that there is at least one easy way for a _standard user_ to get KDE (and JUST KDE) working on the system.
There are KDE packages available for every distro I'm aware of, and surely any distro that a _standard user_ would be using. That _is_ one way for users to get KDE on their system, and as I have been arguing, it is a better way*."
But it **is NOT KDE making sure** that there is at least one easy way. That is KDE letting the distributions fend for themselves - which, again, is something that is totally contradictory to their stated goals.
Just because this perceived "better" way exists doesn't do anything to deter my point. In fact, I argue that this "better" way exists 'cause KDE refuses to be bothered with making an official, proper, and easy way (like they really should.)
You don't seem to be understanding where I'm arguing from; I'm arguing from the position of "KDE is saying one thing, and doing another;" I'm NOT arguing from the place of "KDE can do a better job then what's being done currently". Your position, while admittedly more _practical_ then my own, misses the point I'm making entirely.
"You think the KDE people have done nothing to facilitate the process of attaining and installing KDE?! You're crazy."
Uh, HELLO? What the heck do you think the Dot story that started this mess was all about?? It was pretty much a _direct statement_ to the tune of "we are not responsible for facilitating the process of attaining and installing KDE, so _stop asking_"!!!
"Simply because one guy got fed up with all the newbies asking him to help them with packages that he didn't make and posted this article to the dot doesn't mean that the entire KDE project doesn't care about its users."
That statement would be true if he weren't speaking on behalf of the entire KDE project… problem is, he happened to be speaking on behalf of the entire KDE project!
"*You claim that I am just speculating when I state that official KDE binaries would be inferior? You must not have been reading my comments! "
This statement is a variation of the "understand/agree" logical fallacy. Just because I find your comments to be purely speculatory doesn't mean I haven't read them… it only means that I've read them and found them to be purely speculatory.
>Tying in to a distro is a *nicety*, not a *requirement*.
"It may be a nicety, but it makes distro packages superior."
But "preference" is not spelled s-u-p-e-r-i-o-r. I am skipping other like arguments, because I have the same response.
"Themeing is a nicety. Heck, all of KDE is a nicety!"
This is a slippery-slope fallacy, and is steering the conversation functionally out of range.
"Do you want to go back to the command line?"
Now that you mention it, the CL is where I spend most of my time.
"Besides, having an icon for a distro control center, auto-updater, etc isn't just a nicety for some people - perhaps even your _standard user_ - because they wouldn't know otherwise how to start it, or even that it exists!"
Since you bring that up, I'd like to let you know that your "standard user" doesn't really use the updater tools/control center because it was set up FOR them in most cases. The "standard user" Uses the computer; 99% of them don't update them or change the preferences in the control center. (Of course, my job as a Sysadmin is the only experiential fuel I have for this fire; but the fact that I've been at it for 15 years makes me pretty certain of the truth in my words).
"Oh, now KDE has to provide a seperate binary package for every permutation of Glibc and libstdc++ versions that is out there? Give me a break!"
I find it humerous how you can complain about something that at least two _very_ popular pieces of software do already. This is a standard practice I'm suggesting, not a radical one.
"Now, instead of having one, canonical, easy KDE binary package, you have many, only one of which will work on a given user's system. To tell them apart and tell which one will work on their system, users have to poke around in their system directories looking for library version numbers."
Are you being dense on purpose? A simply-designed web site (that can even go as far as asking what distribution the user has) would point to the proper download.
You really are making this sound so much harder then it really is.
OK, I found the page on the KDE site. You seem to be most worried about this part or a part like it:
"It is our hope that the combination UNIX/KDE will finally bring the same open,
Actually, no. Refer to my earlier posts (and Underthumb's as well) to find the specifically quoted bits I'm talking about.
"see that all users can enjoy an easy way to install and use KDE, without mucking around with source code or obscure command-line interfaces. And here I agree with you. You also seem to be saying that because of this, KDE has an obligation to provide universal binary packages. The second statement does not follow from the first!"
I suggested what I suggested as a possible solution; not the final one. The bottom line of my statement is that KDE is, by their OWN rules, responsible for providing SOMETHING other then source code and that's it (which is pretty much what this article is about!)
There are better ways being suggested, and even worked on. I welcome better ideas, and actually prefer the KDE Installer - that idea totally trumps my own.
>MD 8.0 is supposed to be uber-excellent
That's über :-)
Oh. Sorry. ;-)
--WorLord
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Ideas and Clarifications
by not me on Sunday 06/May/2001, @19:58
|
"You don't seem to be understanding where I'm arguing from"
You're right. I don't understand how you can argue that KDE should provide packages that aren't as good simply because they state they want to make an easy-to-use desktop. My argument is that if good distro packages are in fact out there then KDE's obligation to make the installation easy (an obligation that comes from their stated goals) is *already fulfilled*. It doesn't matter that KDE itself hasn't actually made the installation easy, KDE didn't state in their goals that they had to do everything themselves. If there weren't distro packages out there, or if KDE could do better than distro packages, then of course it would be a whole different story.
"[this article] was pretty much a _direct statement_ to the tune of "we are not responsible for facilitating the process of attaining and installing KDE, so _stop asking_"!!!"
KDE doesn't do much to help users with specific distro packages, that is true. However, that doens't mean that they have done nothing to help users obtain and install KDE! They work with distro packagers and help them. And, as long as _support_ for distro packages exists, then KDE has no obligation to support distro packages. It's the same argument as my other one. This article was about misdirected complaints: People are complaining to KDE about packages that were made by distros. They can and should contact their distros instead.
>"Simply because one guy got fed up with all the newbies asking him to help them with packages that he didn't make and posted this article to the dot doesn't mean that the entire KDE project doesn't care about its users."
"That statement would be true if he weren't speaking on behalf of the entire KDE project… problem is, he happened to be speaking on behalf of the entire KDE project!"
The statement is still true. I would argue that this article doesn't even mean that the author doesn't care about KDE's users. He simply wants them to direct complaints to the correct place. Just because that place is not technically part of KDE (though the packagers are closely related) doesn't mean that he doesn't care.
"This statement is a variation of the "understand/agree" logical fallacy. Just because I find your comments to be purely speculatory doesn't mean I haven't read them… it only means that I've read them and found them to be purely speculatory."
You can't call my arguments speculatory because I have provided reasons. You can call them wrong (and you have), but that's different.
"But "preference" is not spelled s-u-p-e-r-i-o-r."
Huh? If you have a preference for something, don't you think its better? I prefer Windows over Linux because I think its better. I prefer distro packages over proposed KDE binary packages because I think they are better.
"This is a slippery-slope fallacy"
It is not an out-of-line slippery-slope fallacy. I was merely giving examples of the fact that niceties make programs easier to use and easier-to-use programs are better. You were arguing that since you thought distro integration was a nicety, it wasn't required. I was arguing that "niceties" such as integration make KDE easier to use and therefore make distro packages better, which supported my point.
"your "standard user" doesn't really use the updater tools/control center because it was set up FOR them in most cases."
They may not use it on a regular basis, but there _will_ come a time when they wish to use it for _something_. What if they buy a new printer or something and want to set it up? I agree that a "standard user" wouldn't use the control panel on a regular basis, but there would definitely be a few times when they would want it to be there.
"The bottom line of my statement is that KDE is, by their OWN rules, responsible for providing SOMETHING other then source code and that's it"
No, KDE is responsible for *seeing that* something other than source code is provided. They *do* see that something other than source code is provided, therefore their responsibility in this case is fulfulled. It does not matter that the distro packagers aren't technically part of the KDE project. Their product is easy-to-use KDE binary packages for everyone.
Now, if KDE could do *better* than disto packages, then it *would* be their responsibility to do so. As you point out, the KDE installer project is a good way to improve on distro packages.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
