Re: kde4 dead?
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 02:18:21PM +0900, Jordi Beltran Creix wrote: 2010/3/16 Marc Espie es...@nerim.net: ... the C++ is crap, everything that matters should be written in C mentality. ... clang+LLVM is barely able of bootstrapping itself while already generating highly optimized code for C and Objective-C for a long time. If compiler-crafting C++ wizards have such a hard time getting it right, what chance is there for newcomers? Parsing C++ must be really difficult, but it doesn't stop idiots like me from making a living writing C++ code. If being capable of writing the front end to a compiler for a langauge were a prerequisite for programming in that language, then I wonder how many modules CPAN would have. Hmmm, I better not say that again. I can think of some people who would consider that a great gatekeeper for the profession: everyone has to write his or her own compiler for all the coding they do. -- Mike Small sma...@panix.com
Re: kde4 dead?
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:42:26AM -0400, Mike Small wrote: I can think of some people who would consider that a great gatekeeper for the profession: everyone has to write his or her own compiler for all the coding they do. With enough time on my hands, sure, why not ? But that's a main issue: I still need to have a day job to earn a living. Sponsor me to play with OpenBSD fulltime, and I might do wonderous things... ;)
Re: kde4 dead?
Antoine Jacoutot wrote: On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Marc Espie wrote: You're totally mistaken. KDE cares about the BSDs, and they're very much no-nonsense people. I had absolutely no difficulty getting an account with them, nor with folding back portable patches I had to make things work on OpenBSD. The main reason we're behind for kde4 is that it's mostly impossible to compile kde4 with gcc3, so there is some upheaval there. Also the fact that back when I ported kde 4.0, it was not interesting at all, especially compared to 3.5.10. Other issues have happened since then. It shouldn't be that hard to get kde4 to work, once you get past the gcc4 issue (and port cmake, but apparently 2.8.0 is nicer). Of course not having HAL doesn't help. What about PolicyKit issue? What about PAM? This is the rant from Slackware mailing list quote My remark about politics was indeed referring to the fact that KDE 4.4 loses functionality if it is compiled while PolicyKit is not present on the system. This is questionable, since KDE4 should be using kauth as an abstraction instead, but as it stands, kauth integration will not be ready until KDE 4.5. In the meantime some of KDE 4.4's components need PolicyKit and there is no way around it, thanks to hard-headed developers. The whole issue with PolicyKit, and more generally the whole set of *Kit libraries is that not only are they pushed into Linux by the big distros while at the same time dropping support for HAL, but support for the generic UNIX authentication backend shadow utils is ignored in favour of PAM. This is understandable if you consider that the other popular Linux distros are all using PAM. However, if we look upon X.Org and KDE as an Operating System's core components, then these should not be intimately tied to Linux. Instead, their developers should strive to keep their code applicable to a wider range of OS'es. Creating a dependency on PolicyKit (which is the work of a single Redhat employee and which is unstable as hell), and DeviceKit which was written by the former HAL developer after he left the HAL code to rot, is a very bad decision in my view. Yes, it is the issue of the big players defining the rules of the playground, and many other developers (have to) follow suit (X.Org will drop support for HAL in their future releases). It's not just the big distros of course. Look at the devastating entanglement of kernel, mesa, X.Org and Intel developers, who managed to keep X.Org in a pretty useless state for more than a year. I do think that Free Software is being hi-jacked for the sake of the Big Bucks. It used to be just the Big Egos and I could live with that. Nowadays, we are being pushed in all directions, and I am speaking of Slackware of course. It is a miracle that Pat manages to maintain a stable and useable distro at all! Even with a team of helpers, Pat is the one who defines Slackware and makes it stand out in the crowd of distros that strive to look alike even if they do not admit it. End rant. I need another Trappist now. Eric Note: I never stated that Slackware will not add KDE 4.4 because of these issues. I merely said that this will not happen in the immediate future. We are working with developers to get our shadow utils supported in polkit which is one way to take away the pain. Another alternative is to take the loss and add KDE 4.4 with reduced fuctionality. Look at my KDE 4.4 prerelease packages# they still offer a great desktop environment! /quote
Re: kde4 dead?
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:00:54PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote: On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 03:19:41PM +0100, Tobias Ulmer wrote: On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 04:33:03AM -0500, Donald Cooley wrote: openports shows that the openbsd version of kde4 is nearly two years old. are there any future plans to update kde4? Regards, Donald Cooley http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-develw=2r=1s=openbsdq=b KDE doesn't give a fuck about OpenBSD, so why should we? You're totally mistaken. KDE cares about the BSDs, and they're very much no-nonsense people. I had absolutely no difficulty getting an account with them, nor with folding back portable patches I had to make things work on OpenBSD. KDE cares in so far as they accept patches and would welcome a developer that targets OpenBSD. I know because I've talked to some of them on IRC. There's however no effort to do it themselves or even set up a testbox to make sure all their developers would notice that their applications don't work on !Linux. The main reason we're behind for kde4 is that it's mostly impossible to compile kde4 with gcc3, so there is some upheaval there. I'm aware of that. To be honest, I thought a little oil in the fire can't hurt and could even attract some responses that may change the situation ;-) Also the fact that back when I ported kde 4.0, it was not interesting at all, especially compared to 3.5.10. Other issues have happened since then. It shouldn't be that hard to get kde4 to work, once you get past the gcc4 issue (and port cmake, but apparently 2.8.0 is nicer).
Re: kde4 dead?
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 09:13:16AM +0100, Tobias Ulmer wrote: KDE cares in so far as they accept patches and would welcome a developer that targets OpenBSD. I know because I've talked to some of them on IRC. There's however no effort to do it themselves or even set up a testbox to make sure all their developers would notice that their applications don't work on !Linux. Well, most of their stuff does work on... windows these days. How non-portable is that ? Seriously, the issues about hal and policykit only impact you if you want kde as a full desktop with all sysadmin. For most of us, who actually only care about kde apps, such as digikam, amarok or konqueror, that's not such a big issue. The main issue is probably that KDE is C++, and modern and nice C++ at that. In most cases, making things work with another OS is just a question of figuring out the right API. Of course, it makes it completely impossible to hack on KDE if you're in the C++ is crap, everything that matters should be written in C mentality. (in fact, KDE is probably the biggest example of readable C++ code I give to people. Doesn't hurt that it follows on the steps of Qt, which is itself awesome). So there. Even among OpenBSD porters, there are just a few of us who do grok enough C++ to hack on kde or qt. That probably explains a lot. The fact that it's incredibly more efficient than that java crap won't stop newcomers from learning java instead of C++, though.
Re: kde4 dead?
On 03/16/2010 03:40 AM, Marc Espie wrote: Well, most of their stuff does work on... windows these days. How non-portable is that ? Seriously, the issues about hal and policykit only impact you if you want kde as a full desktop with all sysadmin. For most of us, who actually only care about kde apps, such as digikam, amarok or konqueror, that's not such a big issue. The main issue is probably that KDE is C++, and modern and nice C++ at that. In most cases, making things work with another OS is just a question of figuring out the right API. Of course, it makes it completely impossible to hack on KDE if you're in the C++ is crap, everything that matters should be written in C mentality. (in fact, KDE is probably the biggest example of readable C++ code I give to people. Doesn't hurt that it follows on the steps of Qt, which is itself awesome). So there. Even among OpenBSD porters, there are just a few of us who do grok enough C++ to hack on kde or qt. That probably explains a lot. The fact that it's incredibly more efficient than that java crap won't stop newcomers from learning java instead of C++, though. I wouldn't be able to hack on KDE because I'm of the I don't have time to learn C++ mentality. At least C is a small, if least common denominator, language that I already somewhat know. Java, on the other hand, from my limited experience trying to tutor someone in it, *is* crap :) [Well, that's probably too harsh, but it did give me a headache and RSI from all the damn typing.] Corey
Re: kde4 dead?
Java, on the other hand, from my limited experience trying to tutor someone in it, *is* crap :) [Well, that's probably too harsh, but it did give me a headache and RSI from all the damn typing.] People claim Java is portable, when it's not. And a lot of java programs use proprietary libraries like swing.
Re: kde4 dead?
2010/3/16 Marc Espie es...@nerim.net: Of course, it makes it completely impossible to hack on KDE if you're in the C++ is crap, everything that matters should be written in C mentality. (in fact, KDE is probably the biggest example of readable C++ code I give to people. Doesn't hurt that it follows on the steps of Qt, which is itself awesome). So there. Even among OpenBSD porters, there are just a few of us who do grok enough C++ to hack on kde or qt. That probably explains a lot. B The fact that it's incredibly more efficient than that java crap won't stop newcomers from learning java instead of C++, though. clang+LLVM is barely able of bootstrapping itself while already generating highly optimized code for C and Objective-C for a long time. If compiler-crafting C++ wizards have such a hard time getting it right, what chance is there for newcomers? I prefer C programs because they don't depend on boost, libstdc++, g++ and company. If I remember correctly, groff(and maybe something else?) is directly responsible for a big portion of time spent when you build the base system. I like C++ dependencies more than you need autotools x.53 but x.53.2 dependencies, though.
kde4 dead?
openports shows that the openbsd version of kde4 is nearly two years old. are there any future plans to update kde4? Regards, Donald Cooley
Re: kde4 dead?
Sure. Everybody is waiting for your patches :-) 2010/3/15 Donald Cooley dfcoo...@gmail.com openports shows that the openbsd version of kde4 is nearly two years old. are there any future plans to update kde4? Regards, Donald Cooley
Re: kde4 dead?
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 04:33:03AM -0500, Donald Cooley wrote: openports shows that the openbsd version of kde4 is nearly two years old. are there any future plans to update kde4? Regards, Donald Cooley http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-develw=2r=1s=openbsdq=b KDE doesn't give a fuck about OpenBSD, so why should we?
Re: kde4 dead?
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Tobias Ulmer wrote: On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 04:33:03AM -0500, Donald Cooley wrote: openports shows that the openbsd version of kde4 is nearly two years old. are there any future plans to update kde4? Regards, Donald Cooley http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-develw=2r=1s=openbsdq=b KDE doesn't give a fuck about OpenBSD, so why should we? Actually, KDE only cares about Linux. -- Antoine
Re: kde4 dead?
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:27 +0100, Antoine Jacoutot ajacou...@bsdfrog.org wrote: On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Tobias Ulmer wrote: On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 04:33:03AM -0500, Donald Cooley wrote: openports shows that the openbsd version of kde4 is nearly two years old. are there any future plans to update kde4? Regards, Donald Cooley http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-develw=2r=1s=openbsdq=b KDE doesn't give a fuck about OpenBSD, so why should we? Actually, KDE only cares about Linux. The isfinite() issue? That's C99 and POSIX stuff, right? Or are you guys talking about something else? OpenBSD does have a log2() (unlike FreeBSD 7.x) even though you can get there by doing log()/log(2). Brad -- Antoine
Re: kde4 dead?
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:56 -0400, Brad Tilley b...@16systems.com wrote: On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:27 +0100, Antoine Jacoutot ajacou...@bsdfrog.org wrote: On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Tobias Ulmer wrote: On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 04:33:03AM -0500, Donald Cooley wrote: openports shows that the openbsd version of kde4 is nearly two years old. are there any future plans to update kde4? Regards, Donald Cooley http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-develw=2r=1s=openbsdq=b KDE doesn't give a fuck about OpenBSD, so why should we? Actually, KDE only cares about Linux. The isfinite() issue? That's C99 and POSIX stuff, right? Or are you guys talking about something else? OpenBSD does have a log2() (unlike FreeBSD 7.x) even though you can get there by doing log()/log(2). Brad Never mind. I did not realize that list was a result of a search for OpenBSD. Duh.
Re: kde4 dead?
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Brad Tilley wrote: Actually, KDE only cares about Linux. The isfinite() issue? That's C99 and POSIX stuff, right? Or are you guys talking about something else? OpenBSD does have a log2() (unlike FreeBSD 7.x) even though you can get there by doing log()/log(2). I'm not saying KDE is only for Linux, I'm saying KDE only cares for it (at least this is how it looks like). -- Antoine
Re: kde4 dead?
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 03:19:41PM +0100, Tobias Ulmer wrote: On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 04:33:03AM -0500, Donald Cooley wrote: openports shows that the openbsd version of kde4 is nearly two years old. are there any future plans to update kde4? Regards, Donald Cooley http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-develw=2r=1s=openbsdq=b KDE doesn't give a fuck about OpenBSD, so why should we? You're totally mistaken. KDE cares about the BSDs, and they're very much no-nonsense people. I had absolutely no difficulty getting an account with them, nor with folding back portable patches I had to make things work on OpenBSD. The main reason we're behind for kde4 is that it's mostly impossible to compile kde4 with gcc3, so there is some upheaval there. Also the fact that back when I ported kde 4.0, it was not interesting at all, especially compared to 3.5.10. Other issues have happened since then. It shouldn't be that hard to get kde4 to work, once you get past the gcc4 issue (and port cmake, but apparently 2.8.0 is nicer).
Re: kde4 dead?
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Marc Espie wrote: You're totally mistaken. KDE cares about the BSDs, and they're very much no-nonsense people. I had absolutely no difficulty getting an account with them, nor with folding back portable patches I had to make things work on OpenBSD. The main reason we're behind for kde4 is that it's mostly impossible to compile kde4 with gcc3, so there is some upheaval there. Also the fact that back when I ported kde 4.0, it was not interesting at all, especially compared to 3.5.10. Other issues have happened since then. It shouldn't be that hard to get kde4 to work, once you get past the gcc4 issue (and port cmake, but apparently 2.8.0 is nicer). Of course not having HAL doesn't help. -- Antoine
