Konversation, Quassel and Kubuntu 9.10

[Scott Kitterman]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:26:34 +0000 Harald Sitter <apachelogger at ubuntu.com> 
wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Jonathan Jesse<jjesse at gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1 for me on replacing Quassel, never really enjoyed or cared for it.
>> seemed like a quick fix for something that was needed at the time, got 
some
>> attnetion put on a project but in kubuntu-users mailing list there seems 
to
>> be asked this question a lot.
>
>To be completely honest, I don't think the wiki page helps with deciding.
>
>Most of the features listed are only important from a specific POV
>(e.g. I do not care about DCC at all, someone who does filesharing
>using it probably does care about its support), so the only really
>valid ones (IMHO) are "KDE integration", "stability" and "Kubuntu
>intregration" (actually usability also has its share, but since we
>can't simply assign a value or something, we need to rely on seele's
>opinion :)).

We specifically decided "new user getting on IRC support" was the use case 
that mattered for the default client during the Jaunty cycle.  I think this 
is still true, so the comparison should focus on this.

>So simply put: Quassel fails 2 out of 3 (excluding usability for now)
>and thus should get kicked. YET, I don't see why it is less integrated
>into KDE than Konversation, according to Scott the git master branch
>recently got support for cascading configs (so we can even configure
>it in kds for future releases), so I think the only remaining thing is
>toolbar integration (unless that was fixed as well already). And
>Kubuntu intregration is simply waiting on an implementation (a not
>particularly difficult implementation I suppose).

It listens to the global settings already.

>I don't feel comfortable binding a decision to those very vague
>shortcomings, instead I would be interested in what the average user
>thinks. So what is the general opinion on kubuntu-users? Is there
>something specific that users miss in either IRC client? Do we have
>some other input sources like forums?
>
>If we want to make an informed decision about this (i.e. anything
>other than: "we'll use what is most stable and most applicable around
>beta time"), then we have to consider a lot more than features.
>
Agreed.

I'm interested to know if the stuff we asked Quassel to implement is still 
considered sufficient?

Regardless of what gets decided we should keep the client not picked on the 
DvD and leave things installed on upgrades.

Scott K