Konversation, Quassel and Kubuntu 9.10

Jonathan Thomas echidnaman at gmail.com
Thu Jul 23 13:30:48 BST 2009

On Thursday 23 July 2009 4:26:34 am Harald Sitter 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.

Why not? It gives very precise features that Konversation has that Quassel 
doesn't. The vaguest one seems to be KDE4 integration, which I expound upon 
below the chart and in this email.

> 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 :)).

Yes, none of these are major things. But they add up. Konversation has 
admittedly had many more years of polish to get where it is, and it shows.
> 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).

You seem to be saying "hey, these are little things". You would be right, but 
in the end they add up.

There are a bunch of UI conventions that it doesn't follow, and overall 
Quassel itself has a bare, foreign feeling, in my opinion. We could spen a 
bunch of time turning Quassel into a Konversation clone and hoping it gets 
done soon, or we could use the superior application now.
> 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?

We could definitely ask kubuntu-users (I'll do that after I reply to this. I 
think I can ask, in a quite non-biased manner), although I have a pretty good 
question about what their consensus would be already. ;-)
> 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.

More information about the kubuntu-devel mailing list