Konversation, Quassel and Kubuntu 9.10
apachelogger at ubuntu.com
Thu Jul 23 13:55:49 BST 2009
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Jonathan Thomas<echidnaman at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
v that is why
>> 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.
As I told you on IRC, you can turn that list around and mention what
Quassel got that Konversation doesn't, to me the wiki page reads like
a lot of FUD
> 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. ;-)
I don't want a consensus, I want to hear what they miss in
Quassel/Konversation, or what annoys them about them, or what they
This is not just a choice of using the currently most appropriate app,
because _any_ app switch is bad and thus I personally will not support
another IRC client switch within the next couple of cycles. So we need
to decide which client is going to be the most appropriate one for the
next couple of years, so we can commit, to a certain degree, to help
upstream improve the application and by this making our users happier.
Ultimately it's not about how many features an application got (then
KDE would have a market share of 99% or something), it's the features
+ quality + ease of use + overall support + development progress...
If features were any indication whether an application should be
default or not, we could just run a script to count the SLOC and then
go with the most.
More information about the kubuntu-devel