Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 27th Jan 2009 18:41 UTC
KDE The release of KDE 4.0 was not a smooth one, and left a number of users a bit disgruntled. Still, the release showed so much potential that it was oozing out of every pixel. KDE 4.1 improved significantly in many areas of concern, but it wasn't yet ready for everyone. With today's release of KDE 4.2, the KDE4 vision is ready to face not only developers and enthusiasts, but every users. We have taken a look at the release candidate for KDE 4.2, and we have a short interview with KDE's Aaron Seigo.
Order by: Score:
Great Release
by SlackerJack on Tue 27th Jan 2009 19:24 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

Big Thanks to all the developers and contributors who made KDE4.2 happen and a great release for the 4.x series.

Please can you not keep going on about 4.0?, it's not like you spend good money on it and HAD to try it or use it. The 4.2 release shows how far the 4 series has come, I personally love the 4 series and contribute because of it.

Many people didn't seen it for it's potential(instead banged on about where's my KDE3.x features), I did see it's potential.

Edited 2009-01-27 19:27 UTC

Reply Score: 12

RE: Great Release
by Adam S on Tue 27th Jan 2009 20:03 UTC in reply to "Great Release"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Please can you not keep going on about 4.0?, it's not like you spend good money on it and HAD to try it or use it. The 4.2 release shows how far the 4 series has come, I personally love the 4 series and contribute because of it.

Many people didn't seen it for it's potential


No. I don't think we should ever forget it. KDE 4.0 was a colossal disaster and it's a great model for open source projects to learn how NOT to do things. Everyone now knows when you release something and expect the users to do alpha testing on real stuff, they will revolt. You gotta get your stuff up to snuff, at least mostly functional, or risk angering a large chunk of your userbase.

Not that I don't respect the KDE guys or what they are doing, and I am not upset about it, I'm just saying, we shouldn't just move on. I don't think users want to have to learn to wait until x.2 until something is usable.

We all learned a lot from this experience, and thankfully, it looks like the KDE team is actually going to realize much of their vision and win back many of their fans. It's a story with a happy ending.

On a related note, Aaron Siego, for all his bytes, is a great face for KDE for the tech folks. He's interested and he's substance. People respect that.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Great Release
by shiny on Tue 27th Jan 2009 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Great Release"
shiny Member since:
2005-08-09


Not that I don't respect the KDE guys or what they are doing, and I am not upset about it, I'm just saying, we shouldn't just move on. I don't think users want to have to learn to wait until x.2 until something is usable.


If KDE 4.0 had not been released back than, we'd hardly be at a 4.1's level by now. To develop and enhance the software you actually need users to use it, spread the word, encourage people to give feedback, find bugs, and point the most missing parts. You gain contributors that way too.
By hiding your project and labeling it WIP you'll hardly get the fraction of help and interest. It's not like KDE could have waited till now and release 4.2, it'd be in a much rawer state.
By seeing what we got today, I'd say it was worth it. It did no harm, but instead produced a great DE in reasonable time window. Besides, it's not like KDE 3.5 disappeared after KDE4.0's release.

Reply Score: 11

RE[3]: Great Release
by Adam S on Tue 27th Jan 2009 20:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great Release"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Counterpoint: it did lots of harm. Lots of people ditched KDE, lots didn't use 4.0, and the team, I think, still suffers from some users who feel burned.

Furthermore, it's erroneous to say that if they hadn't released, they wouldn't be up to 4.2. First of all, it wouldn't matter the version number if it was actually complete and worked. Secondly, why would you assume the work would go slower? Because there are fewer people using it? So you are, in fact, advocating the release of incomplete, buggy, untested software to users? Just checking.

If I realize an empty zip file and call it an OS today, I can't after 4 years or work go back and later say "had I not released that zip, I wouldn't be here today."

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Great Release
by coolvibe on Tue 27th Jan 2009 20:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great Release"
coolvibe Member since:
2007-08-16

KDE 3 wasn't gone. It never was. It's still here now. If you didn't like 4.0 (or 4.1), you could have stuck with 3.5.x or used GNOME, or XFCE, or some other environment, so basically your point is moot.

Sure, you tried it and didn't like it. That's why there's choice. Hell, you can even run several DEs side by side.

Stop complaining, or help out to make it better. Or fork it and make it better. It's not like you have to pay for it or something.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Great Release
by averycfay on Tue 27th Jan 2009 21:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great Release"
averycfay Member since:
2005-08-29

I don't think it's as clear cut as you make it out to be. x.0 from the beginning of computers has signified that the developers think the release is ready for general consumption. KDE made a 4.0 release and expected everyone would read the blog posts about how it should still be considered a development version. No one did apparently. I don't think you can fault the users in this instance. KDE could have released 4.0 as beta4.0 or something else like that and continued on with beta4.1, but they didn't.

The whole situation probably *has* hurt the project a bit too. People hate it regressions probably more than anything else. I know a few different people who stopped using ubuntu completely (including myself) because of the whole premature pulse audio fiasco.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Great Release
by _txf_ on Tue 27th Jan 2009 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great Release"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Considering the fact that they had to be following development to know and to install kde 4.0, it isn't much to expect them to follow official statements by the devs or even read the release notes.

Consider this situation:

If you buy a product and you only look at the model name and number and have certain expectations of the product. The instructions come with several warnings, you don't read the instructions. You then try to use the product and are disappointed. Whose fault is it? your's, or the makers?


Instead of listening to the demagogues, you could expect people to maybe pay a little attention to what they are doing.

Nobody forced them to use 4.0

Edited 2009-01-27 21:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Great Release
by Erunno on Tue 27th Jan 2009 23:48 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Great Release"
Erunno Member since:
2007-06-22

This dead horse may be beaten to pulp as well but you conveniently forget to mention that the general announcement on kde.org, the one which users will most likely read, didn't mention the sad state of 4.0 with one word. Zilch. Nada. No mentioning of 4.0 being a development release or only being suitable for very adventurous users who are aware of the development leading to the release, no word about the desktop having less features than Packman and major applications still missing.

There's no way out of this 4.0 disaster. The KDE Ministry of Propaganda (a.k.a. KProp) failed on so many levels when communicating to the general users that it's not even funny anymore and can solely be used as a bad example on how to *not* handle public relations. Fortunately, although they never openly admitted their failure the announcements for the next versions were a little more carefully phrased so internally some kind of learning process must have happened.

Edited 2009-01-27 23:50 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Great Release
by mat69 on Wed 28th Jan 2009 11:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great Release"
mat69 Member since:
2006-03-29

Kernel 2.6.0 anyone? And a lot more .0 releases.

The problem are not .0 releases that have a lot of problems, but rather that "normal" users get these by their distributions -- why that is the case would need some further investigation.

I also do not like PulseAudio and think it should rather be an option than the default right now as I have personally no gains though something that worked for a few years makes problems here.

You could say 4.0 falls in the same category and that might be true (I did not use 4.0 myself I sticked to 3.5.X) the difference is that with 4.2 KDE 4 is for me perfectly useable while that is not the case for PulseAudio that is "forced" upon me and as it appears its use cases are hardly of interest for me (sound over network, per app sound ...).

So to conclude this: Distributors have a great responsibility. They are the direct link between FOSS projects and its users. So they should choose wisely. For that there has to be good communication between distributors and developers.

Edited 2009-01-28 11:18 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Great Release
by Eruaran on Sat 31st Jan 2009 19:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great Release"
Eruaran Member since:
2009-01-25

KDE follows traditional UNIX version numbering and always has. A major new version numbering (eg. from 3.x to 4.x) denotes binary incompatibility with the previous version and .0.0 denotes that its the first of such a release. It is not true that x.0 has always signified that the developers think the release is ready for general consumption. This kind of thinking is more a product of proprietary software from the Windows world. x.0 signifies that libraries etc are stable and ready for developers to work with. And KDE has always followed the "release early, release often" rule.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Great Release
by Adam S on Tue 27th Jan 2009 21:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great Release"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Stop complaining, or help out to make it better. Or fork it and make it better. It's not like you have to pay for it or something.


RED HERRING! Man, that annoys me so much! It's the absolute lamest argument in the book. It amounts to this: "It doesn't matter if we release shit, because it's free, so shut up, you can't say anything bad about it unless you coded it yourself."

So weak. It doesn't matter if it's free. It doesn't matter if I forked it. Those arguments are red herrings and don't address the actual real issue, which is that KDE4 was not up to snuff. True or not, your "you didn't pay for it" makes no difference.

Reply Score: 6

RE[6]: Great Release
by coolvibe on Wed 28th Jan 2009 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great Release"
coolvibe Member since:
2007-08-16

It does matter. KDE is a high quality desktop environment that you get for FREE. And, like the others said, you were never forced to use it.

Submit bugreports, documentation, translations, code, or shut the hell up.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Great Release
by Panajev on Wed 28th Jan 2009 11:32 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Great Release"
Panajev Member since:
2008-01-09

It does matter. KDE is a high quality desktop environment that you get for FREE. And, like the others said, you were never forced to use it.


The problem is that the OSS world does not say "we release things for free so you get what you pay for", it states that "it is the best way to create software".

Blaming users because they complain, because they compare it to Vista/XP/Windows 7/Mac OS X (really very enjoyable and polished experience) and find those offers to be more polished... replying to these users "but you have to pay for it" is like saying "to develop polished software you need to charge your users".

I do not think people working on KDE4, the Linux kernel, etc... really love defending the quality of their work/their releases with the "hey, we work for free (meant this way: "we do not force you to pay to use our product")/"you get what you pay for".

Complaining about users who use the product without contributing code when someone highlights problems with your release is also kind of a dead end.

Sure Vista had its problems (it did not give me much to complain about even in RC status), it is expensive (the Mac tax is even higher being locked to their HW) and all, but I have had a polished out-of-the-box experience without much work on my end and I do value that... why shouldn't I?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Great Release
by lemnvonletea on Wed 28th Jan 2009 11:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great Release"
lemnvonletea Member since:
2009-01-27

if nobody complains or points out the flaws (subjective as they might be), the devs would have a hard time improving the software.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Great Release
by Kokopelli on Tue 27th Jan 2009 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great Release"
Kokopelli Member since:
2005-07-06

Counterpoint: it did lots of harm. Lots of people ditched KDE, lots didn't use 4.0, and the team, I think, still suffers from some users who feel burned.


They will come back though as long as KDE offers what the wandering user is looking for in a desktop. I think we will find over time that there will be a new generation of converts form other DEs who like the new style. It is all give and take.

Reply Score: 8

RE[4]: Great Release
by lemur2 on Tue 27th Jan 2009 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great Release"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Counterpoint: it did lots of harm. Lots of people ditched KDE, lots didn't use 4.0, and the team, I think, still suffers from some users who feel burned. Furthermore, it's erroneous to say that if they hadn't released, they wouldn't be up to 4.2. First of all, it wouldn't matter the version number if it was actually complete and worked. Secondly, why would you assume the work would go slower? Because there are fewer people using it? So you are, in fact, advocating the release of incomplete, buggy, untested software to users? Just checking.


Yes. That is the way that free software is developed. Release early, release often. It is the ONLY known way to develop something as complex as a complete new desktop system in a couple of years.

Research about it if you have the time. Google for "The Cathedral and the Bazaar".

Both Windows and Mac OSX took 10 years or more to go from scratch to a similar level of function as KDE4 has undergone in just two.

Edited 2009-01-27 22:01 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[5]: Great Release
by sbergman27 on Wed 28th Jan 2009 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great Release"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Research about it if you have the time. Google for "The Cathedral and the Bazaar".

I guess we missed the part where you have to give half-baked versions of the software an X.0 version designation. Your ongoing "release early, release often" mantra doesn't apply to that particular feat of poor release planning. As google ninja noted a while back, poorly applied, "release early, release often" just translates to "it's alright to release poorly tested and unready crap, as long as you do it a lot".

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Great Release
by lemur2 on Wed 28th Jan 2009 00:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great Release"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Research about it if you have the time. Google for "The Cathedral and the Bazaar".
I guess we missed the part where you have to give half-baked versions of the software an X.0 version designation. Your ongoing "release early, release often" mantra doesn't apply to that particular feat of poor release planning. As google ninja noted a while back, poorly applied, "release early, release often" just translates to "it's alright to release poorly tested and unready crap, as long as you do it a lot". "

So you didn't google for it as I suggested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar
"The Bazaar model, in which the code is developed over the Internet in view of the public. Raymond credits Linus Torvalds, leader of the Linux kernel project, as the inventor of this process. Raymond also provides anecdotal accounts of his own implementation of this model for the fetchmail project.
The essay's central thesis is Raymond's proposition that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" (which he terms Linus's Law): the more widely available the source code is for public testing, scrutiny, and experimentation, the more rapidly all forms of bugs will be discovered. In contrast, Raymond claims that an inordinate amount of time and energy must be spent hunting for bugs in the Cathedral model, since the working version of the code is available only to a few developers."


Early releases of free software, developed in the "Bazaar" model, are intended for "public testing, scrutiny, and experimentation, the more rapidly all forms of bugs will be discovered".

Period. Initial releases to the public of free software will contain bugs. The idea is ... to identify them and flush them out. Early.

Edited 2009-01-28 00:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Great Release
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 28th Jan 2009 00:35 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Great Release"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Early releases of free software, developed in the "Bazaar" model, are intended for "public testing, scrutiny, and experimentation, the more rapidly all forms of bugs will be discovered".

Period. Initial releases of free software will contain bugs. The idea is ... to identify them and flush them out. Early.


You're tiptoeing around the issue, lemur2, as usual. This isn't about whether or not early releases of Free software will contain bugs.

This is about violating the generally accepted - by both Free and non-Free software developers - idea that a 1.0 release indicates a release which the developers believe to be free of showstopping bugs, ready for general consumption, but may obviously still contain bugs and issues that will be addressed in 1.0.1 and 1.1 releases.

KDE 4.0 violated this generally accepted idea - i fact, it ass-raped it, injected it with heroine, and made it its bitch. Yes, that's how bad KDE 4.0 was.

And that was simply a mistake. Anyone with more than two functioning braincells realises this.

Edited 2009-01-28 00:37 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Great Release
by sbergman27 on Wed 28th Jan 2009 00:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Great Release"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

So you didn't google for it as I suggested.

No. I read it back in 1997 when it was in vogue and ESR was still a respected FOSS advocate.

I see you are continuing your tradition of avoiding the issue by responding to my on-target criticisms with off-target points which don't relate. I wonder why you consistently do that on this topic?

Edited 2009-01-28 00:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Great Release
by tyrione on Wed 28th Jan 2009 02:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great Release"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

What a load of crap. KDE isn't an operating system. It's a Desktop Environment. It relies on thousands of other projects to remotely get to a modern state. It is constantly broken and guess what? The same projects that run on Linux run on OS X.

Fortunately, OS X which is constantly updated throughout the release cycle of it's .x existence doesn't retort with, ``suck it up. The updates are free. Release often and deal with it because that's the way of all Software.''

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Great Release
by lemur2 on Wed 28th Jan 2009 02:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great Release"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Fortunately, OS X which is constantly updated throughout the release cycle of it's .x existence doesn't retort with, ``suck it up. The updates are free. Release often and deal with it because that's the way of all Software.''


... all free software. OSX is not free software. You are expected to pay for it ... therefore you have an expectation that it has at least a certain amount of finish.

This is not the way that free software is delivered. It is released to the public for trial early, in an unfinished state. It is worked on. After a few releases, it becomes progressively more stable.

GNOME 2.0, for example, was not finished. It was buggy, many things that used to work were now broken or missing, but nevertheless, it was released in that state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME

Now we are at GMOME release 2.24. Twenty four releases later. Twenty four releases in seven years ... an average of over three per year. That is "releasing often", is it not? Now it is stable. A little crusty, perhaps, but quite stable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME#GNOME_3.0

GNOME 3.0 might have a fair chance of more stability on release than most x.0 releases of free software, because "Although the desktop will undergo a major revision, changes planned so far are mostly incremental". We shall see. But GNOME 2.0, which was a major change from GNOME 1.x, was quite similar, in terms of stability and finish, as KDE 4.0.

Edited 2009-01-28 02:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Great Release
by Erunno on Wed 28th Jan 2009 10:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Great Release"
Erunno Member since:
2007-06-22



Now we are at GMOME release 2.24. Twenty four releases later. Twenty four releases in seven years ... an average of over three per year. That is "releasing often", is it not?


Actually, afaik GNOME follows the old numbering convention that odd numbers signify development versions and even numbers release versions. Therefore GNOME released 13 versions since and including 2.0 and uses a rather strict 6 months release interval.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Great Release
by harryF on Tue 27th Jan 2009 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great Release"
harryF Member since:
2005-07-06

If I realize an empty zip file and call it an OS today, I can't after 4 years or work go back and later say "had I not released that zip, I wouldn't be here today.


empty zip? Wow, did you even look at KDE4? The fantastic APIs and Services, the new possibilities with Qt4, features like Solid or Akonadi?

Yes, I'm sorry that end users didn't enjoy it as much as developers did. Then again, at a seminar for professionals, it would be strange to argue that the beginners didn't enjoy it.

KDE 4 gave me as a developer a big boost to play with the code and make KDE better. That, it achieved very well, and we wouldn't be at KDE 4.2 without the increase in development that KDE 4.0 brought with it.

So congratulations to a great KDE 4.2 release, and to all releases that made KDE 4.2 happen.

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: Great Release
by shiny on Tue 27th Jan 2009 22:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great Release"
shiny Member since:
2005-08-09

Counterpoint: it did lots of harm. Lots of people ditched KDE, lots didn't use 4.0, and the team, I think, still suffers from some users who feel burned.


What do you mean by "lots of people"? Have any numbers/articles to support your opinion? And how do you measure project harm anyway, after only the couple of months?

Besides, the "ditching" argument is plain stupid. If people are leaving KDE3 because they disliked 4.0, although their KDE3 still works perfectly, that says a lot about the people. Consider this: if KDE4.0 wouldn't have been released until today, we'd all be using KDE3 so far. How is showing to the people one year earlier a bad thing?


Furthermore, it's erroneous to say that if they hadn't released, they wouldn't be up to 4.2. First of all, it wouldn't matter the version number if it was actually complete and worked. Secondly, why would you assume the work would go slower? Because there are fewer people using it? So you are, in fact, advocating the release of incomplete, buggy, untested software to users? Just checking.


Well, this is a place where we definitely disagree. I stand behind my words, if KDE 4.0 hadn't been released back than in a state in which it was, it wouldn't today been close to the quality it actually has now. As much as it sounds unpleasant, Free Software projects, especially big ones, needs users to both test it, spread the word, and in the end - contribute. Because userbase is where contributors come from. Release early, release often, thats how FLOSS works. Unless they have millions on a bank account, that is ;)

If you want a solid proof of work done in one year between 4.0 and 4.2 take a look at Techbase and Userbase:

http://techbase.kde.org/
http://userbase.kde.org/

Stuff like this just doesn't write by itself. Community is active and growing. That's what counts.


If I realize an empty zip file and call it an OS today, I can't after 4 years or work go back and later say "had I not released that zip, I wouldn't be here today."


It's all a matter of balance. Finding your community is a way to ensure your that project lives on. The earlier the better.

Reply Score: 8

RE[5]: Great Release
by lemur2 on Tue 27th Jan 2009 22:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great Release"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Counterpoint: it did lots of harm. Lots of people ditched KDE, lots didn't use 4.0, and the team, I think, still suffers from some users who feel burned.
What do you mean by "lots of people"? Have any numbers/articles to support your opinion? And how do you measure project harm anyway, after only the couple of months? Besides, the "ditching" argument is plain stupid. If people are leaving KDE3 because they disliked 4.0, although their KDE3 still works perfectly, that says a lot about the people. "

Actually, I suspect it says more about the "impressions" that some people are trying to create about KDE 4. Someone seems to be trying to spread a negative meme about it, methinks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme_(Internet)#Advertising_and_marketing

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Great Release
by Adam S on Wed 28th Jan 2009 15:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great Release"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Oh, for f--k's sake. This thread started when I said something *good* about KDE. It was hijacked by a group of people who decided that it's unfair to say anything negative about KDE4. I'm just not bowing to the pressure and changing my mind. That hardly amounts to an agenda against the entire project.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Great Release
by Adam S on Tue 27th Jan 2009 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great Release"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

What do you mean by "lots of people"? Have any numbers/articles to support your opinion? And how do you measure project harm anyway, after only the couple of months?


http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/24/1842218

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Great Release
by leos on Wed 28th Jan 2009 00:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great Release"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

"What do you mean by "lots of people"? Have any numbers/articles to support your opinion? And how do you measure project harm anyway, after only the couple of months?


http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/24/1842218
"

Haha ;) To support your argument for lots of people switching you cite an article talking about one person? Great reference.

Anyway, I almost agree with you, I think the state of KDE 4.0 should have been advertised better (like on the main release announcement), but there isn't any evidence that it caused a significant number of people to abandon KDE. Just look at development activity after KDE 4.0 was released. It really increased a lot, including user contributions to documentation and such. Not exactly a sign of many people leaving.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Great Release
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 28th Jan 2009 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great Release"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

As much as it sounds unpleasant, Free Software projects, especially big ones, needs users to both test it, spread the word, and in the end - contribute.


That being the case, it seems a little counter-productive to have users taking away the impression that they were effectively tricked into doing alpha/beta-testing.

Well, this is a place where we definitely disagree. I stand behind my words, if KDE 4.0 hadn't been released back than in a state in which it was, it wouldn't today been close to the quality it actually has now.


To quote from the beginning of your post, "Have any numbers/articles to support your opinion?" That question / challenge applies just as much to your statements as it does to Adam's.

Is there any substantial reason to conclude that KDE 4.x wouldn't have advanced as much if KDE 4.0 had been labeled as a "Developer Preview" instead of a point-oh release?

Reply Score: 2

You just can't win
by mounty on Wed 28th Jan 2009 06:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great Release"
mounty Member since:
2005-12-12

Look at SkyOS; the big complaint is that it is in perpetual beta, that no one can try it out etc.

KDE 4.0 was released with lots of caveats, that it was only for interested enthusiasts, that it was a not quite ready for the masses etc. It's really most unfair of you to criticise it on that basis; its deficiencies were plainly advertised.

Reply Score: 3

RE: You just can't win
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 28th Jan 2009 18:12 UTC in reply to "You just can't win"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Look at SkyOS; the big complaint is that it is in perpetual beta, that no one can try it out etc.


Call me crazy, but I'd like to think that there's a reasonable middle ground between "perpetual beta" - and "beta-quality software labeled as a finished release."

KDE 4.0 was released with lots of caveats, that it was only for interested enthusiasts, that it was a not quite ready for the masses etc.


And I suspect that simply labeling it as a Developer Preview would have more effective than all of those caveats combined.

It's really most unfair of you to criticise it on that basis; its deficiencies were plainly advertised.


More unfair than criticizing users for expecting that software carrying a "x.0" version number to be release-quality & relatively complete?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: You just can't win
by Soulbender on Wed 28th Jan 2009 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE: You just can't win"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

More unfair than criticizing users for expecting that software carrying a "x.0" version number to be release-quality & relatively complete?


The average user does not install KDE, he/she install a distribution. The average user don't care what version KDE is, they care about the version of their distribution.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: You just can't win
by StephenBeDoper on Thu 29th Jan 2009 14:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: You just can't win"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

The average user does not install KDE, he/she install a distribution. The average user don't care what version KDE is, they care about the version of their distribution.


The average (typical) user doesn't run Linux in the first place.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Great Release
by mat69 on Wed 28th Jan 2009 11:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great Release"
mat69 Member since:
2006-03-29

Secondly, why would you assume the work would go slower? Because there are fewer people using it? So you are, in fact, advocating the release of incomplete, buggy, untested software to users? Just checking.

I think you have a misconception of FOSS here.

In FOSS there are no closed and then open beta tests like you find in the proprietary world here there is constant testing by the users and developers. Users can report bugs, make suggestions and even create patches -- often not easily possible in propritary projects.

The price for this?
Sometimes buggy software with only few features, but only if your distributor ships it. If you install it yourself and ignore the warnings than that is your fault as you as user ignoring the set paths by your distribution have the responsiblity for your actions.


Another different part is if none uses your software gives feedback etc. you do not have the same motivation and "pressure". Sometimes you have to release something and then you'll have the motivation to add and fix a lot for the next release.

You can easily look at the statistics to see my point. The last weeks before a release there are more commits than normally, the same happens if you get closer to the different freezes. People want to get their stuff and the fixes in and work pretty hard for that. Without these "deadlines" (=release, time before release) you would have no reason to work that hard in your freetime.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Great Release
by Krul on Thu 29th Jan 2009 17:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great Release"
Krul Member since:
2009-01-29

A lot of people seems to forget that KDE is a project that relies heavily on volunteers. 3.5 was released in 2005, if they had waited until now to release 4.0 it would have been more than 3 years of silence from the KDE team.

What happened after 4.0 was released was that

a)Users got involved. They didn't just tried a beta version for 5 min. and said, "well is a beta version, I will check it back later". They actually filled bug reports, and wrote lengthy blog entries about the missing features that they more desperately wanted.

b)People with coding skills started to scratch their own itches. Instead of just looking at the beta version for 5 min and said, "well is a beta version, they still have time to close this bugs", they said "What a mess of bugs! it looks like I will have to close this bug myself" and then they helped.

c)Developers started to work on the framework. Again once 4.0 was released instead of keep waiting some developers saw the potential and started to use the new framework. Remember the framework was supposed to be ready by the time 4.0 was released, but it hadn't been seriously tired until them. A lot of bugs, missing parts and the like were found after people started to actually use this frameworks.

d)Potential developers noticed KDE 4. This is an important point. While the KDE team was building the pillars of KDE 4, other projects were making good progress on the user visible part and were attracting all the attention. After 4.0 was released lots of people saw the potential and decided to join, instead of deciding to help in another projects. The number of svn accounts went up after 4.0 was released which helped to accelerate the developing process.

So when people say that 4.2 is better now because of 4.0 this is why they say it. Even so it wasn't an easy choice and is debatable if this advantages are enough to compensate the damage to the public image of the project. I think they made the right call but it was definitely a controversial decision.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Great Release
by Panajev on Thu 29th Jan 2009 18:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great Release"
Panajev Member since:
2008-01-09

a)Users got involved. They didn't just tried a beta version for 5 min. and said, "well is a beta version, I will check it back later". They actually filled bug reports, and wrote lengthy blog entries about the missing features that they more desperately wanted.

b)People with coding skills started to scratch their own itches. Instead of just looking at the beta version for 5 min and said, "well is a beta version, they still have time to close this bugs", they said "What a mess of bugs! it looks like I will have to close this bug myself" and then they helped.

c)Developers started to work on the framework. Again once 4.0 was released instead of keep waiting some developers saw the potential and started to use the new framework. Remember the framework was supposed to be ready by the time 4.0 was released, but it hadn't been seriously tired until them. A lot of bugs, missing parts and the like were found after people started to actually use this frameworks.

d)Potential developers noticed KDE 4. This is an important point. While the KDE team was building the pillars of KDE 4, other projects were making good progress on the user visible part and were attracting all the attention. After 4.0 was released lots of people saw the potential and decided to join, instead of deciding to help in another projects. The number of svn accounts went up after 4.0 was released which helped to accelerate the developing process.

So when people say that 4.2 is better now because of 4.0 this is why they say it.


I understand that, same reasons outlined by Seigo himself, but it does not speak too well about either the development process of KDE, or the way it was presented to the users and developers alike during development, or the community itself.

Basically Alpha, Beta, and RC phases were not enough to bring enough attention from users which would find, report, and complain about bugs as well as from developers which would hear complains of users, try their application on the .0 release, make fixes, etc...

Seigo says he was worried about having the project stay in eternal Beta and thus having user and developers ignore it.

You yourself seem to say that not nearly enough users and developers alike did not pay much attention to the project when it was just a Beta because... it was just a beta! And this is like the big pink elephant in the room nobody is talking about.

Edited 2009-01-29 18:04 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Great Release
by superstoned on Sun 1st Feb 2009 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great Release"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

We did the release with the future in mind and the 99% of computer users who don't use KDE yet. This did hurt some of our current users (those who used distributions forcing 4.0 on them as sole KDE desktop). Not much we can do. If you think a bit about it, you might understand why KDE 4.0 released today wouldn't be as good as KDE 4.2 is right now.

First reason: developers. We gained a huge number of developers since 4.0 - over 300. Most of them would not have joined KDE development without 4.0.

Second reason: applications. Many applications only started porting when 4.0 was released. It's bad enough we don't have K3B today. It would be far worse if we had to wait another year.

Third reason: third parties. Imagine NVIDIA starting to fix their drivers right now. It took them a year to get them reasonably working with KDE 4 so if they started now you wouldn't be able to use KDE for another year.

Fourth reason: KDE is not one. The KDE software suite is huge. Big chunks of that were ready when 4.0 was released. Think Dolphin, the whole of KDE edu and most of KDE games. Not releasing those would have meant less developers, less testing and less motivation.

There are more reasons (for example motivation in the community - it's no fun to work on stuff which won't see the light for another year) but these are the most important. I would appreciate it if a reply would either refute them all or say "sorry, I didn't think of those".

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Great Release
by Adam S on Sun 1st Feb 2009 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great Release"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

I did think of those. I appreciate them all, and I appreciate that the decision was a hard one. Personally, I think it's naive to suggest that you can release something as x.0, which historically, has suggested that software X is a relatively bug free major release, and then expect that most people have read your explanation that it isn't on a blog somewhere.

Nonetheless, despite the heated debate here, I'm very happy to see KDE as a whole moving forward and stabilizing on 4.x. However, I can't simply say "yeah, that makes sense," or essentially, I'm suggesting that every project can just dispense with the concept of beta and just release their unfinished software on the world, users be damned, with the justification that without doing a release, no one would have come around. As a user, that's not my problem. We saw the EXACT same thing with Vista - people weren't ready, and no one is letting them off the hook. BUt with KDE, valid criticism is hushed with snide remarks like "it's free, so either code it yourself or shut up."

But I do understand why.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Great Release
by _txf_ on Tue 27th Jan 2009 21:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Great Release"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Except for the fact that they didn't expect users to "USE" kde 4.0 they expected developers and advanced users to "TEST" kde 4.0.

Unfortunately people were misinformed, either by themselves or through the negative echo chamber that no amount of "this is not for users" statements could fix.

You have to wonder that if they didn't release kde 4.0 and got decent feedback (along with all the other crap), how kde 4.2 would turn out.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Great Release
by Adam S on Tue 27th Jan 2009 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great Release"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

You have to wonder that if they didn't release kde 4.0 and got decent feedback (along with all the other crap), how kde 4.2 would turn out.


I do. But I'm not sure any conclusion justifies the path as was.

Although I think the problem here was assuming that they could somehow redefine what a .0 major release meant an expect anyone would take notice.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Great Release
by _txf_ on Wed 28th Jan 2009 00:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great Release"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

They can call it whatever they wish. The reason they went with 4.0 is because kdelibs was ready for public consumption. Many that develop for kde (as a platform and not as a DE) are not necessarily tuned into dev cycles. So calling it a developer release would not get their attention as they would assume the platform is still shifting under their feet.

What I can't see is how people managed to install it without knowing it was in the state it was in. AFAIK fedora was the only one that force fed kde 4.0 to it's users.

Simply looking at screenshots with links to the repos, told me that the DE was still cooking.

Either way, it's in the past. Whether the same thing happens with gnome 3 or kde 6, we will have to see...


"I do. But I'm not sure any conclusion justifies the path as was."

So the path taken is more important than the destination? Or that the path taken is actually the fastest in the long run?

Edited 2009-01-28 00:33 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Great Release
by lemur2 on Tue 27th Jan 2009 22:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great Release"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Except for the fact that they didn't expect users to "USE" kde 4.0 they expected developers and advanced users to "TEST" kde 4.0.


Precisely the point.

This is exactly the process by which free software is developed.

Release early. Interested people try it. Get feedback. Gather information about bugs. Measure performance (and lack thereof) in real-world usage. Define areas that require improvement. etc, etc. This process is what "community development" is all about.

One cannot use this model for software that users are expected to pay for. The users would rightly reject your product, deeming it not worth the money.

Free software is an entirely different paradigm. Apparently, some people haven't grokked this fact yet.

Edited 2009-01-27 22:10 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Great Release
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 27th Jan 2009 22:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great Release"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This is exactly the process by which free software is developed.

Release early. Interested people try it. Get feedback. Gather information about bugs. Measure performance (and lack thereof) in real-world usage. Define areas that require improvement. etc, etc. This process is what "community development" is all about.


"Release early, release often" does not mean deceiving users by using a version number that is known and understood to mean "final" and "complete", and then use it on an obviously unfinished, crappy, and buggy product.

"Release early, release often" means that instead of dumping a 1.0 release on your users out of the blue, you feed them 0.x releases until you hit final.

Please, lemur2, you might be the local Free software evangelist around here, but that doesn't mean you can lecture us on what "release early, release often" means.

Edited 2009-01-27 22:35 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Great Release
by lemur2 on Tue 27th Jan 2009 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great Release"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"This is exactly the process by which free software is developed. Release early. Interested people try it. Get feedback. Gather information about bugs. Measure performance (and lack thereof) in real-world usage. Define areas that require improvement. etc, etc. This process is what "community development" is all about.
"Release early, release often" does not mean deceiving users by using a version number that is known and understood to mean "final" and "complete", and then use it on an obviously unfinished, crappy, and buggy product. "Release early, release often" means that instead of dumping a 1.0 release on your users out of the blue, you feed them 0.x releases until you hit final. Please, lemur2, you might be the local Free software evangelist around here, but that doesn't mean you can lecture us on what "release early, release often" means. "

You can go to a 0.x numbering system for a new project, but KDE4 was not a new project.

I'm not trying to redefine "release early, release often" ... it says exactly what it means all by itself.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Great Release
by Soulbender on Wed 28th Jan 2009 08:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great Release"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

that is known and understood to mean "final" and "complete"


A, version numbers are completely arbitrary and has no meaning other than "some progress as been made". For example, not everyone agrees with the "major number jump means big progress" scheme (like OpenBSD).

B, .0 has never meant "final" and "complete". If anything, it quite often mean "sure, it sorta works but there are lots of bugs and problems still".

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Great Release
by coolvibe on Wed 28th Jan 2009 11:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great Release"
coolvibe Member since:
2007-08-16

Version numbers mean squat. Point-oh releases are never stable (at least I've never seen that). KDE 2.0 was buggy, KDE 3.0 was also buggy as hell. KDE tracks Qt version numbers with their major version numbers. KDE 2.x ran on Qt 2.x, KDE 3 on Qt 3.x and KDE 4 uses Qt 4.x. And they release a .0 when the API is finalized. What so strange about that? I think it's very sensible, and not misleading at all.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Great Release
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 28th Jan 2009 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great Release"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

You have to wonder that if they didn't release kde 4.0 and got decent feedback (along with all the other crap), how kde 4.2 would turn out.


What group of users is more likely to offer decent feedback? Developers and early-adopters who have no problem using software that's clearly labeled as beta / pre-release? Or less technical users who assume that "x.0" means "suitable for public-consumption" and become upset when the software doesn't meet their expectations?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Great Release
by lemur2 on Wed 28th Jan 2009 23:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great Release"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"You have to wonder that if they didn't release kde 4.0 and got decent feedback (along with all the other crap), how kde 4.2 would turn out.
What group of users is more likely to offer decent feedback? Developers and early-adopters who have no problem using software that's clearly labeled as beta / pre-release? Or less technical users who assume that "x.0" means "suitable for public-consumption" and become upset when the software doesn't meet their expectations? "

Every other FOSS project undergoing a major upgrade has released a x.0 version (where x is > 1) early, and with bugs included, and without a full set of features working, and no-one gets upset. This is the FOSS way. FOSS is indeed "suitable for public consumption" (at least for the part of the public that is willing to participate in the development process) for these early releases, because that is the way it is done, and that is everybody's expectation.

GNOME 2.0 did exactly the same. It too was released to the public early, with bugs, and without full features, for the purpose of public testing, with a view to working out the bugs and getting it polished.

http://www.osnews.com/story/1280

Well actually, it was originally supposed to be released a year earlier than it actually was, so you can imagine what it would have been like if that had happened.

The point is this: this is par for the course for a FOSS project. This is the way it is done. FOSS projects don't attain the "polish" of commercial releases (that you are expected to pay money for) until at least a couple of releases past the x.0 point. The "payment" that you make, for FOSS projects, is that the public is expected to help in the initial development.

You can always use the previous versions if you want instead to get actual work done. No-one FORCES you to participate, you are not REQUIRED to install a KDE 4.0 or a GNOME 2.0 or any other early release.

So if GNOME 2.0 did this, and FOSS projects in general likewise do it, my question is why is there suddenly all this unwarranted brouhaha over KDE 4.0 doing exactly the same?

Why are people allegedly "getting upset" ... but ONLY for KDE4 and not for other FOSS applications developed in exactly the same way?

It sure seems like a beat-up to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_meme

Edited 2009-01-28 23:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Great Release
by StephenBeDoper on Thu 29th Jan 2009 14:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great Release"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Every other FOSS project undergoing a major upgrade has released a x.0 version (where x is > 1) early, and with bugs included, and without a full set of features working, and no-one gets upset.


Every? For example...?

FOSS projects don't attain the "polish" of commercial releases (that you are expected to pay money for) until at least a couple of releases past the x.0 point. The "payment" that you make, for FOSS projects, is that the public is expected to help in the initial development.


I use quite a few open source applications, but I've never bought into the "obligation to volunteer" mentality. The notion is absurd just from an English semantics point of view.

You can always use the previous versions if you want instead to get actual work done. No-one FORCES you to participate, you are not REQUIRED to install a KDE 4.0 or a GNOME 2.0 or any other early release.


It sounds like you're saying that no one is allowed to express a critical opinion of anything - unless they're forced to use it and there are no available alternatives.

So if GNOME 2.0 did this, and FOSS projects in general likewise do it, my question is why is there suddenly all this unwarranted brouhaha over KDE 4.0 doing exactly the same?

Why are people allegedly "getting upset" ... but ONLY for KDE4 and not for other FOSS applications developed in exactly the same way?


Funny that you should mention GNOME 2 again, because 30 seconds of searching turned up the "GNOME 2: A Year Later" article published on this site ( http://www.osnews.com/story/3721/GNOME_2_A_Year_Later ).

A quote from its first paragraph:

One year ago I wrote a review of Gnome 2. Some people thought I was harsh, others thought I was fair, point is, I always write what I think and surely Gnome 2.0 didn't have the polish or stability of a .0 release.


Whaddya know.

It sure seems like a beat-up to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_meme


That would be a reference to criticism of KDE 4.0? Or a reference to the "KDE is being unfairly persecuted" meme?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Great Release
by segedunum on Tue 27th Jan 2009 23:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Great Release"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

No. I don't think we should ever forget it. KDE 4.0 was a colossal disaster and it's a great model for open source projects to learn how NOT to do things.

Are you kidding? That's the only way open source development can work. You make releases and people start using it en masse when it is good enough.

Everyone now knows when you release something and expect the users to do alpha testing on real stuff, they will revolt.

Try telling that to proprietary software developers, but as said above, that is the way open source development works. The reason why the source code is open is so that code is released and tested early and users can do alpha and beta testing.

I didn't think most people would need to have the concept pointed out. Obviously I was wrong. I think we should just get past this now.

Edited 2009-01-27 23:17 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Great Release
by WereCatf on Tue 27th Jan 2009 23:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great Release"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Sigh. You're missing the point Adam was saying: when a x.0 release is made it is usually considered a feature-complete product and useable by the intended populace. That's how I and all the people I know are atleast used to think. And that's what caused so many people to get angry or feel disappointed.

The KDE devs did indeed try to redefine the well-known concept of introducing a x.0 release. They could have called it KDE 4.0b1 and POOF, everyone would have known it was a work-in-progress and not feature-complete yet.

Oh, and just as a sidepoint here: KDE4 was hyped all over the place so of course people learned about it even if they weren't actual enthusiasts or well-learned professionals. And then there were distros that made it easy for people to install KDE4.0 and try it. I too installed KDE4.0 on my Mandriva simply with the default package manager. (It was a complete disaster, but that's not the point here)

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Great Release
by segedunum on Wed 28th Jan 2009 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great Release"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Sigh. You're missing the point Adam was saying: when a x.0 release is made it is usually considered a feature-complete product and useable by the intended populace.

Sigh.............. It's incredible how many people simple don't understand how this has worked since the year dot.

No, not in the open source world it isn't. A release is made when the developers decide that they have a feature complete release by their metrics, not yours or anyone else's, and they feel they have reached a milestone. People then jump on board and use it when it is ready. That's the way open source development and usage has always worked.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Great Release
by Adam S on Tue 27th Jan 2009 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great Release"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

I didn't think most people would need to have the concept pointed out. Obviously I was wrong. I think we should just get past this now.


I love when people assume that being an arrogant ass makes them seem more right. Instead, it makes you look like... well... an arrogant ass.

I disagree with you entirely. I think open source projects thrive and do well when they earn their users' trust. I guess you think that being an open source, free-as-in-beer project means they shouldn't act professional or do any testing.

Tagging the 4.0 release "4.0" was a mistake, plain and simple, and many people will not soon forget that KDE .0 releases are not actual releases, but rather, just version-inflated betas. If KDE has learned their lesson, great. If not, then plenty of people will treat their software like it's not production ready, which is a shame.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: Great Release
by lemur2 on Tue 27th Jan 2009 23:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great Release"
RE[5]: Great Release
by Adam S on Wed 28th Jan 2009 00:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great Release"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Ugh. You can argue til you're blue in the face, but you're wasting your time, because your point spits in the face of facts.

These are facts:

- Historically, calling something 1.0 (or 2.0 or 4.0) meant "this release has been tested, we believe the bugs have been ironed out, and this is ready for use."

- KDE redefined their 4.0 release as "needing testing." They admitted as much. They made the x.0 release into a public beta (arguably alpha) test.

You are now arguing that every project does that, but shame on you. Every project that properly tests their software and respects the convention should take offense. It's amazing how so many programs manage to pull this off, but KDE gets a free pass.

Don't bother responding, the point has been made.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Great Release
by lemur2 on Wed 28th Jan 2009 00:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great Release"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Ugh. You can argue til you're blue in the face, but you're wasting your time, because your point spits in the face of facts. These are facts: - Historically, calling something 1.0 (or 2.0 or 4.0) meant "this release has been tested, we believe the bugs have been ironed out, and this is ready for use."


No. Not for free software. You seem to have the concepts for commercial software world fixed immutably in your mind.

Did you ever try to run the Linux 1.0 kernel, for example?

No one in their right mind would try to claim that that was ready for users expecting stable software.

In free software, a 1.0 release means "ready for community testing and development". It does not mean "ready for sale".

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Great Release
by Adam S on Wed 28th Jan 2009 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Great Release"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Really?! So that's why Mozilla was at 0.x for years, they didn't want "the public" to test it.

I wonder why all these people keep releasing "beta" versions of stuff, when they just need to tag it x.0 for users to test it.

Now I know. Thanks for clearing that up!

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Great Release
by WereCatf on Wed 28th Jan 2009 00:32 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Great Release"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Did you ever try to run the Linux 1.0 kernel, for example?

No one in their right mind would try to claim that that was ready for users expecting stable software.


Actually, I hear 1.0 was rather stable and it had reached the intended features, hence the 1.0 release. Until that it was 0.x, like most open-source products.

The intended audience was also very different from the intended audience of KDE; Linux 1.0 was obviously for enthusiasts and developers and not in any way or form for the general populace.

As said, a x.0 releases are usually mostly stable, mostly bug-free, have reached the planned features and generally suit the needs of the intended audience.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Great Release
by akulkis on Sat 31st Jan 2009 02:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Great Release"
akulkis Member since:
2008-10-21

That is the stupidest argument I've heard in a long, LONG time, Lemur. By comparison, the Islamic terrorists sound sane.

Give it up. Your arguments based on semantic substitution are childish, boring, and wrong.

No, the rest of the FOSS community does NOT redefine x.0 to mean "Alpha" or "beta"... thats what x.0a and x.0by are fore. Plain old X.0 means that the alpha and beta development stages are complete.

The KDE team SPECIFICALLY argued that 4.0 was ready. The users on the openSUSE list argued for WEEKS on end, saying that 4.0 was nowhere close to usable as anything other than demo-ware.

Despite this, the KDE devs working at Suse INSISTED that 4.0 be deliberately, and deceivingly foisted on users (especially new Linux users who didn't know any better) as the standard software, with 3.x shuffled into the background, and deliberately made difficult to install by all but the most knowledgeable.

The was not an independant act by Novell... it was due to the ACTIONS of KDE personell working within SUSE.

Now, Lemur, we're SICK AND TIRED of these same old lies which we've been hearing from the KDE 4 people for more than a full year now.

STOP IT, and quit acting like the real life incarnation of Eddie Haskell.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Great Release
by leos on Wed 28th Jan 2009 00:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great Release"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

- Historically, calling something 1.0 (or 2.0 or 4.0) meant "this release has been tested, we believe the bugs have been ironed out, and this is ready for use."


You have a very short memory. Gnome 2.0 was awful and lacked many really basic features. Same with Apache 2.0, the first 5-10 releases of Linux kernel 2.6, Vista, Windows XP pre-SP1, OS X 10.0/1.

All of those were new releases of previously mature and stable, complex software projects. All of them were horrible. I would say all of them were worth it in the end after some fixing. If you think KDE 4.0 was unique you really haven't been paying attention.

You are now arguing that every project does that, but shame on you. Every project that properly tests their software and respects the convention should take offense. It's amazing how so many programs manage to pull this off, but KDE gets a free pass.


Hahah.. After a year of shitstorm about KDE 4.0 (yes it's been a year) you think KDE is getting a free pass? Not saying it wasn't somewhat justified, just as the anger at all those other projects I mentioned when their major revisions landed.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Great Release
by DigitalAxis on Wed 28th Jan 2009 01:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Great Release"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

We are used to 1.0 releases like GAIM (now Pidgin) where it really was pretty stable and featureful a year or two earlier.

Or, beta releases like Gmail. Basically, 1.0 says it's finally stable. KDE 4.0 should have been KDE 3.9.

I tried 4.0.0 and within seconds had a bug, when my entire Firefox window vanished when I wasn't mousing over the toolbar (bug already filed when I checked). Panels vanished, settings changed at random, things were impossible to see... You can file/add to bugs, and I think I'm still signed up for some of them, but it was bad enough I didn't know where to begin.
I kept checking back at various point releases and it was still aggravating to use even when they'd fixed the 'programs disappearing' bug.

Then 4.1 came out and I've been using it as my primary desktop ever since. It's still got problems, such as buttons and boxes partially disappearing in Firefox, and the background filling with garbage when I'm running multiple apps... but I can USE it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Great Release
by Soulbender on Wed 28th Jan 2009 09:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great Release"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Historically, calling something 1.0 (or 2.0 or 4.0) meant "this release has been tested, we believe the bugs have been ironed out, and this is ready for use."


Oh really. I can remember when RH .0 releases were generally shunned because everyone knew they were incomplete and buggy. That goes for a lot of software really, both commercial and OSS, "Stay away from .0 releases".
Also, not everyone agrees with that .0 idea. Some projects (like OpenBSD) gives no special meaning to "major" (2.0, 3.0) version changes nor any special meaning to .0 releases.
The fact that you assign special meaning to versions and fail to follow the explicit advice of the developers says more about you than it says about them.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Great Release
by akulkis on Sat 31st Jan 2009 02:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Great Release"
akulkis Member since:
2008-10-21

You seem to forget that the KDE devs crowed unrelentingly that 4.0 was READY not just for applications developers, but for users in general -- even while whole swaths of basic window-manager functionality were missing, and even simple things like konsole (shell console) were crashing without provocation.

The problem with the KDE 4 project is that, when it comes to PR, they've become nothing more than a band of liars unworthy of even an ounce of trust.

They have done more damage to the FOSS movement than ANY other group... right at the time when millions are getting fed up with Microsoft enough to ditch windows.... we had Fedora and openSuSE -- at the behest and lies of the KDE 4 devs... pushing the whole KDE 4 mess on new users (people TRYING OUT LINUX FOR THE FIRST TIME) without the slightest warning that 4.0 was not merely a work "in development", but in rather EARLY development, and nowhere close enough to stable for even casual use, but only for alpha- or beta-testing.

Every single KDE dev needs to be hit across the face and the back of the head with a clue bat so that they NEVER forget the colossal level of stupidity and dishonesty which they perpetrated on the newbies in the Linux community. If I didn't know better, I would think that they were trying to sabotage the movement to get new users into the Linux community.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Great Release
by tyrione on Wed 28th Jan 2009 02:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great Release"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Using Debian Sid daily for the past 8 years your attitude about "see the word stable" is cocka.

Stable in Debian means, `outdated but solid.'

Testing means mostly outdated and mostly solid.'

Sid means mostly current and almost mostly solid.

Experimental means, current, improperly QA'd and more often than not broken and non-solid.

But heh! Just roll back and sacrifice being current for solid.

KDE 4.2 is on my Debian Sid box. I know systems engineering and userspace development engineering.

The Linux Kernel is solid.

The Linux Userspace is still f'd up most of the time and it tends to relate to the fact that the QA aspect and lack of standard upon which all distros start from [LSB] is still broken with a lack of consensus.

But heh! This is the year of the Linux Desktop.

People find the fact they can fork fifty billion times as a cool feature. Consumers don't give a s***. They just want something to work as billed, whether they pay for it or use it and thus help spread the FSF mantra by not using Windows.

I'd throw in OS X but heh, they do give back and thanks to projects like WebKit make it possible for the once forked KHTML/KJS and then some come back to the source, fixed and advanced.

But like all package managers, Debian Experimental is not immune to not making sure the entire KDE 4.2 release is built.

I'm specifically speaking for the lack of KDE SDK 4.2 with Kate. It's currently broken and the hooks to plasma are hosed with it.

Bravo!

Either test the crap in it's entirety before releasing or don't release it, even if it's just in Experimental.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Great Release
by lemur2 on Wed 28th Jan 2009 02:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great Release"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Using Debian Sid daily for the past 8 years your attitude about "see the word stable" is cocka. Stable in Debian means, `outdated but solid.'


No, stable means stable. Stable doesn't mean "Debian Etch" ... Etch is just the current stable release.

Lenny is, I believe, about to be "promoted" to stable. Perhaps by June.

http://blogs.dailynews.com/click/2008/10/debian-lenny-stable-not-in...

That means that, after all of the testing of Lenny (when it was Debian testing), the developers now consider that most of the bugs are outed, and it is now worthy of the label "stable".

Sid is the current "unstable" release.

http://www.debian.org/releases/unstable/

Expect it to be unstable.

When Lenny is promoted to "stable", Etch will be retired (it then will be called "old stable"). Sid will become "testing".

Debian "experimental" is the cutting edge.

http://packages.debian.org/experimental/

Debian do not release experimental software, but they let you install it and try it. Experimental does not have a "Toy story" name. The next "unstable" will be created (copied) from Sid when Sid becomes "testing". I don't know the name it will be given.

Edited 2009-01-28 02:59 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Great Release
by MamiyaOtaru on Wed 28th Jan 2009 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Great Release"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

Sid will become "testing".

Incorrect. Sid is Sid. Unstable is always called Sid (the villain from the first Toy Story)

When Lenny is promoted to Stable, a new Testing will be cloned from Sid and will get a new name, in this case Squeeze.

One can be forgiven for thinking this is rather complex ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Great Release
by da_Chicken on Wed 28th Jan 2009 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Great Release"
da_Chicken Member since:
2006-01-01

Lenny is, I believe, about to be "promoted" to stable. Perhaps by June.

My guess is that Lenny will be released before the end of February. But your guess is as good as mine.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Great Release
by segedunum on Wed 28th Jan 2009 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great Release"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I love when people assume that being an arrogant ass makes them seem more right. Instead, it makes you look like... well... an arrogant ass.

Great. It doesn't make this wrong however.

I disagree with you entirely.

Your prerogative. You're still wrong for the reasons given.

I guess you think that being an open source, free-as-in-beer project means they shouldn't act professional or do any testing.

Open source projects do testing via release early and release often and getting the code to testers and users as early as possible. When it starts working well then word of mouth spreads and more people start using it. This is the way it has always worked. It has never worked via version numbers.

Tagging the 4.0 release "4.0" was a mistake, plain and simple

Who are you to decide that? The KDE people felt they had achieved their goals of feature completeness and completeness of the libraries in particular. Quite frankly, it's not for you to decide, and it isn't for any piece of open source software you use.

If not, then plenty of people will treat their software like it's not production ready, which is a shame.

Open source software becomes production ready (the fact you use that term shows how little you actually know) when enough people have tested it, a critical mass of people have started using it because it is good enough and distros feel confident shipping it. It doesn't and never has happened when a project reaches version .0. The fact that distros have screwed up over KDE 4 and especially PulseAudio to the detriment of their users is neither here nor there really.

Seriously, what planet have you people been living on?

Edited 2009-01-28 13:41 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Great Release
by Panajev on Wed 28th Jan 2009 13:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great Release"
Panajev Member since:
2008-01-09

Open source projects do testing via release early and release often and getting the code to testers and users as early as possible.


As far as pushing out another RC/developer release vs declaring it stable and getting it out of the door with the 4.0 status, I remember (although I cannot find the exact quote at the moment) that there was the concern of declaring it "stable, 4.0 worthy and not an RC/dev release" to get more people to test their software and drivers on it as opposed to attract less heavy-duty testing with another RC release.

Edit: found it...

KDE 4.0 isn't yet "better than good enough"; so why don't we just release more betas? When one perpetually releases alphas/betas a few things happen: people don't test it aggressively enough, third party developers don't get involved, core developers continue doing blue sky development rather than focusing on release qualities.

Between the rc's and the tagging of 4.0.0 the number of reports from testing skyrocketed. This is great, and shows that when I assert "people don't test when it's alpha or even beta" I'm absolutely correct.


http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2008/01/talking-bluntly.html

Edited 2009-01-28 14:00 UTC

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: Great Release
by Adam S on Wed 28th Jan 2009 15:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great Release"
RE[6]: Great Release
by segedunum on Wed 28th Jan 2009 17:56 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great Release"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

If I was so wrong, why are there thousands of articles across the internet talking about KDE 4.0 as beta quality software?

Because they are wrong, arguing about utterly the wrong things, they don't get open source development and it is not up to them to look at the .0 version and then call it beta by their metrics and goals. The KDE people felt that they had reached their goals and milestones for this release, and it certainly wasn't going to help the long-term stability and quality of the KDE 4 line by perpetually being in betas and alphas.

It's up to the distros to screen users from that if necessary, and with KDE 4.0 and especially PulseAudio they totally failed.

List as many reasons as you want, you cannot refute the fact that 4.0 has received a lot of attention over the fact that it was not complete or up to snuff. Nothing you say, no matter how arrogant you remain, changes that.

You can call people as arrogant as many times you want and point to as many ill-informed and wrong articles regarding KDE 4.0 out on the innertubes as much as you like from people who like a rant, but I'm afraid they didn't get to decide what went into KDE 4.0 in terms of functionality or feature completeness. Neither did I. The KDE developers did. Nothing you say will change that, and criticising KDE's developers for achieving what they wanted with KDE 4.0 is totally and utterly irrelevant and a waste of time.

I'm done with you and this thread, don't even bother replying - you are both condescending and pompous and, frankly, it's just not interesting to discuss this with you.

I'm not suprised considering that you've been rationally explained to be wrong, so the pompous and condascending bit is rather ironic.

Also, you apparently live in a reality where no software is *ever* deemed complete by developers, just by "word of mouth."

That's the way open source development works, and only to a very slightly lesser extent, proprietary software. Why on Earth do you think Windows 7 will be the real Vista release? You can only try something or read some reviews and see whether it does what you want it to do and then watch the software improve. The major version number will probably signify that it won't crash, burn and eat all your children and pets, but it's no guarantee of anything other standard you might hold it to.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[7]: Great Release
by akulkis on Sat 31st Jan 2009 02:44 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Great Release"
RE[2]: Great Release
by Soulbender on Wed 28th Jan 2009 08:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Great Release"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

No. I don't think we should ever forget it.


No, we really should. Especially in a news item about 4.2.

KDE 4.0 was a colossal disaster


Some self-proclaimed "power users" whining endlessly about how we should feel sorry for them because they don't like where KDE is going and how they themselves failed to read and understand simple instructions does not a disaster make.

Everyone now knows when you release something and expect the users to do alpha testing on real stuff, they will revolt.


I had sort of hoped that in 2008 computer users savvy enough to download and build KDE from source would be able to understand the simple statement "4.0 is not ready for users".
Versions are arbitrary numbers, it doesn't matter what they are.

I don't think users want to have to learn to wait until x.2 until something is usable.


This may come as a big surprise, but the average user don't care about version numbers. It's a geek thing.
The users use whatever comes with their distribution, be it 3.5 or 4, and if that is not in a state where it is good enough it's the distro's fault, not KDE's.

And before someone comes running with the tired old "fan boy" mantra, I use both GNOME and KDE and they're both good for me. I also like KDE4 much better than I ever did 3.5.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Great Release
by eldarion on Wed 28th Jan 2009 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Great Release"
eldarion Member since:
2008-12-15


No. I don't think we should ever forget it. KDE 4.0 was a colossal disaster and it's a great model for open source projects to learn how NOT to do things. Everyone now knows when you release something and expect the users to do alpha testing on real stuff, they will revolt. You gotta get your stuff up to snuff, at least mostly functional, or risk angering a large chunk of your userbase.


KDE 4.0 was NEVER to standard users to use. That was made very clear by the KDE people. The colossal disaster was that some distros replaced the stable KDE3.x with the new KDE4.0. So they forced normal users to use a development version of KDE.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Great Release
by akulkis on Sat 31st Jan 2009 02:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great Release"
akulkis Member since:
2008-10-21

"KDE 4.0 was NEVER to standard users to use. "

My, that's a big steaming pile of BS you have there.

The KDE devs working at SUSE emphatically and repeatedly argued that KDE 4.0 was ready for standard users, even to the point of arguing with all the reset of the openSUSE userbase who documented all of the gaping holes and massive, show-stopper bugs which made KDE 4.0 totally unusable for ANYTHING, other than a list of functions for applications devs to develop against.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Great Release
by PandaMine on Sat 31st Jan 2009 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great Release"
PandaMine Member since:
2009-01-29

Thats odd

Is that the same reason why the OpenSUSE website clearly mentioned, when they were realizing 4.0. that a lot of bugs and issues are still in it, and that its still a "show off" release

In fact there missing features page about KDE 4.0 still exists http://en.opensuse.org/What_features_is_KDE4_missing_when_compared_...

Obviously the page has been updated for 4.2, but when 4.0 was out, even on their forums, it was clearly said that 4.0 was not ready for home or average use which is the same reason why they have KDE 3.5 still supported and still as an option at the time (instead of Fedora who for example threw it out the window)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Great Release
by renox on Fri 30th Jan 2009 09:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Great Release"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

No. I don't think we should ever forget it. KDE 4.0 was a colossal disaster and it's a great model for open source projects to learn how NOT to do things.


I agree but this should be detailed further:
- naming KDE4.0 instead of KDE4.0 Alpha/Developer Preview was a (big) mistake, I agree.

- Distributions including KDE4.0, was-it a mistake?
Well for me it depends on the goal of the distribution for Fedora is all about bleeding edge software so why should users expect functional software? for other 'stable' distribution a non-default installation of KDE4.0 with warning that this is software not-ready would be fine too.

Reply Score: 2

Ugly themes
by averycfay on Tue 27th Jan 2009 19:25 UTC
averycfay
Member since:
2005-08-29

Well, I'm a gnome user. I watched those videos and it actually looks like there's some cool stuff there. I may end up trying it out. BUT man the theme in that video is so ugly. The little plasma things on the desktop look good, but the menus/buttons/other widgets in normal windows look horrible. Maybe (hopefully?) that's not the default theme.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ugly themes
by shiny on Tue 27th Jan 2009 20:01 UTC in reply to "Ugly themes"
shiny Member since:
2005-08-09

Are you suggesting that the Oxygen widget theme, as seen for example here [0], looks ugly? To each his own I guess, but for me it looks like a clear, calm and great looking theme.

[0] http://kde.org/announcements/4.2/screenshots/dolphin-full.png

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: Ugly themes
by averycfay on Tue 27th Jan 2009 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Ugly themes"
averycfay Member since:
2005-08-29

Yes. It looks like it's from the mid-90's.

Edit: also, the theme doesn't fit well at all with the plasma things on the desktop. They look great, but the normal windows next to them look completely out of place.

Edited 2009-01-27 21:05 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Ugly themes
by m_abs on Tue 27th Jan 2009 23:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ugly themes"
m_abs Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes. It looks like it's from the mid-90's.[/quote]
Nah. This is how UI looked in the mid-90's.
Windows 95 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Am_windows95_desktop.png
OS/2 Warp http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/vpc/images/os2warp3.gif
System7 (Mac OS 7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Macintosh_System_7.5.3_screenshot...

[q]Edit: also, the theme doesn't fit well at all with the plasma things on the desktop. They look great, but the normal windows next to them look completely out of place.

I like the oxygen style, but I agree it doesn't really match the plasma theme.
And I don't like the window decoration style, so I switched to "plastik".
But plasma is beautiful ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Ugly themes
by tyrione on Wed 28th Jan 2009 21:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ugly themes"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

True and this how another mid-90s UI looked like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OPENSTEP_Workspace_Manager.jpg

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Ugly themes
by wakeupneo on Thu 29th Jan 2009 06:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ugly themes"
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes. It looks like it's from the mid-90's.


Coming from a Gnome user...that's quite a statement! ;)

GTK has always looked old to me compared to KDE. I think it's just the big buttons, blank spaces and default fonts...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Ugly themes
by Eruaran on Sat 31st Jan 2009 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ugly themes"
Eruaran Member since:
2009-01-25

It looks like it's from the mid-90's.


Funny, I don't remember seeing any desktop that looked like KDE 4.2 back in the 1990's. Perhaps you need to install a copy of Windows 95 or maybe OS/2 to refresh your memory...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Ugly themes
by superstoned on Sun 1st Feb 2009 19:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ugly themes"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

hehe, funny to hear you don't like the widget style - most ppl don't like the plasma style and DO like the Oxygen widget style...

Either way, it's themable ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ugly themes
by GMFlash on Tue 27th Jan 2009 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Ugly themes"
GMFlash Member since:
2006-06-30

I also think the Oxygen theme looks dated and unbalanced (the spacing buttons in the top right of the window / contrast). While not perfect, I think OS X and Windows 7's themes are a lot easier on the eyes and should be studied for inspiration. I currently use the iLeopard theme on OS X which is the best I've seen on any operating system.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Ugly themes
by helf on Tue 27th Jan 2009 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ugly themes"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

yeah, i really don't like how it looks either. Has WAY too much empty space all over the place and i dislike how the control widgets look. Thank god its themable (is that a word? ;) ) ;)

But don't listen to me, I can't stand the way most newer guis look. I don't want lots of rounded edges, transparency (unless its helpful, which it is generally not), gradients, 'shiny' icons and crap. ugh. makes me want to vomit.

most modern guis don't seem to care how much space they take up since everyone runs 20+ " displays and really high resolutions (yeah, right..).. I'd rather keep my minimalistic UI and be able to see more data.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Ugly themes
by Isolationist on Wed 28th Jan 2009 09:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ugly themes"
Isolationist Member since:
2006-05-28

I also think the Oxygen theme looks dated and unbalanced (the spacing buttons in the top right of the window / contrast). While not perfect, I think OS X and Windows 7's themes are a lot easier on the eyes and should be studied for inspiration. I currently use the iLeopard theme on OS X which is the best I've seen on any operating system.


I suppose this is highly subjective, but have to agree that I am not that impressed with the Oxygen theme; it looks very heavy looking to me with little contrast and doesn't go well with the black used for plasmoids, etc. Just my opinion, and my taste probably differs to most.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ugly themes
by orestes on Tue 27th Jan 2009 22:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Ugly themes"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Some of the individual icons are quite nice, but on the whole the theme is disjointed, poorly laid out, and generally unappealing IMHO. Give me something like SUSE's tweaked KDE4 theme any day of the year.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Ugly themes
by 3rdalbum on Wed 28th Jan 2009 09:29 UTC in reply to "Ugly themes"
3rdalbum Member since:
2008-05-26

I used to be a Gnome user (couldn't stand KDE 3.5), but KDE 4.1 really got under my skin and I just *had* to switch to it. I can't wait to upgrade to Jaunty so I can get the new KDE 4.2 goodness :-)

Try KDE 4, you might just like it (although Gnome is a little better integrated at the moment).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ugly themes
by Eruaran on Sat 31st Jan 2009 19:01 UTC in reply to "Ugly themes"
Eruaran Member since:
2009-01-25

Considering how ugly Gnome is by default its rather interesting that a Gnome user sees fit to criticize KDE's default theme (which is dead easy to change) without any sense of irony.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Ugly themes
by superstoned on Sun 1st Feb 2009 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Ugly themes"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Just shows how taste is hard to discuss ;-)

Many have fallen in love with Oxygen, but some don't like it. Well, you can't please everybody. At least Oxygen isn't as IN-YOUR-FACE as the XP theme was ;)

Reply Score: 2

Well done Thom
by kragil on Tue 27th Jan 2009 19:29 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

I especially liked the interview. Aaron was humble and honest. I don't know but the whole tone of this "The answer" release is very low on marketing buzz words and hype. Very well done.

Personally I cannot wait for sonnet to get language detection. I will use 4.2 anyways ;) but I'll switch once 4.3beta is out.

Reply Score: 5

...
by Hiev on Tue 27th Jan 2009 20:14 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Not that bad, not that great.

Reply Score: 0

Offtopic
by robojerk on Tue 27th Jan 2009 20:54 UTC
robojerk
Member since:
2006-01-10
RE: Offtopic
by acobar on Tue 27th Jan 2009 23:32 UTC in reply to "Offtopic"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

I keep updating it on one of my systems. Nice project but still a long path to go.

Reply Score: 3

Off topic?
by zegenie on Tue 27th Jan 2009 21:55 UTC
zegenie
Member since:
2005-12-31

And once again, the discussion is only about whether or not releasing 4.0 was a good ting or not. TBH, I'd say that whole discussion is off topic in this news.

Sheesh, some people will just never let go.

Reply Score: 4

Just want to say...
by Moochman on Tue 27th Jan 2009 22:12 UTC
Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

Many thanks to the KDE devs! Awesome work!

Watching those videos was indeed an eye-opener. 4.2 looks like it has a achieved a level of polish I think the devs can be very proud of.

I also want to take this opportunity to correct the misconception I may have created made when recently I mentioned 4.x's "shortcomings" and subsequently got entangled in a huge debate about whether there were any or not. Namely, that on the whole I don't think KDE 4 sucks, as a matter of fact I never have, and in fact I think KDE 4 is awesome.

Yes, I whined a bit that the theme is too gray, the preferences still too haphazard, and the icons still not allowed on the desktop by default ;) . But these nitpicks are absolutely nothing compared to the awesome benefits one gets: Subtle and useful desktop effects! Expose-like functionality! Custom desktops for every season! A ridiculously complete and awesome suite of applications! Awesome technologies for developers!

From this point on I will only sing KDE 4.2+'s praises. (After I try it out myself of course.) ;)

Reply Score: 3

Machiavelli
by JMcCarthy on Wed 28th Jan 2009 01:41 UTC
JMcCarthy
Member since:
2005-08-12

i think 4.0 was only a disaster from an end-users perspective, from the perspective of a developer that realizes people don't test beta/alpha software I don't think it could've been more successful.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Machiavelli
by akulkis on Sat 31st Jan 2009 02:53 UTC in reply to "Machiavelli"
akulkis Member since:
2008-10-21

I suppose if you think alienating the user base into never trusting you is a good thing, then it's a success.

On the other hand, most projects, both in the computer world, and in the rest of life, consider alienation of trust as a colassal failure, no matter how good the end product -- and for good reason -- if nobody trusts you, then they're never going to use (or contribute to the further advancement) of your project.

I will never trust another thing Aaron Seigo is involved with in any capacity beyond "coding drone" -- certainly nothing in which he is part of the leadership. For the short term advancement of his project, he has sabotaged untold numbers of Linux conversions by the newbies who blindly installed KDE 4 not realizing that it was still a crock of alpha-ware.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Machiavelli
by superstoned on Sun 1st Feb 2009 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Machiavelli"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Then again he played a big role in the development of technologies which made KDE ready for the future. The few chased away by 4.0 will be replaced by the millions who will finally have a good alternative to proprietary software in KDE 4.x.

Reply Score: 2

Impressive amounts of OS X ripoffs :)
by aliquis on Wed 28th Jan 2009 03:39 UTC
aliquis
Member since:
2005-07-23

... not that it's a bad thing or so. Quite a lot of spaces, expose, active corners and coverflow in there ;)

Edited 2009-01-28 03:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2

JMcCarthy Member since:
2005-08-12

... not that it's a bad thing or so. Quite a lot of spaces, expose, active corners and coverflow in there ;)


I think with spaces it may be the other way around. Virtual desktops in general, but Kompose in particular dates back long before spaces was announced, I know Compiz had it before Apple did, but not sure if they thought of it before them though.


Animation is built on plagiarism! If it weren't for someone plagiarizing The Honeymooners, we wouldn't have The Flintstones. If someone hadn't ripped off Sergeant Bilko, there'd be no Top Cat. Huckleberry Hound, Chief Wiggum, Yogi Bear? Hah! Andy Griffith, Edward G. Robinson, Art Carney.


Just as applicable to software. :-)

Reply Score: 3

what about kde 4.0 ??
by Yagami on Wed 28th Jan 2009 08:53 UTC
Yagami
Member since:
2006-07-15

seriously , i just dont realllly get it !

its not like osX 10.0 , windows Vista, Gnome 2.0, X 4.0, kernel 2.6.0 , kernel 2.4.0, pulseaudio whatever version, alot of Fedora releases, and probably a whole lot of other examples, where stable and great releases out of the box !

its always the same with all releases ! the inicial release is always missing alot of things !

Reply Score: 3

FLAME ON!
by Xenu on Wed 28th Jan 2009 19:02 UTC
Xenu
Member since:
2008-03-02

Alright, I wanted to get this point across.

I find the notion that version numbers are meaningless and that, at the same time, that the KDE 4.0 release was beneficial to the project to be contradictory, even borderline delusional.

If release numbers (however arbitrary) were indeed meaningless, then why would slapping the '.0' moniker on a product attract users, and thus contribute to the testing and adoption of the software?

Why would the hardcore testers pay any more attention to the released version of a product than to the development version? The people who want to test beta (or alpha or whatever other Greek letter-coded development stage) software would have been already informed through the ample coverage on blogs and news aggregators and the like of the need of their services, and would be already running it as it is on the repository, without the need of a '.0' tag hanging from it.

The only people who would flock to download such a release are the regular users, who would rather wait until the project reaches the fabled status instead of just downloading development snapshots because they have different expectations on released software. It is to that (rather big) segment of the user base to whom the version number appealed, because they assign a meaning to it, and if it was truly meaningless there wouldn't have been any need or gain to label KDE 4.0 as such.

If it was not for these assumptions on '.0' software, the release itself would have been meaningless. Now quit denying it!

Reply Score: 6

RE: FLAME ON!
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 28th Jan 2009 19:24 UTC in reply to "FLAME ON!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If release numbers (however arbitrary) were indeed meaningless, then why would slapping the '.0' moniker on a product attract users, and thus contribute to the testing and adoption of the software?


Bingo.

Reply Score: 1

RE: FLAME ON!
by Panajev on Wed 28th Jan 2009 21:18 UTC in reply to "FLAME ON!"
Panajev Member since:
2008-01-09

If it was not for these assumptions on '.0' software, the release itself would have been meaningless. Now quit denying it!


People could dance across that point and try to morph it into not saying users were tricked in doing Beta/RC release testing by saying that it was not intended for every-day-user, but we have to go back to even what Seigo himself said (and which I quoted a few posts above this one)... .0 usually has a definite meaning and that meaning attracts developers, testers, and users and that is why they did not want to keep doing Beta builds and RC builds... they knew that it would have still taken them a year to get to KDE 4.2 (or at best 6 months or so to get to KDE 4.1) and they did not want to stay 6-12 more months in Beta (or more because they feared that there would have been less contributors so they would have taken even more time to get to KDE 4.1 and KDE 4.2...).

Reply Score: 1

RE: FLAME ON!
by Soulbender on Thu 29th Jan 2009 09:34 UTC in reply to "FLAME ON!"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The primary meaning of a version number is what the developers of the product assign to it. If they say .0 mean, this time, that it is not ready for production use then it is YOUR problem, and no one else's, if you fail to follow their advice and stubbornly continue to think it will mean what you want it to mean.
Different projects and products use version numbers differently. Sometimes this changes over time.
Grow up and and deal with it.

Edited 2009-01-29 09:35 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: FLAME ON!
by Xenu on Thu 29th Jan 2009 14:50 UTC in reply to "RE: FLAME ON!"
Xenu Member since:
2008-03-02

The primary meaning of a version number is what the developers of the product assign to it. If they say .0 mean, this time, that it is not ready for production use then it is YOUR problem, and no one else's, if you fail to follow their advice and stubbornly continue to think it will mean what you want it to mean.
Different projects and products use version numbers differently. Sometimes this changes over time.
Grow up and and deal with it.


And there we disagree. Words have connotations, and it is common knowledge, an implicit understanding, that .0 implies some maturity in the software. If there was hope that with new labeling more users would come, it would only be because they acknowledged that a released version is somehow distinct to a development one, and that this difference is somehow appealing to regular users. I think that from the backslash one could learn what this difference is...

I think that the acceptance of this distinction would be the mature gesture in this case. In fact, one could recall some arguments being made in defense of the release based on the notion that KDE is an application framework, and that KDE 4.0 was sufficiently mature at the time. Still, end users have nothing to do testing application frameworks, and there should be no expectancy of them doing so, .0 or not.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: FLAME ON!
by lemur2 on Thu 29th Jan 2009 22:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: FLAME ON!"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Still, end users have nothing to do testing application frameworks, and there should be no expectancy of them doing so, .0 or not.


Sorry, but that is not the case for FOSS software. End user involvement in testing application frameworks is a critical part of the way that FOSS is developed. x.0 releases are precisely the timeframe in which this occurs.

If you, personally, do not want to be involved, then don't be. Wait for a few releases to pass by. Wait for the x.2 or x.3 release. This applied for KDE 3 just as much as KDE 4 ... KDE 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 were very much developmental versions, and you really didn't want to run it in a production environment sense until at least KDE 3.3. Likewise for GNOME ... 2.4 was the first version that you would possibly want to run.

Your lack of desire to be involved during those early testing phases in FOSS (x.0 and x.1), and your lack of understanding that this is the way that FOSS is developed, in no way invalidates the process.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: FLAME ON!
by akulkis on Sat 31st Jan 2009 02:57 UTC in reply to "RE: FLAME ON!"
akulkis Member since:
2008-10-21

Well then, Soulbender, if I call you a murderer, and in my mind, and publicize it around the world, when in my mind, I assign the word "murderer" to mean "person"....
that would be OK with you, because assigning new, random meanings is not deceptively contrary to clear communication?

Sorry, MORON, but you're just another disingenous sophist.

Reply Score: 1

RE: FLAME ON!
by PandaMine on Fri 30th Jan 2009 03:23 UTC in reply to "FLAME ON!"
PandaMine Member since:
2009-01-29

Wrong, you know why dev's slap on that 0?

It often means that they have remade a whole system, changed a lot of stuff and redefined everything.

Slapping on a 0 does NOT mean a system is stable, it almost ALWAYS means a software project has been completely overhauled.

If KDE didn't go to the trouble of changing everything over to API's and using a different paradigm, they would have just released 3.6,3.7 etc etc.

In the free software world x.0 releases have 95% of the time meant, "we are redoing a lot of things, a lot of things will change, do NOT expect it to be bug free" and 95% of free software products have shown that

Edited 2009-01-30 03:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: FLAME ON!
by Daniel Borgmann on Fri 30th Jan 2009 10:10 UTC in reply to "RE: FLAME ON!"
Daniel Borgmann Member since:
2005-07-08

The version number 1.0 generally stands for "the first stable and feature-complete release". Changing this expectation for every following .0 release to the opposite seems extremely odd and counter-intuitive to me.

If you redo everything and don't have parallel stable/development release numbers, the only versioning scheme that makes sense to me is to give the whole thing a new name, possibly including a number. E.g. "KDE 4" version 0.1. Commercial projects often do that, and I don't see why not.

Nobody expects a .0 release to be flawless, but it definitely shouldn't be a beta version either.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: FLAME ON!
by PandaMine on Sat 31st Jan 2009 00:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: FLAME ON!"
PandaMine Member since:
2009-01-29

No it doesn't, and it rarely has (in the FOSS world). If you actually read what people have said in the comments, x.0 releases have never been "stable" (the only exception being 1.0) . Whether this be gnome 2.0 or any other piece of software, x.0's have always meant the software has been remade or rewritten so therefore don't expect it to be stable

Because you put a label of x.0's being stable doesn't mean the developers should follow that model

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: FLAME ON!
by Daniel Borgmann on Sat 31st Jan 2009 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: FLAME ON!"
Daniel Borgmann Member since:
2005-07-08

"(the only exception being 1.0)"

Which was my point. And no, GNOME 2.0 was not meant to be an unstable release, there has been a separate branch for this purpose (I believe it was 1.99 or something like that). Yes, .0 releases always tend to be unstable (GNOME 2.0 definitely was) because they are young, all I am saying is that I find it counter-intuitive and rather misguiding to assign a different meaning to 1.0 than to every other .0 release.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: FLAME ON!
by PandaMine on Sun 1st Feb 2009 00:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: FLAME ON!"
PandaMine Member since:
2009-01-29

The main reason why is that 1.0's are often seen as the first non alpha/beta release of a product, so they at least want the software product to be stable.

First impressions count, even in the software world, and if the first release of a product is very unstable or unusable it gets a bad reputation which is very hard to clear (even if you do fix the problems.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: FLAME ON!
by akulkis on Sat 31st Jan 2009 02:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: FLAME ON!"
akulkis Member since:
2008-10-21

The version number 1.0 generally stands for "the first stable and feature-complete release". Changing this expectation for every following .0 release to the opposite seems extremely odd and counter-intuitive to me.

If you redo everything and don't have parallel stable/development release numbers, the only versioning scheme that makes sense to me is to give the whole thing a new name, possibly including a number. E.g. "KDE 4" version 0.1. Commercial projects often do that, and I don't see why not.

Nobody expects a .0 release to be flawless, but it definitely shouldn't be a beta version either.



and that's why you use qualifiers, like "alpha" "beta" and "developer's release"... you moron3.0.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: FLAME ON!
by Daniel Borgmann on Sat 31st Jan 2009 15:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: FLAME ON!"
Daniel Borgmann Member since:
2005-07-08

Yes that is one possibility, Jerk 1.0.

Reply Score: 2

v KDE 4.2 ugliness
by Jason Bourne on Wed 28th Jan 2009 23:37 UTC
RE: KDE 4.2 ugliness
by lemur2 on Thu 29th Jan 2009 00:10 UTC in reply to "KDE 4.2 ugliness"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

For Heaven's sake, who was in charge to elect this horrible non-sense Vista-like theme in KDE4? There are of course other themes, but Oxygen is *ugly*. And where's K3B/4 ? There is no K3B/4 !!!


The "3b" part of the name K3b stands for "burn baby, burn". Hence, the KDE4 version will not be K4b.

K3b development seems to have hit a wall at the moment.

K3b is not part of the KDE desktop, it is rather a KDE application.

To burn CDs and DVDs on KDE 4.2, one can either use the KDE3 version of K3b compiled to work on KDE4, or one can use something else. My suggestion would be Brasero.

Even though Brasero claims to be an "application to burn CD/DVD for the Gnome Desktop" it is not particularly specific to the GNOME desktop at all.

http://projects.gnome.org/brasero/

PS: having said that, you would want to make sure it doesn't try to install beagle, which is a Mono application.

It really is just a GTK GUI over the standard cd tools on Linux.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brasero_(software)

Brasero is a free disc-burning program for Unix-like systems, which serves as a graphical front-end (using GTK+) to cdrtools, growisofs, and (optionally) libburn.


I could write almost exactly the same description for K3b by replacing the text "GTK+" with "Qt".

I have no comment on "prettiness" or "ugliness" or otherwise. Make up your own mind:

http://www.lampwebsitedesign.com/index.php?linux&release=KDE%20...

Edited 2009-01-29 00:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: KDE 4.2 ugliness
by iain.dalton on Thu 29th Jan 2009 05:58 UTC in reply to "RE: KDE 4.2 ugliness"
iain.dalton Member since:
2006-02-28

I think Brasero and K3B use different backends because Brasero always errors out instead of burning a disc, while K3B does not. I'm a GNOME user who uses K3B because of this.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: KDE 4.2 ugliness
by lemur2 on Thu 29th Jan 2009 09:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: KDE 4.2 ugliness"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I think Brasero and K3B use different backends because Brasero always errors out instead of burning a disc, while K3B does not. I'm a GNOME user who uses K3B because of this.


Hmmm. I didn't have trouble with it.

OK, you can still use K3B with KDE4, but you must have Qt3 and the KDE 3 libraries co-installed. This causes no harm, but you do start collecting a lot of libraries.

Anyone know of a native KDE4 alternative to K3B?

There is a SVN version of K3B for KDE4, but I don't know how well it works.

http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/KDE/2008-11/msg00171.html

http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/extragear/multimedia/k3b/

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: KDE 4.2 ugliness
by WereCatf on Thu 29th Jan 2009 11:26 UTC in reply to "RE: KDE 4.2 ugliness"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

The "3b" part of the name K3b stands for "burn baby, burn". Hence, the KDE4 version will not be K4b.

K3b development seems to have hit a wall at the moment.


Hmm, good to know that. I absolutely hate mixing up toolkits, I never use QT apps on my GNOME desktop and as such I don't wish to use any QT3 or GTK+ apps on KDE4 desktop..This just poses one issue: there is no QT4 burning application, is there?

I did try KDE4.0 when it came but it was a disaster. Of course the underlying tech showed promise..but the desktop itself kept crashing, it screwed up my GNOME mennu entries and file associations and so forth. I was planning to try KDE4.2 now that it is released, but there apparently aren't RPMs available for my distro. So I guess I'll have to wait.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: KDE 4.2 ugliness
by lemur2 on Thu 29th Jan 2009 22:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: KDE 4.2 ugliness"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Hmm, good to know that. I absolutely hate mixing up toolkits, I never use QT apps on my GNOME desktop and as such I don't wish to use any QT3 or GTK+ apps on KDE4 desktop. This just poses one issue: there is no QT4 burning application, is there?


I can't see any problem at all with Qt applications on a GNOME desktop. For example, VLC and SMPlayer are both Qt4 applications (as opposed to being KDE applications) and they both run fine in a GNOME, XFCE or even lighter environment such as LXDE.

Qt applications are perhaps the very best applications in terms of being able to run on different underlying systems. For example, VLC on Windows is still a Qt application, and it looks and behaves almost exactly the same.

Likewise, I can't see any problem with GTK+ applications on a KDE4 desktop. They too run fine in most distributions, because there is a KDE configuration tool available which sets the look & feel of the GTK+ applications to follow the KDE desktop settings. This works reasonably well, but one does have to tolerate GNOME's awkward file selection dialog boxes when you open or save a file in such applications. Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice and GIMP are all fairly standard GTK+ applications typically included on a KDE distribution.

I do agree about not having a mix of compiled-for-KDE3 and compiled-for-KDE4 applications. However, many distributions seem to be able to take a KDE3 application, such as K3b, and compile it for running under KDE4. AFAIK, this does not involve the KDE3 libraries, instead the applications are linked with compatible entry points to the KDE4 libraries. The result still looks like, and behaves like, a KDE3 application, but AFAIK it actually uses the KDE4 libraries. Amarok (less than version 2) and K3b are applications like this that, AFAIK, are KDE3 applications but compiled-for-KDE4 on some KDE4 distributions.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: KDE 4.2 ugliness
by WereCatf on Fri 30th Jan 2009 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: KDE 4.2 ugliness"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I can't see any problem at all with Qt applications on a GNOME desktop. For example, VLC and SMPlayer are both Qt4 applications (as opposed to being KDE applications) and they both run fine in a GNOME, XFCE or even lighter environment such as LXDE.

Qt applications are perhaps the very best applications in terms of being able to run on different underlying systems. For example, VLC on Windows is still a Qt application, and it looks and behaves almost exactly the same.


It's not the issue of not working correctly. It's the issue of the application looking and feeling like it's out of place. VLC does not in any shape or form feel like a GNOME application and as such I severely hate using it. That's why I don't even have it installed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: KDE 4.2 ugliness
by Jason Bourne on Thu 29th Jan 2009 14:38 UTC in reply to "RE: KDE 4.2 ugliness"
Jason Bourne Member since:
2007-06-02

Make up my mind? That menu will never make up my mind. Instead, it will puzzle my mind. Whoever was in charge, convinced others, and made a big mistake. I believe KickOff is one of the reasons why so many users have left KDE (including Linus Torvalds).

Oxygene would be the second reason because it's just flat, unconsistent, a breed of Vista-cross-OSX-Aqua thing. Third reason would be the crash-party show although there are many people saying it doesn't *EVER* crash anymore. The fourth reason is the toolkit mix up and ugliness, Qt3 inside Qt4 based desktop, not mentioning GTK applications and the horrible way they behave.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: KDE 4.2 ugliness
by lemur2 on Thu 29th Jan 2009 22:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: KDE 4.2 ugliness"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I believe KickOff is one of the reasons why so many users have left KDE (including Linus Torvalds).


Oh come on! How precious can you get!

Just set Kickoff to classic mode via a right-click, or alternatively remove Kickoff and put a Lancelot menu plasmoid on your panel in its place.

Problem solved.

Other "reasons" (really just preferences): all solved by a bit of settings tweaking.

http://randomtechoutburst.blogspot.com/2009/01/kde-42-im-tired-of-p...

In other words, "try the fish" (if this were a resteraunt) ... or more literally, "try Bespin and Skulpture".

http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/6651/1/

Edited 2009-01-29 22:26 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Back on the topic of KDE 4.2
by lemur2 on Thu 29th Jan 2009 02:14 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3799116/Is+KDE+42+...

Of interest to people who may like to try out KDE 4.2, and assess the improvements for themselves, comes the news that "Fedora is planning on including KDE 4.2 in the upcoming Fedora 11 Alpha set for February 3rd", and that "some features from KDE 4.2 were backported into the OpenSUSE 11.1 release last month".

Also in the comments, one finds that "KDE 4.2 is now available in rawhide (Fedora development tree) and will be pushed as an update to Fedora 10 and Fedora 9 users shortly".

Recent pre-releases of Kubuntu Jaunty Jackalope Alpha 3:
http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=05286
https://wiki.kubuntu.org/JauntyJackalope/Alpha3/Kubuntu
and Mandriva 2009.1 Alpha 2:
http://distrowatch.com/5290

both include KDE 4.2 RC1, so no doubt the next pre-release of these distributions will include the KDE 4.2 release.

Edited 2009-01-29 02:16 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Back on the topic of KDE 4.2
by Bille on Thu 29th Jan 2009 06:59 UTC in reply to "Back on the topic of KDE 4.2"
Bille Member since:
2007-05-31

openSUSE users can find out how to get KDE 4.2.0 for all maintained versions of openSUSE here:

http://en.opensuse.org/KDE/KDE4#Factory_KDE_Project_.28KDE_4.2.x.29

Reply Score: 2

A positive take on KDE4
by lemur2 on Thu 29th Jan 2009 10:09 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

http://randomtechoutburst.blogspot.com/2009/01/kde-42-im-tired-of-p...

So I am writing this rant on the eve of the release of KDE 4.2, and in the face of interviews from Linus Torvalds stating that he abandoned KDE after the 4.0 release, and partially in response to Steven Vaugh-Nichols negatively equating 4.2 to Windows 7. My bottom line: I've been using KDE since around the time version 2 came out, and while KDE 4.2 is not perfection, it is better than the 3.5 series, and as of right now 4.2 is easily my favorite Linux desktop... and this rant will address some complaints I've seen and to dissect which complaints are warranted and which are not.


I think this answers most of the KDE4 critics quite well. Your mileage may, of course, vary.

Reply Score: 3

RE: A positive take on KDE4
by akulkis on Sat 31st Jan 2009 03:04 UTC in reply to "A positive take on KDE4"
akulkis Member since:
2008-10-21

Hey, Lemur...guess what.
Users don't like being lied to.

I've been withing the sphere of FOSS software since the early 80's..and I've never seen such stupendously asinine behavior among any development group as what the KDE 4 team has done.

The whole FOSS movement DEPENDS ON TRUST.
Seigo and his underlings at KDE violated that trust.
There's no excuse for it... PERIOD.

And likewise, there's no excuse for morons and idiots like you defending that violation of trust.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: A positive take on KDE4
by Eruaran on Sat 31st Jan 2009 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE: A positive take on KDE4"
Eruaran Member since:
2009-01-25

"Users don't like being lied to"

You weren't lied to. Your incessant verbal excrement needs to stop. If it doesn't, I for one am tempted to start speculating as to what your real motives are and possibly who might be paying you to post your offensive drivel since your overly shrill diatribes smell like the work of an immature and overly excitable astroturfer.


"I've been withing the sphere of FOSS software since the early 80's..and I've never seen such stupendously asinine behavior among any development group as what the KDE 4 team has done."

1. How old and grumpy you claim to be is irrelevant.
2. The only thing "stupendously asinine" here, are your own comments.


"The whole FOSS movement DEPENDS ON TRUST.
Seigo and his underlings at KDE violated that trust.
There's no excuse for it... PERIOD."


While KDE 4.0 was a disappointment to many end users, 4.2 is truly beginning to shine and the hard work they have done is starting to really pay off. No one has violated "that trust". And since when did Aaron Seigo and the KDE team owe you anything anyway ? Its Free Software, it owes you nothing and nobody forces you to use it. So quit the self righteous indignation as if you're owed something. If you think their work could be improved on then participate, start making commits and bless everyone with your supreme coding prowess and show everybody how it ought to be done. If you can't code, then at least offer the KDE team some constructive feedback. Taking the very transparent and easily accessible work of the KDE team and accusing people of lying and violating your trust is completely ridiculous.

If you're looking for people you who have "violated that trust" then talk to the people who pollute Free Software with highly questionable things like Mono and Moonlight. Go have a chat with the likes of Miguel de Icaza and his "we love all things Microsoft" pals at Novell and Redmond, who are serving no one's interests but Microsoft's.


"And likewise, there's no excuse for morons and idiots like you defending that violation of trust."

Morons and idiots ? Look in the mirror sunshine.

Reply Score: 1

RE: the multitude of posts by akulkis
by Kokopelli on Sat 31st Jan 2009 14:28 UTC
Kokopelli
Member since:
2005-07-06

Akukis:

I happen to agree with much of your arguments of KDE 4.0 but would appreciate it if you could tone down your diatribe a bit. To compare coverage of the hard work of an open source development team to the work of the Nazi propoganda team is inappropriate and more than a little disrespectful.

In the opinion of many people, including some of the KDE team, 4.0 was a mistake or at the very least could have been handled better. And I expect it will be a debated part of KDE's history for quite some time to come. But keep it civil.

The KDE team has made massive strides in the last year up to the 4.2 release. They have shown a keen awareness of what users have found lacking and have worked to add back features that are asked for. I have significant problems with KDE 4.X (including 4.2 final) that prevent me from using it as my primary desktop. At the same time I do feel compelled to acknowledge the great work being done.

The team went into the KDE 4 development cycle with good intentions and continue to work on it faithfully. I think with time the KDE 4 will live up to most, if not all, of the ideals that went into its planning. There will be some who are disappointed and move on to other environments. There will be others who like it and bolster the ranks of the KDE faithful. But based on history of other less than graceful development cycles by other products the woes will be forgotten by most soon after the product stabilizes again. 4.2 was not that stabilizing release but I think it will be coming soon. I am sure there will be some who never "forgive" and continue to carry a grudge against the KDE team and KDE in general, but it will be a small number.

I am drifting off the reason for this missive though. Regardless of your opinion of the product, the developers, or the advocates, be civil. Attacking distracts from the message you are trying to send. You are not the only one attacking but you have taken it up a notch beyond what is reasonable. At least for the usual fare of OSNews.

Reply Score: 2