Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2008 14:41 UTC, submitted by superstoned
KDE "I think it's really necessary to respond to some criticism seen on the reactions to the latest OSnews article. I won't go into the article itself, imho it's rather negative, but hey. From an user's perspective, it makes sense to only review 3 or 4 parts of KDE 4 and complain about them, and ignore all the other brilliant pieces of work in there, right? On to the responses, I found this reaction by dagw to be the most typical. Well. That's painful. So, is he right? Did we make the wrong decision? Let's look at it from a broader perspective for a while. Let's see it in the Grand Scheme of Things to Come."
Permalink for comment 295867
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: KDE unique?
by GeneralZod on Mon 14th Jan 2008 15:58 UTC in reply to "KDE unique?"
Member since:

"I don't quite understand what this article is trying to say. Most OSS projects are very careful with their reputation for quality, often staying at 0.9.x for longer than they really needed to."

The 0.9.x series generally culminates in a 1.0.0 release. KDE did exactly the same for KDE 1.0.0, IIRC. Projects generally behave the same up to 1.0.0: it usually represents the refinement of a well-tested existing code-base until is is declared "production-ready". Post-1.0.0, versioning schemes often work differently, as is the case with KDE and GNOME (see below), so I'm not sure why you bring this up in the context of a 4.0.0 release.

"Are we to understand that KDE is unique in that it is OK for them to push something out the door that they know is not release quality and call it going gold? "

No, in fact it is in the company of luminaries such as GNOME (GNOME 2.0.0) and the Linux kernel (2.6.0), both of which were first releases of *major* departures from the well-established GNOME 1.x.y and Linux 2.4.x codebase, and both of which thoroughly sucked. I'm sure that students of open source history can furnish us with other examples. Heck, we even see the same in the proprietary world: OS X 10.0 shared the same attributes as GNOME 2.0.0 and Linux 2.6.0 - big break; big breakage.

GNOME and KDE both use the same versioning scheme: up to 1.0.0 is the process of refinement up to production-readines; x.0.0 for x>1 is explicitly noted as the first step in a major *break* from the production ready code (more precisely, it is a break in the API, which generally results in significant code-base re-writes).

So personally, I'd turn your question on its head: is KDE so unique that its x.0.0 releases be held to a far higher standard than other core Free Software projects?

Edited 2008-01-14 16:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 9