Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Mar 2011 18:59 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y And over the weekend, the saga regarding Canonical, GNOME, and KDE has continued. Lots of comments all over the web, some heated, some well-argued, some wholly indifferent. Most interestingly, Jeff Waugh and Dave Neary have elaborated on GNOME's position after the initial blog posts by Shuttleworth and Seigo, providing a more coherent look at GNOME's side of the story.
Permalink for comment 466149
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Grow the **** up...
by oiaohm on Tue 15th Mar 2011 05:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Grow the **** up... "
Member since:

"Well don't get involved in the politics then because most of the time, facts get lost in the FUD.

Users are actually just as bad, if not worse, slagging off KDE4.0 and GNOME 3.0 even before they have been released.

I for tested KDE 4.0 marked STABLE and it was still alpha quality software at that stage. GNOME 3.0's ridiculous design decision of hiding Shutdown button is a worthy of criticism.

That was unfortunate error. KDE 4.0 is what happens when marketing and developers don't understand each other. KDE 4.0 was released as a stable api/abi reference for application developers. Somewhere between lead developers and the marketing sections of the KDE teams the "api/abi reference for application developers" Got lost. Stable api/abi for applications developers does not mean all the applications sitting on top were stable.

Very sorry for you pain. allenregistos. At the time I was unable to correct the media teams incorrect understanding of what the developers said. Its one of those unfortunate errors. KDE media release policy has been changed since then that statements on upcoming releases have to go back past lead developer to check if they have been interpreted correctly. So hopefully that was a one off nightmare.

Yes there is another issue of course. There is no word to mark a clear difference between ABI/API reference release and a end user version. Something that still has to be invented.

Reply Parent Score: 6