Submitted by The KDE 4 release team started a discussion about a possible release schedule for KDE 4. Of course nothing is set yet but the topic is now hot and some interesting problems and point of views come up. In other but related news Oxygen hit the mirrors, or better, kdelibs.
It will be released prolly the 4th quarter of 2007, I think is perfect, not to rushed not to late.
Let’s finish with 3.5.x bugs first and then start releasing vaporware. If you’ll look what’s going on in 3.5.x development and look at bugs database then KDE guys should start worrying WTF they are doing.
Looks like all major KDE base distributions got in-house fixed code and won’t release it until their products are available on market for some time. I understand perfectly why they do that but quality of current code is really questionable.
IMHO.
I agree. On BSD, KDE triggers all sorts of bugs all the time. Also, there’s a HUGE list of bugs and feature requests marked as “WORKSFORME” so that they are not implemented. I’m disappointed.
It works well on linux. If you want better BSD support, code it, is that simple. KDE developers are not going to stop people from contributing KDE. More BSD developers involved in KDE -> more people who can say “hey, this may work in linux but it may be different in BSD” when someone proposes something.
And KDE 4 runs in many platforms – windows, os x – so it’ll be easier to find non-linux bugs.
Edited 2007-03-08 01:01
Great idea, but it’s already taken. KDE developers are still working on the 3.5 branch, and there’s a 3.5.7 update due out eventually. Do some research before before getting all upset.
Well, i beg to differ,i think the buggy kde code comes from the in house code hackers……….. when you run a source distro like gentoo or lunar where the code is only slightly modified if at all it tends to be much less buggy.
not saying it’s perfect, but the kde deves do a great job, and most of the time when things get screwed up it is the distros that do it not the the kde team
try a vanilla kde install and you will see what i mean.
now, onto the vaporware issue….. … you do realize that kde releases regular updates on their kde4 project right?…i mean really, to say something is vaporware that has code available for inspection is ridiculous.
reading that thread has curbed my ‘addiction’ to seeing a KDE 4 DE.
not that this is a bad thing in any way, i still want KDE 4 as reckon it will rock, but i want to see it complete, unified, in all its many core and ancillary parts.
in which case, what i really want is KDE 4.1 by the looks of things.
the upshot of this discussion is that i regain my focus on the upcoming 3.5.x distro releases like the Sabayon 3.3 series without pining for the distant glories or a KDE 4 DE.
Edited 2007-03-07 23:54
Yup, the initial release of KDE 4 will be nice I think, but probably not that spectacular yet. But I imagine it will provide a solid base for 4.1, 4.2, … that’s when things will get spectacular.
In the meantime, there’s nothing much wrong with 3.5.x though. Or you could try out Gnome, XFCE, WindowMaker (I actually really like that one although I never ‘stuck’ with it for some reason), Fluxbox, …
Nevertheless, I’ll try and be one of the first to take whichever distro includes KDE 4.0 first for a spin.
Edited 2007-03-08 09:42
I for one am pretty damn exited that KDE4 is starting to materialize. Anyone who didn’t think the KDE 4.0 release goals were optimistic is not in touch with reality.
The initial goals were lofty to create a robust framework, but that doesn’t mean 4.0 will not be _revolutionary_ or any less amazing. KDE 4+.x will be evolutionary and refine and build off the new and better core.
The move to CMake and QT4 are reason enough to be exited.
To the BSD whiners: reality is that most people don’t used BSD desktops. Can you really expect mainly Linux oriented KDE devs to know and fix all? I’m certain the KDE project would benefit from your patches and fixes for these problems, so please do something about it if it is that big of an itch to scratch. After all this is free open source software.
“The initial goals were lofty to create a robust framework, but that doesn’t mean 4.0 will not be _revolutionary_ or any less amazing. KDE 4+.x will be evolutionary and refine and build off the new and better core.”
Allthough KDE features a modular concept, it will still be consuming much HDD space and CPU time. But who cares, we have enough from both of them. 🙂
“The move to CMake and QT4 are reason enough to be exited.”
I see CMake and Qt4 as a good base for new applications that will promote Linux as a desktop platform. We’ll see if developers and users can benefit from it.
“To the BSD whiners: reality is that most people don’t used BSD desktops.”
Yes, that may be true, but there are people who use BSD desktops, especially those who use DesktopBSD and PC-BSD which come with KDE by default. (Personally, I use BSD as a desktop platform, but not with KDE.)
“Can you really expect mainly Linux oriented KDE devs to know and fix all? I’m certain the KDE project would benefit from your patches and fixes for these problems, so please do something about it if it is that big of an itch to scratch. After all this is free open source software.”
You’re right. Maybe the developers of PC-BSD and DesktopBSD will help to improve this situation.
You’re right. Maybe the developers of PC-BSD and DesktopBSD will help to improve this situation.
I have a feeling that you’ll find that most of the effort will be going into the integration of KDE 4.0 and BSD – KDE 3.x is coming to the end of its existance, and it makes little or no sense tying up resources adding features to 3.x when 4.x is going to be coming with in 6months, and will most likely hang around for another 2 2/1 years before another abi/api break.
With that being said, however, FreeBSD 7.x will provide an interesting backdrop to *NIX on the desktop; Xorg, FreeBSD 7.x, drivers being ported over like Intel 3945abg support, hopefully improved Nvidia support.
Edit: Kneed your paws with delight like a kitten; FreeBSD now has Intel firmware distribution rights! http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/03/prweb509818.htm
Edited 2007-03-08 01:35
Have you tried GNUstep? It has very excellent support in FreeBSD. Better than most (perhaps all) Linux distributions.
“Have you tried GNUstep? It has very excellent support in FreeBSD. Better than most (perhaps all) Linux distributions.”
Nice you mentioned it! Yes, I have. I feel familiar with ObjectiveC (because I prefer C oder C++, and ObjC feels like something as an OO wrapper around C while C++ and C# are completely different languages) and like the clean and professional look, which is a good “selling argument” if it’s up to professional software solutions (such as testing, diagnostics, data archiving and processing in clinical psychology / psychiatry).
Another thing that makes it superior (I hope I’m not insulting anyone with the use of this word) to KDE 3 and 4 is that it has very low hardware requirements. This’ll make a GNUstep based product attractive for those who do not want to buy a whole new computer park.
One problem could be the field of crossplattformimg, i. e. using GNUstep applications on Solaris and MacOS X…
> Anyone who didn’t think the KDE 4.0 release goals
> were optimistic is not in touch with reality
i think people got confused between “KDE4” and “KDE 4.0”. the former is a major release series (like KDE3) while the latter is a point release (like 3.0)
=)
Yeah, because that doesn’t confuse people…
If anyone wants to get an early idea of what Oxygen will feel like, you can grab it out of KDE SVN:
svn://anonsvn.kde.org/home/kde/trunk/playground/artwork/Oxygen
> If anyone wants to get an early idea of what Oxygen
> will feel like
yeah, except that the icons are no longer there; they are in kdelibs now. that’s actually what the news was all about, no?
as for the style that is in playground, it is -anything- but final. quite the opposite. the sound theme is still finding its feet. the cursors aren’t complete. etc.
yeah…that was the SVN link I used last month, and I only realized what the news item was trying to say after I tried to update my local copy
Update: I think this is the correct link now
svn://anonsvn.kde.org/home/kde/trunk/KDE/kdelibs/pics/oxygen
Edited 2007-03-08 01:06
yes. that’s the correct URI =)
In the article you can read this sentence:
“the oxygen icons are now in kdelibs and licensed under a creative commons v3 attribution, share-like license. libs and base are ported to the new icon names, and will be committed in the coming days along with a switch to oxygen as the default.”
Will this become a problem for KDE4 in Debian? I know that Debian has some issues with CC licenses. But i also know that they are working to solve them. Are they already solved with CCv3? It would be a disaster if the KDE icons would have to go into non-free.
> Will this become a problem for KDE4 in Debian?
it shouldn’t. the terms of the license are essentially the LGPL, only for artwork and not for source code.
> disaster if the KDE icons would have to go into
> non-free.
if debian was to pull one of their legendary stunts, we could quite easily dual license the icons. i’m hoping it won’t come to that.
the tango icons are also CC by-sa licensed. so it wouldn’t just be our disaster.
and the tango icons are in non-free. so yes, the “legendary stunt” is coming.
ok, give me the rational. seriously. which of the four freedoms doesn’t it meet? you know, besides not using a license RMS dreamed up.
>ok, give me the rational. seriously. which of the four freedoms doesn’t it meet? you know, besides not using a license RMS dreamed up.
Not RMS or the FSF is the problem.
The FSF consider the cc-by-sa as a free license, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses
The problem is Debian and their DFSG.
Here you can read what Debian think about the CC licenses: http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary
I’m with you and with the FSF, i consider this license as free too. But this doesn’t solve the “Debian problem”.
Hello Aaron,
the tango icons are also CC by-sa licensed. so it wouldn’t just be our disaster.
The reference Tango icon theme is licensed under the CC and is in Debian’s non-free repository. It’s not comparable to Oxygen though, as tango-icon-theme is simply a reference implementation of a guideline that no desktop depends on (GNOME ships its own icon theme based on the Tango guidelines under the GPL).
I think it would be a wise move to license Oxygen under the LGPL for other reasons as well: you’d make it absolutely clear that the icons can be used freely in any application (free or non-free), just like the rest of the code in the kdelibs package. The icons shipped by GTK+ are under the LGPL, for example.
> I think it would be a wise move to license Oxygen
> under the LGPL
personally i find using the *GPL to cover non-software products to be highly bizarre due to the rather software-specific language in the *GPL licenses. it’s a matter of license/contract appropriateness.
-if- it becomes a problem, then we can dual license it. of course that’s actually up to the artists, not me, but i’m sure they feel similarly given past discussions i’ve had with them =)
what i’d be interested in seeing is an actual legally trustworthy run down of the CC 3.0 BY-SA license that shows it isn’t compatible with GPL’d or proprietary software or is itself non-free. i don’t see the incompatibilities myself, but then i’m not a lawyer. i have heard that CC 3.0 was meant to address the issues raised in some circles about the 2.0 licenses, and the license certainly reads as Free to me.
if we can avoid innapropriate legalese in our licenses, that’d be great. i mean, the lgpl says at one point ‘A “library” means a collection of software functions and/or data prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application programs’ and then goes on to refer repeatedly to “the Library”. now, i suppose we could say “icons are data” and that the icons are, in some fashion, meant to be “linked with” application programs. but it’s all a bit more of a stretch than it needs to be if we simply used licenses meant to cover non-software creative works such as images or sound (as appropriate).
people are jumping the gun here as the release team is still discussing things.
it borders on poor form to start bringing this onto “news” sites when the release team hasn’t even had a chance to bring it to the kde developer community at large themselves.
no, i take that back. it doesn’t border on poor form, it is poor form.
please, let projects communicate to the world at their own pace. just because lists are public doesn’t mean the information is “finished” and ready for broad dissemination. this kind of behaviour encourages projects to become insular and secretive.
there is a huge amount of respect that is missing in the “downstream” communities these days and it does nothing but make the work of the “upstream” harder.
a disappointed hacker, aseigo.
it borders on poor form to start bringing this onto “news” sites when the release team hasn’t even had a chance to bring it to the kde developer community at large themselves.
Aaron,
You are an open project, with open mailing lists and open discussion. One of the side effects of this is that everyone will be able to follow the decision making process– whether you like it or not. If you want this process to not reach the people interested, then close this process, and discuss something like this internaly.
I have a duty to report on matters like this. OSNews readers (and I) are interested in KDE4/KDE 4.0, and so we want to know things like this.
I’m still fairly sure we won’t see KDE 4.0 in 2007. I’ve read through the thread, and it doesn’t seem that I am going to be wrong
.
Anyway, keep up the good work with KDE, and I *really* hope KDE4 will be every bit you guys are hoping it will be.
I usually agree with what Aaron has to say, but I have to back you up on this one. It would be irresponsible of you to say that a schedule is out and then start complaining when stuff is changed, but you make it quite clear this is just a discussion about when it could be released. That’s newsworthy IMO and if KDE didn’t want it getting out they shouldn’t have put this discussion on a public site.
I’m still fairly sure we won’t see KDE 4.0 in 2007
I’m still thinking Dec. ’07, but it sounds like some of the apps might not be ready until 2008.
RE: Debian vs CC license:
WTF?
> It would be irresponsible of you to say that a
> schedule is out and then start complaining when
> stuff is changed
erm, yes, except that’s not what has happened.
> but you make it quite clear this is just a
> discussion about when it could be released.
indeed; not one that one that needed to be posted on a “news” site, however. it’s a little like saying “well, you were discussing it on the sidewalk in front of your house, so i think it is fit to print.” that’s crappy journalism, and worse: it’s irresponsible community behaviour.
hey, if you want the community to be insular and closed, by all means .. i don’t, but you’re not helping.
> they shouldn’t have put this discussion on a public
> site
we didn’t. it was on a mailing list. a subscriber decided to blog about it. would you also prefer that we had all these discussions behind closed doors? do you think that is seriously more healthy for the actually involved community? (versus the people who casually read sites such as osnews?)
Edited: OK, aseigo replied while I was writing this and I think I get it now. Leaving this for the record, though.
Perhaps an analogy would help:
You’ve released some project (let’s say closed source) for free but are asking for donations. It’s free for everyone, you say, and that’s a very good thing.
Now someone comes along and uses it without donating, and you start ranting about how if someone doesn’t donate it makes it difficult to stay free and you threaten to add a price to your project instead of relying on donations.
See the contradiction? You say it’s free, but on the other hand you say that is threatened unless everyone pays money. At which point the program isn’t really free, is it?
Or maybe I’m just not getting it.
Edited 2007-03-08 07:15
> You are an open project, with open mailing lists
> and open discussion. One of the side effects of
> this is that everyone will be able to follow the
> decision making process– whether you like it or
> not. If you want this process to not reach the
> people interested, then close this process, and
> discuss something like this internaly.
amazingly, i think that is precisely what *i* said.
what you are missing is that you are part of the decision making process. which would would you prefer? please, tell me. and then once you’ve told me (hint: open) then explain to me how your behaviour is helping make that happen (hint: it isn’t). see the problem? if you don’t, think about it until you do.
here’s my suggestion: take responsibility . it was your action, not ours, to post this. to toss your actions off as the result of our desire to not be closed off, when that is exactly what you and others like you railed against with great finger wagging for years, is rather indefensible. i know it’s not comfortable to realize that your impetuous (to be kind) behaviour may jeopardize things, but hey … responsibility is a bitch, isn’t it?
so which is it? open and cooperative? closed and divisive? either way, play your part. you are not an uninvolved member in this. that’s an old and outmoded means of thought.
you are part of what happens. that is both exciting and promising. but it also means you have the ability to screw it up.
If you have an open project but can’t talk about it, doesn’t that already make it a closed project? Or are you merely upset that Thom brought this to the masses and think that people who care enough should find it on their own?
I’m trying to understand your thinking here…
> have an open project but can’t talk about it,
> doesn’t that already make it a closed project
great question!
see, the assumption here is that openness is considered without the accompanying concepts of respect and responsibility.
it’s sort of like nature and living things in general. just because you can choke a breathing thing to death, doesn’t mean you should. it’s even more absurd to think you can and then complain about it no longer being alive.
just because a project is conversing in the open doesn’t mean that it is right, defensible or long-term sustainable to bring those conversations into venues that are not appropriate.
which is to say, it is time people started realizing that they are part of the process and the system. that their (your) actions do have consequences.
we can certainly take these conversations private. the question is whether you want us to, and whether that’s the best thing for you.
what do you think?
if you think it wouldn’t be the best thing, then how can you (and those involved in this matter) make sure that doesn’t happen?
see, the assumption here is that openness is considered without the accompanying concepts of respect and responsibility.
OK, I get that. I’ve even complained about some of Thom’s decisions in the past.
we can certainly take these conversations private. the question is whether you want us to, and whether that’s the best thing for you.
what do you think?
I definitely do not want these conversations private – but I have to admit that if this hadn’t been publicized (I saw if first on linuxtoday.com) as you wish then I would have never known about it. At which point there doesn’t really seem to be any point to having the discussion in the open at all. You could always have them in private and then post the discussion later when you don’t care if it comes out.
What I’m hearing from you is that you do want some discussions to be private, and if that is the case then you might be better off doing that regardless of the complaining certain people will do.
> At which point there doesn’t really seem to be any
> point to having the discussion in the open at all
wrong! to *you* there wouldn’t have been any point. but to everyone actually trying to actively get involved with the process (e.g. not just post it on their blog or personal news site) it would matter. they can’t do that if the conversation is hermetically sealed.
iow, this is screwing it up for those people with a bit of initiative, talent and time (aka “the next generation of developers”).
the fact that those who aren’t actually involved are ok with taking actions that result in the degradation of service that allows those who can be involved to do so is really short sighted and, to be honest, pathetic.
Edited 2007-03-08 07:28
I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. 🙂
This is my last post on the subject.
wrong! to *you* there wouldn’t have been any point. but to everyone actually trying to actively get involved with the process (e.g. not just post it on their blog or personal news site) it would matter. they can’t do that if the conversation is hermetically sealed.
It seems like you could just make it an invitation only discussion, since you don’t want people like me to know about it anyway. The people you tell to get involved would have an invite while Thom and I would be blocked. The only tough part would be to set up the framework so you could automatically invite, say, everyone who’s made a commit to kde svn in the past year. Then if it leaked you could only get mad at people within the project and possibly bar them from future discussions.
which is to say, it is time people started realizing that they are part of the process and the system. that their (your) actions do have consequences.
The thing is, Aaron, I’m not part of KDE; as far as I can remember at least (who knows what I do when I’m drunk).
I can draw a rather disturbing conclusion from your posts in this thread thus far.
The past years, many Microsoft folk gave expected release dates (whether a precise date or i.e. a month) concerning Windows Vista. None of these were officially announced release dates (i.e. no press releases, no nothing). They were just unofficial estimates. Yet, every technology newssite out there reported these dates. So did we. It wasn’t until early November 2006 that Microsoft officially set the release dates [1]– dates they met, by the way.
Now, according to your logic, we should have never reported on the previously mentioned (by MS employees or representatives) release dates.
Basically, the conclusion I mentioned is this: it seems as if you want newssites to only report on ‘official’ matters; matters that have been properly announced. Now, that is of course completely ridiculous. It is the job of the journalist to *find* news, whether the involved parties like it or not. KDE4 has been in the making for quite a while now, and, dare I say it, it has even been hyped (I’m ducking for cover right now); of course people are then interested in the first discussion among KDE developers about possible release dates!
Does the fact that OSNews reports on this discussion mess up the process? While I appreciate the influence you attribute to us, I personally don’t think it will. Neither do you.
What you are afraid of is that you will not be able to make the release date mentioned in the discussion. This, Aaron, has nothing to do with us. If you can’t make the release date, then that’s your problem, not ours. Let it slip in a few months, or adjust it now, do whatever you want; but please do not blame the “press” for your own problems and insecurities in meeting the seemingly optimistic release date.
Because, Aaron, if you are confident you can make the October date… What’s all the hubbub here about?
[1] http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=16371
The thing is, Aaron, I’m not part of KDE
And nobody claimed you were. You are however, as Aaron rightly states, part of the process, as in your actions do have consequences. Now this is a simple fact and this leaves you with having to make responsible judgements. That you seem so shocked by this suggestion is deeply disturbing, to say the least.
Now, according to your logic, we should have never reported on the previously mentioned (by MS employees or representatives) release dates.
I hope you don’t mind me being so frank, but this is really silly. Equating covering public anouncements by MS employees with covering an internal discussion of an open source project is a stretch, to put it mildly.
It is the job of the journalist to *find* news, whether the involved parties like it or not.
And it’s also the job of the journalist to make a judgement on what to do with the information he has. Release it or not release, if so, how and when.
Really Tom, that’s journalism 101. I can’t believe how you react to someone merely suggesting that you carry a responsibility as a journalist.
The past years, many Microsoft folk gave expected release dates (whether a precise date or i.e. a month) concerning Windows Vista. None of these were officially announced release dates (i.e. no press releases, no nothing). They were just unofficial estimates. Yet, every technology newssite out there reported these dates. So did we. It wasn’t until early November 2006 that Microsoft officially set the release dates [1]– dates they met, by the way.
Now, according to your logic, we should have never reported on the previously mentioned (by MS employees or representatives) release dates.
Ok, Thom, I’ve read your discussion and I can see the points both of you are trying to make. But now you just lost me. WTF would we (as in the OSNews readership) have missed if you hadn’t posted all those release dates that MS didn’t make anyway? It’s not like you wouldn’t have been able to point out that Vista’s taking its time just because there’s no official date.
Also while -AIS- I can agree with your argument that you should be free to post the news that this thread on the KDE-ML is happening, I really think the discussion as such without any results lacks news value.
What’s next?
KDE4 QC only?
“Sources report KDE-hacker A mentioned the word ‘quantum computer’ on KDE-crap yesterday. Will KDE4 run only on systems beyond our imagination? Click ‘Read More’ for our 4 page analysis.”
Im glad that Thom put this news if you don’t like it don’t read it and let those who are interested like me enjoy the news.
WTF would we (as in the OSNews readership) have missed if you hadn’t posted all those release dates that MS didn’t make anyway?
Nothing. But we could not know that in advance, now, could we?
I really think the discussion as such without any results lacks news value.
Have you read the thread? The proposed schedule will, with some minor changes, be made official over the weekend.
What’s next?
This is not some random KDE hacker saying something random about a random part of KDE. This is a public discussion on the proposed (and soon to be official) release schedule of the long-awaited and much-talked about KDE 4.0.
If you don’t see the news value in that, than you are probably not suited for running a site like this.
Have you read the thread? The proposed schedule will, with some minor changes, be made official over the weekend.
And, you couldn’t wait until then because … ?
This is like the many times OSNews and Slashdot have reported on FreeBSD “releases” because someone saw release bits on an FTP mirror. What’s wrong with waiting until things are finalised before reporting them as news?
> I’m not part of KDE
no, but you are part of the greater open source community acting as a journalistic outlet. not being part of a specific project doesn’t somehow relieve you of responsibility.
> Microsoft folk gave expected release dates
right, and i had no problem when people would repeat that i’d said we were aiming for the summer. turns out we might be aiming for the autumn instead. no complaints from me here.
but this wasn’t a rumbling about possible/expected release dates, this was an internal discussion to set out a release roadmap. it was something we wanted to take to the kde contributors first.
you may have even read the email where someone suggested announcing it publicly sooner, but then cornelius said we should take it to the kde developers first out of respect.
in spite of that “no, let’s not announce it publicly at this point until we have done the respectful thing to our fellow developers” message in that exact thread that was linked, lurkers decided to go ahead and do so anyways.
see, there is a difference between someone (e.g. me) opening their mouth in a known “PR” context and pulling out conversation that is not yet ready for that. yes, you -can-, but it doesn’t mean you -should- and nor does that make it right.
> Does the fact that OSNews reports on this
> discussion mess up the process?
not just osnews, but the other blogs and sites (e.g. linuxtoday also carried it). and to answer your question: yes, this does make the process harder than necessary.
> What you are afraid of is that you will not be able
> to make the release date mentioned in the
> discussion
when will you learn that you are miserable and figuring out what i’m thinking and stop trying to pull that trick?
what i’m concerned about is that other kde developers will hear about the discussion first from linuxtoday or osnews and figure that decisions are being made without their input and consultation. that is not how we (kde) work, and it is not how this was going. the release team is preparing a plan, then we take it for community review and then we talk about it. this process is out of respect for our fellow developers, and they know that. when it gets circumvented, people feel, quite rightfully, that they are being cut out of things. in this case, they aren’t, but it’s easy for that opinion to get formed. i’ve been around this tree before a few times, and i really would like to avoid it in the future. those carrying this story are not helping and not being respectful of our processes.
> Because, Aaron, if you are confident you can make
> the October date
that’s a strawman argument. =/
Edited 2007-03-08 19:08
no, but you are part of the greater open source community acting as a journalistic outlet. not being part of a specific project doesn’t somehow relieve you of responsibility.
Can I please decide for myself what community I’m part of? I’m not part of any “greater open source community” at all– you do realise that the ‘OS’ in OSNews does not stand for ‘open source’, right?
I have zero responsibility to KDE or whatever other project. I have the responsibility to inform my readers of the topics we cover, and that happens to include KDE. Like I said before, if a project is discussing in a public mailinglist the release dates for a long-awaited and much anticipated new release, then that’s something my readers would like to know. Hence, it constitutes as ‘news’.
in spite of that “no, let’s not announce it publicly at this point until we have done the respectful thing to our fellow developers” message in that exact thread that was linked, lurkers decided to go ahead and do so anyways.
Well, uhm, maybe because you guys were discussing the release date of the next major overhaul of one of the biggest desktop environments out there on a, like, public mailing list?
what i’m concerned about is that other kde developers will hear about the discussion first from linuxtoday or osnews and figure that decisions are being made without their input and consultation.
What part of “started a discussion about a possible release schedule” don’t you understand?
that’s a strawman argument. =/
That doesn’t make it any less accurate, Aaron.
Edited 2007-03-08 19:59
Hello Thom,
I am a newish KDE developer, but I read the main KDE mailing lists regularly. I was surprised to read about this on OSNews before seeing it on the two main KDE mailing lists.
I think it would have been prudent to wait a little longer (say a couple of weeks) before running with this story. Your readers benefit in two ways:
– Developers have had time to reach a consensus and can respond more coherently to your readers’ comments.
– Your news story will contain more facts. In this case this will probably mean a date ( month , year ).
Here’s what seems like Debian’s stance on CC licenses:
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
that’d be a link to debian’s take on the 2.0 CC licenses. we’re using the 3.0 licenses. ianal, but it seems to my innocent and legally naive eyes that the issues raised on that page have, albeit with the usual legal obfuscation
, been addressed or at least attempted to be addressed.
when the debian project has a stand on the CC 3.0 license, i’ll be certain to read it.
i think they’d be doing a great disfavour to continue to split these hairs, but it’s their business really. iceweasel forever, huzzah to the future of debian and what not.
you’re right Aaron, sorry about that. There seems to be more recent (March 5/07?) informal analysis of it here: http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/thread/20070305.215815.a9c51999….
>When You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work, You may not impose any
>effective technological
>measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work
>from You to exercise the rights
>granted to that recipient under the terms of the License.
This is the old DRM problem. It does not look to be resolved with this
particular wording.
Hmm, I’m not sure why Debian doesn’t like that. Are they going to have similar problems with the anti-DRM stuff in GPLv3?
Also, what are the advantages of this license versus something like GPL? I know it’s often used for artwork, but not why.
Edited 2007-03-08 07:41
=)
yes, they complain about DRM without considering that not having that protection endangers the freedom we are trying to protect. this is something that even the gpl itself did not consider, ergo the viability of the microsoft-novell agreement. regardless of how you feel about that, it doesn’t make this a non-free license.
they then go on to be concerned about the removal of attribution as a possible sticking issue. i believe that is specifically why the phrase “to the extent reasonably practicle” is there as well as the references to 4(a) and 4(c) are made.
yeah, this is tricky. that’s why people like lessig are involved =)
now, all that said, debian is free to do as they wish. and i wish them all the best in the world in doing so.
I agree. I don’t often complain about debian’s fanatical fight for freedom, as it can be a good thing. But this time, I think they’re really going a bit to far…
I’m happy with 3.5.6 and I won’t dump it for a crapy thing just becouse it have number 4.0 attached. Major version number bumps are suppose to be breaking compatibillity and provideing new functionality that coudn’t be introduced in to current code and this needs time to code and debug, I don’t want a desktop that was released with less features that previous desktop just becouse “everybody wanted it to come out”.
I for one am very glad that Thom did post this link to the discussion.
As an avid follower or KDE4 information for years now, it is nice to see it finally taking shape as a product plan, rather than a nebulous intangible.
thus, i stand by my previous comment:
“reading that thread has curbed my ‘addiction’ to seeing a KDE 4 DE.
not that this is a bad thing in any way, i still want KDE 4 as reckon it will rock, but i want to see it complete, unified, in all its many core and ancillary parts.
in which case, what i really want is KDE 4.1 by the looks of things.
the upshot of this discussion is that i regain my focus on the upcoming 3.5.x distro releases like the Sabayon 3.3 series without pining for the distant glories or a KDE 4 DE.”
and i am a happier person for being in this position.
Regards
R3MF
I hope that KDE4 will include completely redisigned looks, and I’m not talking about icons or themes.
There are too many poorely designed elements in KDE3, and I honestly hope that someone will go through those issues before releasing KDE4.
To name a few: elements(tolbars, menus, windows, tabs…) spacing and placing(vertical tabs..), font sizes in proportion to elements(look at the taskbar o_O),…etc.
This is not bashing just hope..
Well, most of these are being redesigned. New widgets are being introduced, new things tried… So many of these will probably be improved.
It really does sound like you want the process closed up, but to also be able to pat yourself on the back for being an upstanding open source guy. You’re hoping to get all the benefits of open and closed, with none of the problems that come with either. The world just doesn’t work that way. Personally, I’d like to get paid for working without actually having to do anything. But, that too is just not how the system I’m participating in works. But, we both knew the costs of getting involved, and chose to be a part of it. Complaining afterward is just silly.
> It really does sound like you want the process
> closed up,
not at all.
> but to also be able to pat yourself on the
> back for being an upstanding open source guy.
i could care less about beign patted on the back.
> You’re hoping to get all the benefits of open and
> closed, with none of the problems that come with
> either
this is closer, however. i would like to be able to work in the open without members of our community taking those discussions prematurely to announcement.
it simply makes it harder to do our job. had this been someone from zdnet or whatever, i would have shrugged it off as typical. that it comes from people within the community itself is what, imho, made this unnecessary and therefore dissapointing.
er…you too can get paid for not really doing anything, just get a normal job
i am a big personal fan of yours for what you do; i still have to say that i am delighted Thom DID post this article with a link to the discussion.
as a osnews reader, with an interest in tech, particularly KDE, it is to my benefit that this was posted, therefore giving me a greater understanding of where KDE is going.
if i had found the discussion I would have submitted it to osnews!
it might even benefit KDE to have this out in the wild, by damping down the ridiculous release-date speculation from KDE enthusiasts like myself.