To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why not? It worked for the human race (though some may disagree with this xD).
I dunno i've always found well thought out, gradual additions to software a 'better' approach. Admittedly you do need to break away from legacy code sometimes but if you dont need to you just end up causing a huge amount of work, bug creation yet more frameworks doing things that have already been solved. I'm not saying if that applies to KDE4 though, because I simply don't know much about the upcoming release (i've not had time to look at it yet).
The demos and such I have seen look promising though. It looks like a lot of new ideas(and old ideas, implemented well) are coming out of the next revision.
The question is, what will stick and what will fall by the wayside? I think that will answer the revolution vs hype vs evolution question. Right now it seems a mixture of all of them.
Edited 2007-08-29 15:49
Have a good look at your biology. There are several words for the concept ('adaptive radiation', jump-wise evolution etc) but scientists haven't thought evolution to go all gradually for a long time.
And sure, it's a mix of evolution and revolution. As I said somewhere else in this page, you need both. It's about exploring new possibilities while exploiting current capabilities.







Member since:
2005-07-07
You can't get all the way with only evolution. Sometimes, you get stuck somewhere, and you need to shake things up. We discussed this, btw:
http://troy-at-kde.livejournal.com/5647.html?view=34575#t34575