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."
Thread beginning with comment 295887
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by superstoned on Mon 14th Jan 2008 17:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
superstoned
Member since:
2005-07-07

To answer your last question: they don't. They also release... Seen the many complaints about the latest Mac OS X? And don't even start looking for ppl who have trouble with Vista...

Reply Parent Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Seen the many complaints about the latest Mac OS X? And don't even start looking for ppl who have trouble with Vista...


That's a rather peculiar argument... Vista/Leopard sucks balls, so KDE 4.0.0 may suck balls too?

I'm sorry, but that is the weakest argument I have heard ever since this debate started. We should not compare KDE to Vista when it makes KDE look bad, but we may do it when it makes KDE look good?

Reply Parent Score: 8

superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

What I mean is - why should there be higher standards for FOSS software than for non-FOSS software? We could've disrupted the long-term viability of our project by going the enlightenment way - sure. But I don't think you would seriously argue for that, would you?

We've already delayed KDE 3 months, that was because it wasn't ready for real-world use. It is now, even though it lacks features KDE 3.5 had. Gnome lacks many features KDE 3.5 has, ppl use that...

My point was that ppl who expect a .0.0 release to be perfect should look in the mirror if they are looking for answers.

Reply Parent Score: 4

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

That's a rather peculiar argument... Vista/Leopard sucks balls, so KDE 4.0.0 may suck balls too? I'm sorry, but that is the weakest argument I have heard ever since this debate started.

It's more an observation on the way that open source projects like KDE are developed versus the differences with proprietary development projects like Vista and Leopard. Vista and Leopard have development previews and beta releases (all the things, apparently, people think KDE should be doing more of) and still their .0 releases are exceptionally poor in an awful lot of ways. It pretty much validates KDE's, and open source software's, general method of development. When it's good enough, everyone knows about it and more people start using it. In the meantime, stuff gets fixed and everyone works from a known starting point.

Reply Parent Score: 4