Ars reviews KDE 4.0.0: "KDE 4.0 was officially released last week after extensive development. The long-awaited 4.0 release ushers in a new era for the popular open-source desktop environment and adds many intriguing new features and technologies. Unfortunately, the release comes with almost as many new bugs as it does features, and there is much work to be done before it sparkles like the 3.5.x series." They were also at the KDE 4.0 release event.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-10
The problem isn't that enthusiasts don't want to test. I test every time I have a test machine available (I currently do not because I currently only have one production computer and no spare ones available for testing).
What many of us have been arguing here is that KDE 4.0 is improperly tagged and is actually only at the Beta 1 stage of development with regard to Plasma and KWin. I believe that most of us understand that most of the underlying foundations are feature complete and have stable API's and ABI's in most cases (some frameworks and many applications will not be released until KDE 4.1). However KDE 4.0 is not just a set of frameworks for a desktop environment but also the GUI (in this case Plasma and KWin) for those applications developed by that framework and other frameworks. It is the instability of KWin and Plasma that is the problem not the whole of KDE 4.0. I've only played with KDE 4.0 on a live CD but it proved to be unstable for me, without the effects turned on. Plasma and KWin are not release ready yet they released Beta software with a Production-Ready tag and now the KDE release team is getting a lot of heat for that choice and rightfully so in many people's opinions.
I have nothing but respect for the KDE development team but I feel that they made a mistake in tagging the KDE4 series with a production ready tag at this time. This release has more than a few rough edges. It is barely usable as a beta much less as a production system. What KDE released was a Developer Preview as far as I'm concerned and it should have been tagged as such. This has nothing to do with the fact that it is KDE that did this because I would be just as critical of GNOME, Apple, or Microsoft. I feel like Plasma and Kwin just needed another 2-3 months worth of work and then they could have been appropriately labeled KDE 4.0. I believe that KDE 4.0 will become a usable desktop before KDE 4.1 but they have tarnished their reputation for high quality releases with this release. I think a lot of the problem is that an organization that normally would not do this has and it worries people that they will now be releasing shoddier software in the KDE4 series than we have seen from KDE in the past.
I also don't think that they would have been in danger of entering an E17 style of constant beta development by tagging this by what should be its proper name in an ideal world and that is KDE 4.0 DR1 (Developer Preview 1). Most of us are complaining about the fact that we think those numbers actually do and should mean something. We understand the argument that the KDE release team is making and we think it is a bad argument regardless of who it would have come from. We are sharing our ideals with others who don't agree and that is fine but we are not going to be silenced just because it is inconvenient for certain people. A lot of people feel like they have committed a form of fraudulent marketing by tagging KDE 4 as they have done at this time and I feel that the x.0.0 means certain things and I further feel that KDE 4.0.0 does not meet this standard that I (and apparently many others) use for all software releases. I feel that this fraudulent marketing will be ultimately detrimental to the KDE team's efforts. I prefer KDE over GNOME and Windows and maybe it's just others and my fears that KDE is lowering their standards. I feel like KDE has always had higher standards than other projects, wrongly or rightly, and myself and others fear that those standards are now being lowered.
I will not stop using KDE software because of this but I will not be using KDE4 again until KDE 4.1 is out. I hope that the fallout from this does not hurt KDE 4 in the long run but I'm not going to be silent about what I feel is in effect fraudulent marketing whether the software is FOSS or proprietary, although I guess I feel that FOSS should have higher standards than proprietary software does as this kind of thing is something I would expect from corporations and not free software, IMO.
Member since:2005-07-08
KDE4 is probably the biggest rewrite in the history of the free software movement. It's completely unprecedented, and as an enthusiast, you have to adjust your expectations accordingly. KDE isn't lowing their standards or releasing shoddy software. They're navigating an extremely difficult transition, and many enthusiasts have not been very understanding.
I think it's fair to say that KDE made a mistake by tagging 4.0.0. But I take a long view on these things, and I'm deeply troubled by the message that the community is sending to other project leaders. The community is saying we will hold major rewrites to a high standard, and we will rip into projects over any tactical errors that may tarnish the initial release.
You're not wrong, but your attitude isn't helping. The conventional wisdom says that rewriting software isn't worth the trouble. You're giving more ammunition to the cynics who tell us it can't be done. KDE took a big risk, and they're taking a lot of flak over a triviality.
It's times like this that make it hard to justify working on free software. I don't make a habit of accusing users of being ungrateful, but I really think that this is a example of how no good deed goes unpunished. This wasn't easy. People have poured their hearts and minds into this monumental undertaking. Maybe outsiders don't understand, but I expected better from free software enthusiasts.
I expected our community to accept KDE 4.0.0 for what it is. It's not mature code, and it wasn't a flawless release, but what KDE has done should be celebrated and rewarded. We want projects to take big risks. We want projects to rewrite their code when it gets long in the tooth. But the community response has been awfully discouraging, and that's a real shame.
Member since:2005-07-06
People aren't critizising KDE4 for trying to reach for new heights or daring to set out in bold new directions. Everything I've read by just about everybody hails them for their choices and vision. Nobody is saying that KDE4 should have set their goals lower. Personally I'm thrilled by the potential KDE4 is showing as are most people.
The only thing they are being critised on is how they handled the release of KDE 4.0. That's it. Stop trying to make the 'fight' about something it isn't.
Hell the only reason most people even bother to critizes is that they care passionatle about how the sausage is made and want to see it made better in the future. Don't make the mistake of thinking that those who critisize the way the realse of KDE4 was handled are 'opponents' of KDE or in any way reject what they are trying to achieve. While I've been critical to KDE4, I'm also a huge fan and think it's the coolest thing that has happened in Open Source software for a long time.
Member since:2005-07-13
That's why every thread on this issue devolves into a discussion of numbering and naming conventions. Enthusiasts no longer have any patience for rough edges, they don't want to touch it until it's "done", and they don't want to hear any excuses from the developers.
I worry that our community of peers is decaying into a mixture of producers and consumers. Enthusiasts don't want to see themselves as partners with the developers, and the developers don't want to see themselves as service providers to the enthusiasts.
All software, both free and proprietary, goes through a continuous maturation process. The free software ecosystem was built on the assumption that, from the perspective of any given project, the community is layered like an onion. The core developers are in the middle, followed by project contributors, distributors, third-party developers, enthusiasts, and end-users.
I think you've nailed probably the most important point, and one that is consistently drowned out in the whining over the semantics of versioning.
The dynamics of the OSS ecosphere are changing, and not for the better. There seems to be this assumption now that despite being free in every sense of the word, OSS applications should be held to the same standard as proprietary applications.
Critics will counter, "Well why shouldn't I? I use software to solve a problem, I don't care if it's proprietary or OSS". That deflects from the issue that proprietary software has an development infrastructure funded by license revenue, whereas OSS relies on a development infrastructure funded by the collective investment in time and effort by those that wish to utilize the software.
But we don't have that any more. Any armchair quarterbacking that this should have been tagged as something different utterly misses the mark that this project was developed transparent, in the open, and with development code available along the way. The devs and distros, particularly openSUSE, went to great lengths to make testing packages available for non-developmental users. Why? For testing, feedback and bug reporting.
And what happened? A flurry of responses along the lines of "I'm not touching it until it's released officially". So anyone claiming that releasing it as a "developer release" or "technical preview" or any such nonsense overlooks the fact that they would invariably have been ignored by the userbase at large.
Anybody complaining that the devs somehow let the community down by tagging this release and throwing out the public is sidestepping the issue that they let the devs down by not making an investment of their own precious time to help with the development process.
I doubt anybody that was seriously following the development to this point was shocked or surprised at the "finished" product, because expectations had been set appropriately. Most of the initial negative feedback seemed to be based on nothing at all other than screenshots, and the evolving into a herd mentality of decrying the actions of the KDE team, as if they actually earned a position to complain.
The sad thing is that if the devs had simply left the aging infrastructure, which dates back to 2.0, and instead focused their efforts superficially on wobbly windows and other such shiny baubles, they would have been lauded for making a cutting edge release that would no doubt be yet another Vista-killer(tm) and herald the arrival of the Year-of-the-linux-desktop. I suppose the one benefit is that most of the complainers will happily jump back on the bandwagon now that the foundation is in place and people will start to have more and more shiny baubles for 4.1.
I have no doubts that KDE4 will certainly grow to new heights, and this current tempest in a teacup will blow over and be considered nothing more than short term pain towards long term gain, but the disappointing thing is that maturization of OSS seems to gain a wider userbase without a proportionately increasing base of users willing to commit time and effort to support it. That doesn't bode well for the future.
Heavy sigh.
Member since:2005-11-05
For those of you who don't follow American politics, the major narrative right now is about how "change" happens. Some think it comes from shrewd work behind the scenes, some from a spirited fight against the opposition, and others from rallying people around a compelling vision.
In my view, the engine behind the growth of free software has been the latter, an idealistic and optimistic belief that if we work together in a transparent and inclusive community, then we can turn the conventional wisdom of the software industry on its head and challenge the entrenched interest in the status quo.
The strength of our community and its ability to produce fundamental change (like KDE4) lies in its ability to engage and empower the user in the development and maturation process.
If we reject this role, if we don't care to see how the sausage is made, if we don't want to have anything to do with immature software, if we choose to become passive consumers of finished products ...
Fine words, Butters. Perhaps you should try politics, too 
But I suspect you're being extremely optimistic: only a relatively tiny percentage of users is ever going to have the inclination and skills to get involved in seeing how the sausage is made. And as a platform grows and draws in more users who aren't technically inclined, so that percentage will shrink even further. What's important is that those who are interested and who do all the work aren't sat on either by a dumb majority clamouring "I want, I demand, the moon is made of cheese and you will cut me a slice" or by the kind of closed-source corporate outlook that turns consumers into passive victims.
What I haven't heard in this thread is gratitude. Perhaps the unhappy tendency would prefer that KDE didn't exist or, shock horror, that it was pay-for-only on Windows only? Perhaps they'd prefer not to have any opportunity at all to look inside and test stuff? In the circs, complaining about a name seems pretty perverse.
We are very lucky to have KDE, imho, and to judge from his presentation on that video, KDE is very fortunate to have Aaron S and his colleagues. There are some grounds for saying that desktop Linux plateau'd and began to stagnate a little 2-3 years ago now. There's been no big break-out in user figures. Certainly much of the growth in non-Windows stuff since then has been taken by Apple, and Microsoft is shaping up for a post-Vista, Windows 7 world very quickly. KDE 4 is much more important than some folks seem to realize. If desktop Linux doesn't get this very right it could be in real trouble as an alternative that delivers what PC users will by then have come to expect.
Member since:
2005-07-08
The controversy over the maturity of KDE 4.0.0 challenges the dynamics of the free software community. It's an expectations gap caused by a cultural shift within the community that deserves some consideration.
The "enthusiast" class has become far less tolerant of immature code than it has been in the past. The same type of user that used to be willing to jump through some hoops and shake out some bugs in order to try out the latest and greatest now expects nothing less than a finished product.
That's why every thread on this issue devolves into a discussion of numbering and naming conventions. Enthusiasts no longer have any patience for rough edges, they don't want to touch it until it's "done", and they don't want to hear any excuses from the developers.
I worry that our community of peers is decaying into a mixture of producers and consumers. Enthusiasts don't want to see themselves as partners with the developers, and the developers don't want to see themselves as service providers to the enthusiasts.
All software, both free and proprietary, goes through a continuous maturation process. The free software ecosystem was built on the assumption that, from the perspective of any given project, the community is layered like an onion. The core developers are in the middle, followed by project contributors, distributors, third-party developers, enthusiasts, and end-users.
The theory is that, as the software matures, it can be exposed to more layers of the onion. But in the case of KDE 4.0.0, one or more of the follow happened: 1) it got exposed to enthusiasts before it was ready, 2) enthusiasts had unreasonable expectations, or 3) the project failed to make the distinction between enthusiasts and end-users.
What is in a name? Could the expectations gap have been addressed simply by selecting more conservative names for KDE 4.0.0 and the releases that preceded it, or is the problem deeper than that?
Is it still possible to release software with rough edges and expect a productive response from the enthusiast community? Do enthusiasts understand and accept their role within the community? Do enthusiasts and end-users self-identify as such, and are they comfortable with those identities?
Just like an economy collapses for lack of a strong middle class, the free software community will collapse for lack of a vibrant enthusiast class with enough skills and patience to help steward fresh code to maturity. If developers begin to doubt that there is a middle class in the free software community willing to contribute some effort toward a better future, then they will be reluctant to ever challenge "the big friggin' wall".
For those of you who don't follow American politics, the major narrative right now is about how "change" happens. Some think it comes from shrewd work behind the scenes, some from a spirited fight against the opposition, and others from rallying people around a compelling vision.
In my view, the engine behind the growth of free software has been the latter, an idealistic and optimistic belief that if we work together in a transparent and inclusive community, then we can turn the conventional wisdom of the software industry on its head and challenge the entrenched interest in the status quo.
The strength of our community and its ability to produce fundamental change (like KDE4) lies in its ability to engage and empower the user in the development and maturation process.
If we reject this role, if we don't care to see how the sausage is made, if we don't want to have anything to do with immature software, if we choose to become passive consumers of finished products, then the status quo will prevail, and our hopes and dreams will be subordinated to the conventional wisdom.
The KDE project has articulated a compelling vision for the future of the free software desktop, and they've delivered a strong foundation for realizing this potential. It's impossible to please everybody with a finished product let alone a work in progress. All I ask of anybody who cares about free software is to either get on board or get out of the way.
It doesn't do any of us any good to criticize a project for reaching for new heights, for daring to set out in a bold new direction. What bothers me the most about KDE4 is that other projects are perceiving this as a referendum on ambitious development. If we reject the premise of substantive change, then we deserve the stagnation that might follow.