Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Jan 2008 18:22 UTC
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.
Thread beginning with comment 297131
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-06-29
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.
Well, uhm, yeah. I will treat a free software project in exactly the same way as a proprietary project. They need to deliver quality product, just like their proprietary counterparts, and if they don't, I will call them on it.
Being a free software project must be quite handy these days. If you do it right, you prove the superiority of the open source model. If you do a major fcuk up, hey, look, don't hold us responsible, we're just open source and we do it for F/free. In psychology, the attribution theory has some interesting things to say about this one.
Being open source does not absolve you from responsibility. Especially not an important and big project like KDE or GNOME.
Member since:2005-07-06
Well, uhm, yeah. I will treat a free software project in exactly the same way as a proprietary project. They need to deliver quality product, just like their proprietary counterparts, and if they don't, I will call them on it.
It's absolutely astonishing how many people just don't get open source software development, and the way it has always worked and the only way it can work. Let's put this another way, because you only seem to be able to understand software development in the context of a Vista or OS X release (long paragraph coming up):
If Microsoft or Apple decided to have a much more inclusive development model that included enthusiasts willing to be on the bleeding edge (and they basically admitted that .0 releases are problematic), and they basically created a branch of Vista and OS X where they had fully working, unrestricted and installable .0, odd numbered releases like the Linux kernel or something like that, with explicit warnings that there are no guarantees as to what it does or provides, and where they told OEMs not to install it (just as distributors won't make KDE 4.0 the default install) - you honestly believe that these people have just cause to criticise a lack of features, criticise bugs and run around like the prophet of doom as to how inadequate it is?! In this phase, if you aren't going to be a part of the solution then sod off.
Being a free software project must be quite handy these days. If you do it right, you prove the superiority of the open source model.
You mention the open source model there. What process do you think is going on now with the release of 4.0? Developers, testers and bug hunters are users in the development of open source projects. How do you expect this process to happen? Proprietary developers have already proved the worth of the open source model in how inadequate their .0 releases are, and in the number of patches and service packs available. Those only came about because people tried it and reported back.
If you do a major fcuk up, hey, look, don't hold us responsible, we're just open source and we do it for F/free.
That's the way it has always been. You don't pay license fees of any description, so you have no comeback as you do with other software (if you have any comeback at all). People started using open source software for a great many purposes exactly because people used it themselves, or people reviewed it, and those people said "Hey, it's good enough." For many people it's only good enough when it appears in the package repository of their distribution, or when it comes pre-installed.
Being open source does not absolve you from responsibility. Especially not an important and big project like KDE or GNOME.
No it doesn't, and it doesn't justify silly decisions made within a project just because a developer can, but nobody is saying that is the case here.
You're tying yourself in knots here, because this is a paradox that will not square. If a project is upfront about developing completely in the open, how do you expect a quality release, that everyone starts using because it's good enough, to ever come out?
Member since:2005-07-06
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.
I think we, the user community, largely do accept 4.0 for what it is. Conversely KDE, and other projects that take bold moves, need to accept that if they release a project with numerous obvious issues the community will call them out on it. The fact that the main way a user interacts with the project is incomplete and unstable is known by both the developers and the early users. It would be hypocritical to praise the underlying architecture when it gives little benefit yet due to the flawed facade.
Sure it has potential, but the community is giving an honest appraisal of the release the KDE did. Segphault was fairly forgiving in his analysis IMHO. He attempted to show the potential while at the same time did not deny the faults. Based on the various articles and attached discussion the response has largely been "cool stuff, let us know when you plan to release something we can use." It does not need feature parity with 3.x, heck it does not even need to be stable. But right now 4.0 offers nothing more than a frustrating test bed for concepts.
I have high hopes that plasma will get sorted out in the next month or so, but till then you can not fault the community for telling the truth.
Member since:2007-03-29
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.
I thought the intention was to stimulate more user feedback, rather than to"be celebrated and rewarded".
Now they have the feedback they asked for, and I think it would be wrong to reject it.
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.