OSNews

Well, if you are quite finished launching personal attacks upon me, then I would say that it is logical for you to sign off. Though I'm not sure why you think one should have to be experienced in developing large scale C++ projects to have an opinion upon whether it is reasonable for a DE project to release a pile of very buggy code, missing large sections of functionality, including, but certainly not limited to, allowing the user to move, hide, or change the size of, the panel, and call it a gold gold release. The best answer you have given me so far, once the personal attacks have been filtered out, is that if they had called it a developer preview, you would not be able to develop against it because the api would be too unstable. But since they are trying to pawn it off as a gold release, you can. I guess that's just something they teach you in "Developing Large Scale C++ projects 101". It makes no sense to me.

I guess I'm just used to OSS projects, even large ones and C++ ones, having some pride in, and concern about, the quality of their gold releases. But of course, not being a KDE developer, I'm not entitled to feel that the quality of the release is poor, simply based upon my hands on experience with it.

I'm already kicking myself for hitting reply...

Site one. The worst I did was call into question your judgement and portray your public efforts in a negative light. You do of course see the hypocrisy in complaining about that don't you?



Its more than just language specifics, though of course understanding those is important. Its about introducing a large scale rewrite of very large, publicly developed project to all of the downstream people who need access to it in a stable way. The least numerous but noisiest of these people being the 'DE enthusiasts'.

And unfortunately yes, the specifics of development of this type of project are important and if you don't know enough about them then maybe you should restrain from commenting so voluminously and so vehemntly, especially in the face of repeated correction.



Oh heavens, stuck with not being able to change the panel size? How long was it from 2.0 until GNOME could right click on a menu and edit it? Where were the drivers in Vista? In any software project of this scale you will never get immediate feature parity with such a mature, feature complete code base as kde3.5. This is a testament to the progress made in 3.5 not a slight against 4.



For someone so free with the vitriol when they're dishing it out to others you get remarkably thin skin when a little of it comes back your way.

I'm sorry that that was all you managed to pick up and that it makes no sense to you. Maybe someone else can do a better job of walking you through it, but I honestly think this is a 'lead a horse to water but can't make him drink' case.




again, call into question the professional pride of others, cast dispersions on their character and work. Ok to dish it out but quick to complain when you receive it.



You are more than welcome to feel any way you like about it, but in light of what has been explained repeatedly about who the .0's intended audience is, when you come out in public, ignore what has been said numerous time and then continuously cast dispersions about the quality of something you don't seem well suited to judge, a perception that is hard not to make reading your posts, then don't be surprised to be called on it.

For it's intended audience, 4.0 is wonderful. Its a delight to develop on and was delivered not a moment to soon. Sorry you don't feel that way, but don't expect a warm reception when you go out trying to rain on others parades.

Though I'm not sure why you think one should have to be experienced in developing large scale C++ projects to have an opinion upon whether it is reasonable for a DE project to release a pile of very buggy code, missing large sections of functionality, including, but certainly not limited to, allowing the user to move, hide, or change the size of, the panel, and call it a gold gold release.
"

Actually, he was pointing out that you were trying to claim credibility by comparing apples to oranges, as it were.

The issue of buggy code is questionable. I've been using KDE4 as my standard desktop since it was tagged, and I've yet to run into blockers that would force me to revert back to KDE3 or any other desktop. It works. Any apps that are missing in KDE4 are still very accessible in their KDE3 form.

Yes, I'm a bit irked that I can't move the panel to the top of my monitor as I'm used to in KDE3, or XP for that matter, but holy f&AS($*(# s*&#$%)(#$ *#$(#%&S, with all of the work that has gone into KDE4, it's actually galling that people would consider that a blocker.

Missing large sections of functionality? I don't remember seeing the document where KDE4 committed to having specific functionality for 4.0.0. Yet when Gnome 2.0 removed large sections of functionality, it was praised as an advance in usability. Give me a f* break.

And the mere fact that you keep referring to it as a gold release hints to your proprietary software bias. Gold releases go to the plants for mastering. It implies a "nothing can change beyond this point" mentality. This is OSS. The parameters are different.

The API's were frozen back during the testing cycle. That's more than your own pet project can account for. Everything done since was bug-fixing and polishing.

You've got a chip on your shoulder for whatever reason, that much is clear from your posts.

At the end of the day, KDE 4.0.0 is a working DE. It might not do all the things you or everybody else wants it to do, but that's a small sacrifice for the benefits the community expects to see down the road.

KDE 3.5.x still exists, so it's not as if the devs are trying to pull some underhanded maneuver to force people to migrate. 3.5.9 will be coming out around the same time frame as 4.0.1.

Nobody is forced to use 4.0.0. It's there and it's asking for attention, but's not demanding it. Which is good, because it's becoming clear that the cake-and-eat-it crowd wants things handed to them right-now-this-minute, without making an effort to contribute.

You're somewhat atyipcal of that approach. You keep mentioning all these "clients" that you manage and support with linux and OSS as if that's supposed to be some carrot for the devs to follow, but at the end of the day, have you really contributed back to the projects you're using, or are you simply leveraging them to supplement your income?

If you had participated in the development cycle, even with only the articulate and intelligent feedback that I must say you are very capable of providing (that's a compliment, not a sarcastic dig, FTR), then you at least have a bone to pick. But instead, you're grandstanding, and it helps neither the community or the developers.

Give a little, gain a lot.