Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Jun 2008 08:14 UTC
Gnome The KDE project saw the writing on the wall. They saw that they had reached a certain limit when it came to what could be done with the KDE 3.x series - they named it the "big friggin' wall", and decided that in order to get over that wall, incremental updates wouldn't do - they needed massive changes, a big jump, and they went for it. It's been a rough road, but it seems as if KDE 4.1 is showing signs of the vision becoming a reality. And it now seems as if several people within the GNOME community are seeing the writing on the wall too: GNOME 2.x has reached its goal - now what?
Thread beginning with comment 318126
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
How to revolutionise?
by waynej on Wed 11th Jun 2008 10:05 UTC
Member since:

This is a very interesting read but in my opinion actually shows a bigger problem. In this day and age, how does one revolutionise?

I use XP, KDE and Gnome and I think we have seen, in the last 5 - 10 years, is that yes there are differences in approach and implementation but a reasonably savvy logical person can move from one to the other with no show stopping problems.

We are into the area of the law of diminishing returns.

In order for Gnome or any of the others to revolutionise there needs to be a greater acceptance of the need to make mistakes publically and not be hauled over the coals. When KDE 4.0 came out the bile, spite and invective aimed in the direction of the KDE developers was almost overwhelming. If Aaron had told everyone to F*** Off and shove their opinions up their collective a***s I, for one, would not have been surprised.

Ok it wasn't perfect, no-one said it was going to be perfect when it came out, but the expectation of perfection and the refusal to accept anything else was really out of order. OK, some of the articles were written by non-native English speakers but the tone of a surprising number articles was rather abusive.

For Gnome to revolutionise, there needs to be a more open mindset on the part of the users and community at large and an acceptance that in order to change there can be, will be and must be failures.

My tuppence.

Reply Score: 13

v RE: How to revolutionise?
by Nossie on Wed 11th Jun 2008 12:00 in reply to "How to revolutionise?"
RE[2]: How to revolutionise?
by grat on Wed 11th Jun 2008 12:36 in reply to "RE: How to revolutionise?"
grat Member since:

I think if KDE had came out and said look this is going to be our new codebase for 4 but its not feature complete to be called KDE4 ... things would have been far easily accepted

Well, actually, they did. "KDE4" is the rewrite of the KDE libraries and tools, and includes such ideas as phonon, solid, etc.

"KDE 4.0" is the first iteration of a desktop based on the KDE4 libraries, and as such, should be treated as "not really production", although openSuSE 11 has a pretty nice KDE 4.0.x desktop.

Even if they'd called it "kdelib4" and "KDE 4.0", people would have gotten confused, because they can't be bothered to learn the difference.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: How to revolutionise?
by renox on Wed 11th Jun 2008 13:26 in reply to "How to revolutionise?"
renox Member since:

When KDE 4.0 came out the bile, spite and invective aimed in the direction of the KDE developers was almost overwhelming.

Except that the reason why there's was so much turmoil wasn't only about the changes but also because KDE developers pulled a 'dirty trick' on users by naming it KDE 4.0 instead of 'developer release/alpha' to get more people to try it..
People don't care about 'explanation of what KDE4.0 is' no more that they read manuals, so naming correctly KDE4.0 for what it was in the first place would have reduced a lot the flames.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: How to revolutionise?
by hobgoblin on Fri 13th Jun 2008 12:22 in reply to "RE: How to revolutionise?"
hobgoblin Member since:

but if they had not, they could risk that they would never get to slap a x.0 at it at all...

look at what happened to linux around the 2.5/2.6 time. new stuff was tossed into 2.5 over and over, until the distros started backporting stuff to 2.4 because 2.4 was going stale and 2.6 was a no-show.

in that sense, one should not really use beta designations in open source projects, as one is living one large beta. every update of the source is out there on some CVS or ftp. there is no internal/release split like there is in a closed source project.

instead one is looking at unstable, stable and mature features of the project. so one should have some way for the people building the binaries to say that they only want the stable or maybe only the mature features, and leave the rest out. and as time goes by, the unstale bits move over into stable.

development by evolution, not repeat revolutions...

Reply Parent Score: 3