Linked by David Adams on Wed 2nd Jul 2008 16:11 UTC, submitted by elsewhere
"After the recent release KDE 4.1 beta 2 and openSUSE 11 with KDE 4.0.4, some critics have been especially vocal in expressing their displeasure with the KDE 4 user interface paradigms. The debate has grown increasingly caustic as critics and supporters engage in a war of words over the technology. The controversy has escalated to the point where some users are now advocating a fork in order to move forward the old KDE 3.5 UI paradigms. As an observer who has closely studied each new release of KDE 4, I'm convinced that the fork rhetoric is an absurdly unproductive direction for this debate."
Thread beginning with comment 320992
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-07-26
Member since:2006-01-02
None because XGL didn't fork into Beryl -- Compiz did. And that was mainly because David Reveman was trying to take a slow and steady approach to developing Compiz and some people wanted to make all this crazy stuff right off the bat without having a sound infrastructure.
XGL and AIGLX are the 3d compositing frameworks (more or less) that made Compiz/Beryl possible.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-12-18
Yeah! Why not what for a while until the software has matured before starting to make forks and whatnot? Give it a chance to mature and give people a chance to adjust to a "new" environment for g*ds sake!
Is it KDE:s fault that some distros are shipping a version of their software that is not "complete"? It's a "bleeding-edge" distro, and I guess the users of those are prepared to live with the hassle of it?