Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 16:12 UTC, submitted by Rahul
Gnome Only a few days ago, we ran an article on the future of KDE and GNOME, and which of the two had the brighter future based on their developmental processes. Barely has that discussion ended, or the GNOME engineering team comes with a pretty daunting plan to introduce a fairly massive reworking of the GNOME interface for GNOME 3.0 (2.30). Read on for the details.
Thread beginning with comment 356425
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Don't like it
by cypress on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 16:43 UTC
cypress
Member since:
2005-07-11

I don't like the look of it. Smells to me like the jump KDE made from 3.x to 4.0. It was a total disaster. Might happen again. Where's that incremental spirit of GNOME?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Don't like it
by vlstefanovic on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 16:53 in reply to "Don't like it"
vlstefanovic Member since:
2008-01-10

I don't like the look of it. Smells to me like the jump KDE made from 3.x to 4.0. It was a total disaster. Might happen again. Where's that incremental spirit of GNOME?


And KDE was not in "incremental spirit" on 3.x series??? Sometimes you just need to make a move.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE: Don't like it
by sbenitezb on Thu 2nd Apr 2009 17:18 in reply to "Don't like it"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

KDE is not a total disaster. I use KDE 4.2 and love it. The first two point releases were bad, but it's gaining shape now. Sometimes you need to make a clear cut in your path, like Apple did, like Microsoft did with DOS->NT migration, like KDE guys did.

On the other hand, I see the word enterprise and document used too much in gnome, too much of business involved in the decisions. How boring.

Reply Parent Score: 12

RE: Don't like it
by rockmen1 on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 04:48 in reply to "Don't like it"
rockmen1 Member since:
2006-02-04

Think about when jumping GTK1 to GTK2.I think that was a mess too.
Form development point of view, stick to old library means we have to deal with potential legacy/ugly code when implement new ideas. And difficult for newbie to contrubute.
Think about the delay of Xorg 7.5. X works for decades. It take afford to implement new feature based on old code. That's why Wayland comes out.(Although it is not a replacement for X, but Wayland make it a lot easier to implement modern stuff).
KDE4 needs a bebase/rewrite to incorporate new things, so there it went.
No one knows when GNOME needs too.
GNOME and KDE are just two different ways of how FOSS evolve.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Don't like it
by zorglub on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 11:30 in reply to "Don't like it"
zorglub Member since:
2008-09-03

Like a Jump ???
You did NOT even read it and you dare commenting ...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Don't like it
by orestes on Sat 4th Apr 2009 17:55 in reply to "Don't like it"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Apparently you don't remember the GNOME 1.x to 2.x transition which was arguably more jarring than the recent KDE fracas.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Don't like it
by sbergman27 on Sat 4th Apr 2009 18:03 in reply to "RE: Don't like it"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Apparently you don't remember the GNOME 1.x to 2.x transition which was arguably more jarring than the recent KDE fracas.

Hey. I was using KDE long before there was a KDE 1.0. I was using Gnome long before there was a Gnome 1.0. And I went through the Gnome 1.4->2.0 transition. And you are spewing crap. There is no way in hell that the Gnome 1.4->2.0 transition was ever even in the same ballpark as the disaster that has been KDE3->KDE4.

I get the impression that some people think that if they keep claiming so, it will somehow become true. But it won't. I know. I was there. And I will continue to remind folks who are engaging in revisionist history that they are engaging in revisionist history.

Edited 2009-04-04 18:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1