Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Nov 2009 13:20 UTC, submitted by SReilly
Gnome As most of you will know, the GNOME team is hard at work on GNOME 3.0, the first major overhaul of the platform since 2002. The release of GNOME 3.0 was originally planned for March 2010, but it has now been pushed back for six months to September 2010.
Thread beginning with comment 393998
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by lithium
by CapEnt on Wed 11th Nov 2009 14:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by lithium"
CapEnt
Member since:
2005-12-18

Believe or not, this strategy worked quite well! (for KDE at least)

The rushed release of KDE4.0 attracted quite a number of developers to it by providing a clear look of their new development path, and avoided it to become a vaporware after numerous delays, refreshing the interest on it.

Opensource development is all about momentum, if it looses, the development stops and the software never gets released due the lack of stimulus. KDE4.0 provided a base development environment for the developers outside the core of KDE project to port and test their applications, and provided them with something new, albeit bugged, to play.

Edited 2009-11-11 14:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[4]: Comment by lithium
by haakin on Wed 11th Nov 2009 15:08 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by lithium"
haakin Member since:
2008-12-18

Believe or not, this strategy worked quite well! (for KDE at least)

The rushed release of KDE4.0 attracted quite a number of developers


Maybe from the developer point of view it was a success. But for the point of view of a humble user, it was a complete disaster.

In my case, I've been using KDE since KDE 2. I stoped using KDE six months ago when I started to work with KDE4. Suddenly Xfce or even Gnome were a better choice for me. I don't think that I'll be a KDE user again in the next years.

Anyway I wish that the Gnome 3 release is a huge success.

Javier

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Comment by lithium
by KugelKurt on Wed 11th Nov 2009 15:40 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lithium"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe from the developer point of view it was a success. But for the point of view of a humble user, it was a complete disaster.

Stop writing such bullsh*t. The only distro which went for KDE 4.0 exclusively was Fedora. All other distros either stayed with KDE 3.5 (eg. Debian and PCLinuxOS) or made a KDE 4 version optionally available (eg. Kubuntu, openSUSE).
Don't pretend as users were not warned of KDE 4.0's immaturity: http://en.opensuse.org/Image:OS11.0-inst-6.jpg

Reply Parent Score: 4

v RE[5]: Comment by lithium
by emilsedgh on Wed 11th Nov 2009 16:00 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lithium"
RE[5]: Comment by lithium
by molnarcs on Thu 12th Nov 2009 05:08 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lithium"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

But it was a distro disaster, not a KDE disaster. I mean the message was plain and clear and intended for distribution vendors, not end users (most end users get KDE through a distro vendor).

It was the failure of distributions to apply common sense, starting with the early integration of KDE 4.0 in Kubuntu... Sadly, other distributions followed suit... Oh wait, that's not even the case... Major vendors offered both a stable KDE 3.5.x and the new KDE 4.x release, with more or less clear descriptions in the release notes about the potential issues with the new release. But quite a few users just couldn't wait, went ahead (despite warnings from both KDE and their distro vendors), then started to whine about the lack of feature parity with old kde, even though they were warned through multiple channels BEFORE they tried it out...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by lithium
by sbergman27 on Wed 11th Nov 2009 15:12 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by lithium"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

The rushed release of KDE4.0 attracted quite a number of developers to it by providing a clear look of their new development path,

Something that calling it "KDE 4 Developer Preview: A Clear Look at Our New Development Path" would have done just as well, without being deceptive.

If necessary, aand avoided it to become a vaporware after numerous delays, refreshing the interest on it.

Vaporware? The code was already out there for developers to see, use, and plan for. What they did was to try to trick users and distros into using noxious vapor^W^Walpha code. And that *did* work. Though I would not call it a success. Did I hear someone say that the distros were free to make their own decisions? Well... we saw how that worked out.

Opensource development is all about momentum, if it looses, the development stops and the software never gets released due the lack of stimulus.

Oh, please. FUD much? Was the KDE4 project so close to death that the remaining devs had no choice but to resort to deception in order to resuscitate their withering project?

KDE4.0 provided a base development environment for the developers outside the core of KDE project to port and test their applications, and provided them with something new, albeit bugged, to play.

And a developer preview wouldn't have given them that? KDE 4.0.0 was intended to trick the community into serving the KDE devs' needs by unwittingly testing incomplete, alpha quality code when they wouldn't have had KDE 4.0.0 been labeled honestly.

Edited 2009-11-11 15:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Comment by lithium
by CapEnt on Wed 11th Nov 2009 16:19 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lithium"
CapEnt Member since:
2005-12-18

Nay, i don't think that the project managers resorted to deception at all.

KDE has a long history of their "0" releases being rather crappy. Just remember the 3.0 release. The 4.0 project was a huge rewrite, with lots of old things being scrapped, the developers has been clearly overloaded (some people even began to question the usefulness of the new architecture, asking simple to port KDE3 to QT4).

The KDE project ended up with the following rationale: "our current developers cannot extend or test it any further, and people are loosing the interest, we should release". So it got released on a "as is" basis.

And a developer preview wouldn't have given them that?

No, most binary distros avoid packing RCs and developers previews. The KDE folks wanted that developers who does not care that much for KDE project to compile it all by himself (or search for alternative repositories), to have a taste of their new architecture. Most distros out there knew that KDE4.0 has not really for end users, so they packed it as optional.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[5]: Comment by lithium
by sbenitezb on Wed 11th Nov 2009 20:01 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lithium"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

Oh, please. FUD much? Was the KDE4 project so close to death that the remaining devs had no choice but to resort to deception in order to resuscitate their withering project?


It wasn't the best move, but at least it was a move that did something for KDE. Take a look at KDE right now, it's the desktop gnome would like to be. It isn't perfect, but for the majority of users it works, and it's being polished constantly.

KDE is NOT stuck in the past like Gnome with the sorrow Gtk 2 toolkit. Still using libegg? Still using Bonobo? Still using CORBA? Still using that Windows registry ripoff called gconf? No native good mail client (come on, that garbage of outlook copy comes no close to KMail unless you only care about Exchange connectivity), best image viewer is mono based? Still relying in compiz for desktop effects? Any good music player that comes close to Amarok?

And a developer preview wouldn't have given them that? KDE 4.0.0 was intended to trick the community into serving the KDE devs' needs by unwittingly testing incomplete, alpha quality code when they wouldn't have had KDE 4.0.0 been labeled honestly.


So KDE didn't need testing after all? Everybody knows a major point-zero release is a potential source of bugs and new untested stuff. The problem was that distro packagers offered an upgrade to it without reading carefully. And users really wanted to use it even when it was clear it wasn't complete.

Reply Parent Score: 6