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.
E-mail Print r 6   · Read More · 84 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 394015
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by lithium
by emilsedgh on Wed 11th Nov 2009 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lithium"
Member since:

for the point of view of a humble user, it was a complete disaster.

It wasnt there for a humble user. Everyone warned several times: you just didnt listen and now you are bitching about it.

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[6]: Comment by lithium
by asupcb on Wed 11th Nov 2009 17:39 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by lithium"
asupcb Member since:

There was only a warning if you followed the devs mailing lists. Where were the warnings in the official press release?

If you read the release it sounds like it is completely ready for all users. KDE 4.0 should have been released as KDE 4 DR1 (Developer Release 1). If KDE 4.0 was intended to only be a developer and advanced user release then why did they release beta-quality software with a stable-quality moniker? Why not just adopt a moniker that properly communicates the intended audience in the name?

Why were further efforts not made to run KDE 4 alongside KDE 3 during the development process? It seems to me that KDE has alienated at least part of their user base due to the way (or the perception that) they tried to force users to upgrade to KDE 4. Is there some technical reason a KDE 3.6 release could not have been made that was designed to run KDE 4 applications and allow both versions to co-exist on the same machine with no conflicts, so that users who wanted to run a completely polished KDE could do so until KDE 4 became a superior environment?

GNOME should have used DR monikers until 2.6, IMO. The GNOME community obviously felt that their previous decision to release beta-quality software with a stable-quality moniker was a mistake that they are now attempting to avoid with the GNOME 3.0 process.

Also why does KDE use a different six month release cycle than GNOME, especially in light of the fact that distros are just backporting features thereby making development more difficult for upstream?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[7]: Comment by lithium
by KugelKurt on Wed 11th Nov 2009 18:24 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by lithium"
KugelKurt Member since:

Users usually acquire their desktop environment from distributors. It's the distributor's responsibility to only ship software that is "ready".
No matter what the release announcements from say: Distributors need to do their own testing. They need to follow mailing lists, They need to follow

And even if KDE 4.0 had been marked as beta, what would have been the difference? At least Ubuntu and AFAIK also Fedora shipped a beta release of Firefox 3.0 as default browser.
Pretty much every current mainstream distro ships only the current beta of Thunderbird, instead of the stable 2.0 one.
PulseAudio never really worked well, hence it has a 0.x version number. Still, every distro ships it (openSUSE 11.2 disables PA for KDE, though).

So if you want to bitch against someone, bitch against the distributors who have bad or no quality assurance.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[7]: Comment by lithium
by emilsedgh on Wed 11th Nov 2009 19:02 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by lithium"
emilsedgh Member since:

There were several blog posts about it including

It was both users and distro's fault and totally expected.

Reply Parent Score: 1