Submitted by “I think it’s really necessary to respond to some criticism seen on the reactions to the latest OSAlert article. I won’t go into the article itself, imho it’s rather negative, but hey. From an user’s perspective, it makes sense to only review 3 or 4 parts of KDE 4 and complain about them, and ignore all the other brilliant pieces of work in there, right? On to the responses, I found this reaction by dagw to be the most typical. Well. That’s painful. So, is he right? Did we make the wrong decision? Let’s look at it from a broader perspective for a while. Let’s see it in the Grand Scheme of Things to Come.”
That’s all well and good Jos, but neither dawg, nor I said the release ought to have been delayed.
We just said it should have been named a Developer Release or something to that effect. That’s got nothing to do with delaying anything – it has to do with naming something according to what it actually is, and this could have prevented a whole lot of negative responses.
Re-read the article. It wasn’t negative at all – try to tally up the negative versus the positive bits, and you’ll see. The fact that everyone focused on the negative bits probably says more about the state of KDE 4.0.0 than it does about me.
renaming it to ‘developer release’ or something wouldn’t have made much of a difference. Distro’s would not have picked it up, or they would have – in the first case, the release would simply be another beta, and in the second case, ppl would complain anyway. And it wouldn’t do much about the point about the parts of KDE which were ready, nor about the community dynamics.
We’ve communicated the state of KDE clearly, and the fact it’s a .0.0 release should be signaling it’s status anyway.
It wasn’t all negative, for sure – maybe it was also the many comments and other articles out there that made me feel that way. But I did miss things like Parley and the many other great things in 4.0.0, really.
That’s why I called it a “quick few impressions” and not a proper review
– I am saving the proper review for 4.1.
hehe, ok, looking forward to that one, then.
“renaming it to ‘developer release’ or something wouldn’t have made much of a difference. Distro’s would not have picked it up, or they would have – in the first case, the release would simply be another beta, and in the second case, ppl would complain anyway. ”
If it is DR lease, few people are going to use/test it, that make the KDE 4.0 get to mature slower.
“Many users will start using KDE 4.0.0 and start reporting bugs, so many corner issues the developers themselves would’ve NEVER found will be fixed in 4.1”
Ah, come on… All the visual issues have been reported many times to the KDE mailing lists, to blogs, and even here in the OSN comments.
“No good would have come of delaying the release any longer”
I read the whole article. Seriously, I’m not convinced. The normal user has nothing to do with inner development. How do commercial projects such as Leopard handle those development issues?
To answer your last question: they don’t. They also release… Seen the many complaints about the latest Mac OS X? And don’t even start looking for ppl who have trouble with Vista…
That’s a rather peculiar argument… Vista/Leopard sucks balls, so KDE 4.0.0 may suck balls too?
I’m sorry, but that is the weakest argument I have heard ever since this debate started. We should not compare KDE to Vista when it makes KDE look bad, but we may do it when it makes KDE look good?
What I mean is – why should there be higher standards for FOSS software than for non-FOSS software? We could’ve disrupted the long-term viability of our project by going the enlightenment way – sure. But I don’t think you would seriously argue for that, would you?
We’ve already delayed KDE 3 months, that was because it wasn’t ready for real-world use. It is now, even though it lacks features KDE 3.5 had. Gnome lacks many features KDE 3.5 has, ppl use that…
My point was that ppl who expect a .0.0 release to be perfect should look in the mirror if they are looking for answers.
Its easy to sling rocks from the other side of the fence.
You guys are doing a great job and have been.
I’ve been using KDe since 1.0 when I had to compile kde and qt from scratch and it took 2 days to do on my old PC.
Don’t let the negative press and comments get you guys down. There are a lot of us that appreciate everything you do and are behind you.
Bottom line – its out, it’ll get better and this will all be forgotten. Same thing happened with KDE 3. Its the same thing all over again and those of us that have been around for a long time are not surprised by the comments or disappointed with the release.
I have no issue whatsoever with the lack of features in KDE4, my issue is with stability which is pretty damn bad if I say so myself. The software is not even release candidate quality. That is my only issue with this release. Other than that I actually find it quite good and even though i have issues with the theme its nothing I can’t fix by changing the color scheme.
He, at least that’s good news – you like the new theme, just not the colors
I agree stability is pretty far from perfect, but I guess that’s not too unexpected from such a major release, right? And some bugfix releases will fix that soon enough. Personally, I see no reason why most distributions can ship eg KDE 4.0.3, maybe with some custom plasmoids…
BTW, I really like the Norway color scheme. Its simple is clean and the contrast is decent. Its a little clearlooks like but that is a great theme, imo.
I have bad eyesight, anything to dim or too bright blurs my vision. I tend to go for simple, easy on the eyes color schemes that I don’t have to squint at. The default doesn’t have enough contrast or enough color to to it. It has my eyes traveling all over the screen trying to find menus. A simple gradient here and there would work wonders with that theme.
Using Norway the interface doesn’t seem all that bad to be honest with you. I still think there are way too many options in the and there are other gripes but it definitely looks better than KDE3, at least to my eyes.
It’s more an observation on the way that open source projects like KDE are developed versus the differences with proprietary development projects like Vista and Leopard. Vista and Leopard have development previews and beta releases (all the things, apparently, people think KDE should be doing more of) and still their .0 releases are exceptionally poor in an awful lot of ways. It pretty much validates KDE’s, and open source software’s, general method of development. When it’s good enough, everyone knows about it and more people start using it. In the meantime, stuff gets fixed and everyone works from a known starting point.
And about the reported visual issues, many of those have been fixed, many have not. As I said, there is a lot which can be fixed by KDE itself. But there also is a lot which we can’t fix. And that stuff also has been reported. But not fixed. Now, more ppl will complain, or fee the urge to actually send in patches – and it will get fixed faster. That’s one of the things we wanted to happen, for sure.
You are right about the naming thing. The KDE guys simply don’t understand the richness of modern software versioning. “Alpha 1” and “Alpha 2” and “Beta 1” and “x.0 is final” are things the KDE guys have apparently never heard of.
Any other team would have called it KDE 4 Beta 1 or Developer Preview 1, and they would have avoided all this confusion and bickering.
To most people the name “KDE 4.0” simply misrepresents what it actually is. The KDE guys who think it is named well are probably in a minority.
Any other team would have called it KDE 4 Beta 1 or Developer Preview 1, and they would have avoided all this confusion and bickering.
The thing is that it’s neither of those things… You could have made that argument with RC 1, but 4.0.0 is stable, and not terribly buggy. Is the desktop / taskbar underfeatured? ‘yes’. But it’s stable, and works. Do kwin effects expose hardware issues? ‘yes’. But accumulating hacks for driver bugs for the next 5 plus years sounds terrible. The ‘fix your drivers and we’ll fix our bugs’ approach is the only way to go. KDE 4.0.0 is what it is…
Being stable but underfeatured in this way is not suitable for a consumer product. I think you don’t understand part of the KDE audience
See: http://osnews.com/permalink?295864
Edited 2008-01-14 15:58 UTC
KDE 4.0 ist not a consumer product. Distributions are consumer products. Sane distributors will wait until it’s mainstream-ready or handpick a few selected components (like openSUSE 10.3 already did).
I like my definition of a consumer product better than whatever yours is. My definition says that any product a consumer uses is a consumer product.
Using my definition it is pretty straight forward to see that all these non-developers downloading KDE 4.0 are consumers of it.
Thanks for confirming me, because there are no consumers of KDE 4.0.
Than what am I, and all of the others who installed KDE 4.0.0…?
Being stable but underfeatured in this way is not suitable for a consumer product. I think you don’t understand part of the KDE audience
See: http://osnews.com/permalink?295864
In short, stable and underfeatured, but usable for daily work is fine. Heck, I could argue that all of GNOME remains stable but underfeatured
If you’re going to nag, I’d nag about the need to use the big 3rd party KDE apps and KDE Pim from KDE 3… Hauling all of those libraries and icons and services into memory, with redundant technologies eating my CPU. Oh, woe is me that can’t run a ‘pure’ qt / KDE 4 stack :p (Then again, apt-get remove ‘KDE 3’ does give a person something to look forward to.)
OK, so what about blackbox, fluxbox etc? Stable, but severely under featured. I don’t hear people bagging them…
Dave
> We just said it should have been
> named a Developer Release
call me cynical, but releasing it as “4.0 – Developer Release” would’ve resulted in just a different sort of annoying feedback.
fact of the matter is that we’re here to create a good set of technologies, we’re on the right path and that’s what matters. if people don’t like, or even agree with, the necessary steps to get where we’re going .. well .. so be it.
when i read your original article i though, “typical Thom” but i read a lot of positive things in it and a certain “i want to like this, but it’s not there yet for me” tone. i’m cool with that ..
perhaps what is rankling is people for whom this release is not for getting pissy because it isn’t. as they say, not everything is about you
I totally agree and that is exactly why I think it should be called a Developer Release. The technology is there and stable enough for developers to start learning, testing and experimenting with. The general path they want to take is laid out giving developers an idea of directions they can take KDE4 in. There are plenty of areas screaming out for some love from a developer.
Basically this is a release that has a whole lot offer to developers and not a lot to offer to general users.
Aaron,
As an OSS developer myself, I know how the avalanche of negative comments after every release can grind you down, you rarely get a pat on the back, and that when you do it makes all the difference.
So, for the record, I think you guys did absolutely the right thing. The 4.0 release is exactly what you said it would be, and in my opinion is completely consistent with modern versioning schemes.
Well done
No-one seems to quite get what he was saying. The entire idea was to NOT call it a developer release so that more people would try it, and find bugs. This way, all the bugs people find in 4.0 will NOT be in 4.1. If they called it developer release, it would not have gotten a quarter of the attention it has, you would not have done your review, and many of these bugs would not have been caught. So, these bugs would just end up in the 4.1 release (which is the 4.0 release had they called this a developer preview), and we would be in the exact same boat with people ranting about using bold fonts for, god forbid, HEADINGS.
As for it being negative, I think thats alot more useful for developers than positive is. If everyone just said “hey, its great” because they were afraid of offending developers, what would kde be then? I suppose it would be rather similar to the giant state of denial that skyos is in
Edited 2008-01-14 20:50 UTC
The reason KDE 4.0 and pretty much every other x.0.0 release of any software out there is a little rough around the edges or incomplete is because it requires user attention to be polished and users just don’t want to use something named “Developer Preview” or “Release Candidate”.
Thanks Thom. I realize I was a bit negative about your article, and it shows character to put my blog online so fast.
+1 from me
That’s what OSAlert does. We publish opinions, and if someone responds, even if it is “against” an editor, we post it. You know, open discussion, fair and balanced (that one never gets old
), that sort of stuff.
Edited 2008-01-14 15:14 UTC
I remember Gnome 2.0 being total disaster. It was in early stage of development, when it came out, I have installed it, looked and switched back to gnome 1.4 which was much more mature.
The release of KDE 4.0 was a good idea, even if it’s in early state. It means, that no significant changes will be made to basic libraries, it’s got solid foundations and people can safely port their apps to new architecture.
Try using kde 3.5 without any other desktop software. No much joy. There is plenty of apps that are available for kde 3, not yet ported to kde4, and release of KDE 4.0 will mean for developers: “hurry up, we’re almost ready, port your apps!”. Just like it was with gnome 1.4 / 2.0.
Thom and the others want KDE to become like Enlightenment. Enlightenment 0.17 is in beta since ages. The final release won’t get “ready”, even though Yellow Dog Linux ships with it as default desktop.
I don’t get why release version numbers are so important. You won’t drop or use it becouse of a number. You will decide if it is for you or not.
As long as it is not a forced update, so it simply just does not metter how they call it.
I hope, 4.1 will be a pack I’d like to use. 4.0 is not. I’m not confused – woo-hoo!
“You won’t drop or use it becouse of a number.”
Do you really believe that the version of a software does not factor into the decision to use it?
I know some people who disagree with you. They don’t use alpha and beta software. Those words “alpha” and “beta” mean something. They mean that the software isn’t finished.
Back in the good old days you could actually use the version number as some sort of indication of how complete and stable the software was. A 0.x version or Alpha release was not feature complete, a Beta release was complete but probably had bugs, an RC was actually a condidate for release and an x.0 release was the first feature complete release considered to stable.
This system is good and it had developed and is used for a reason. As a developer, and a user, I don’t expect anything less than an stable release to actually be stable. I know that if I pick a library which is still in Alpha, the API may change and cause me work in the future. I know that if I use that financial software that is in Beta it may crash and I risk the chance of losing data.
It seems the current trend is for version number inflation. Alphas have become “Betas”, Betas are “Release Candidates” and Release Candidates are x.0 releases. Apparently even that is not enough now, and projects are skipping right ahead to “Release” without mucking about with all that stable APIs and bug testing nonsense. That’s boring!
Releasing KDE as 4.0.0 and then claiming it is “a developer release” is just odd. There used to be a name for “developer releases”. It was “Alpha”.
Edited 2008-01-14 16:40 UTC
What do you mean with back in the good old days?
Kernel 2.6.0 days? KDE 2.0 days or even more back, like Windows 3.0 days?
I have the feeling that a lot of people have a concept on what an alpha, a beta or a final release should be. If a release does not fit into that concept they argue that the devs made a mistake.
It would be nice if more people would read and understand KDE’s release concept here. This would solve a lot of the questions and fears posted here as well as the reports of lack of features et al.
So please let the KDE devs sound their own release concept and accept their concept for their product.
So, you will just suck up whatever the KDE developers say, without thinking for yourself? Without reflection, without critique, just because they are the developers? If they said KDE 4.0.0 was the best ever release ever and ever, and it would never be toppled by anything else in the whole wide world, would you accept it too, and “attack” [you’re not literally attacking, but I don’t know a better word a.t.m.] anyone not willing to accept that same position, like you are “attacking” people now who are not willing to accept the current situation as-is?
If the KDE devs want to promote an alpha release as a stable release, that’s fine by me, go ahead, it’s their responsibility, not mine. But don’t go crying in the corner when people start complaining afterwards that your so-called stable product is, in fact, “nothing more” than a developer release.
[cliche alert] If you can’t handle the heat, don’t stand so close to the fire.
Edited 2008-01-14 17:29 UTC
If a commercial software editor (say an OS editor for example
), puts a big sticker saying “Warning ! This product is not a finished product, is possibly buggy, and may eat your babies” along with the rest of the software package in the shop, I know what I’m buying, even if the product is advertised as the new version of my favorite OS.
Edited 2008-01-14 18:29 UTC
> So, you will just suck up whatever the KDE
> developers say, without thinking for yourself?
i’m all for applying critical thought to things. i’m also for listening to what people have to say and when they say, “this is what i mean” not turning around and saying, “no that isn’t what you meant” because that is, in a word, an *absurd* position to take.
i may not have understood what you meant, but once you explain what you mean i’d have to be an idiot to think i understood what you meant better than you did.
the problem is that there are people in this world who take advantage of that and when they get caught out say, “well, that isn’t what i meant.” due the abuse of this norm of communications by too many politicians, business people and outright crooks many people have become so jaded and cynical that they have lost the ability to ever recognize credibility even where it exists.
this is a bit off topic for this discussion, i know, but i think it’s a sad reflection on our times and societies.
> If they said KDE 4.0.0 was the best ever release
> ever and ever, and it would never be toppled by
> anything else in the whole wide world, would you
> accept it too
c’mon, i expect more from you than this, and i think the fellow you replied to deserves a little more respect.
KDE didn’t say it was the best ever release, we didn’t even say this is what should be put into production installations or spread to the general consumer. in fact, *because* we didn’t say that and instead stuck to what it is people can accept what we said. when someone is speaking plainly, it’s alright to accept it as such. i admit one has to have the ability to tell the difference between straight speak and weasel words …
No, in fact. But neither would I ignore what they say.
If someone tells me their product is not ready for everydays use and I try it nevertheless and encounter problems, well then I’ve been warned.
Not counting the problems that are probably connected to the distribution rather than KDE 4.0 itself.
You see that is the difference. They don’t say it. Practically they say use at your own risk. Apparantly you are neither a distributor nor a developer of software for KDE you are rather a curious person like there are many.
But don’t be disappointed if you find your parents preparing the presents for christmas instead of christ child/Father Christmas/…
None is crying but the ones that are not able to read:
It’s not a release for Joe Public. Go ahead and write about 4.1 what you want as that is supposed to be the release for the general masses.
Then why did you install KDE 4.0 if you can’t handle the heat?
Ah Thom, get off your bike before you fall off and hurt your behind!
Sure, KDE 4 has some issues, there are certain things that I’ve seen in screendumps that I don’t like the look of. The new start menu doesn’t make me too happy to try it at all. But – I don’t go on bitching about it because of that. I’m smart enough to know that this was a technology release, a foundation, nothing more and nothing less. Why don’t you just drop the bash KDE excuse and live with it? If you don’t like KDE, don’t use it. But don’t go on endlessly bashing it because you don’t like it, or the KDE developers fundamental design decisions.
OS X 10.0.0 was a shocker. Vista was, and is a shocker, and SP1 isn’t expected to fix it. Vista was long overdue, and there was a lot of pressure on Microsoft to release something, anything, which is what they did. KDE got the underlying technologies pretty stable, and then did a release – so that distributions will take up kde 4.0.0 and it will get tested further by a wider audience.
When you really look at it, what is a quicker development method? 5% of your target audience using it and testing it and reporting issues for a 5 year development period until it’s deemed stable, or 65% of your target audience using it and helping to make it stable in 18 months? I know what I’d prefer…sure, things will be not so nice for 18 months or so, but it’s a start, and a solid start. You have to walk before you can run as the old saying goes.
Dave
Before this trend for release inflation began.
Well yes, that’s because the terms “Alpha”, “Beta”, “Release Candidate” & “Final Release” have defined terms. Pretending that they don’t doesn’t help.
I have every respect for the KDE developers, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with their arguments on this matter. If they had released 4.0.0 as “Stable” and stuck to that, fair enough. What they have done is released it and then tried to tell people that it isn’t stable. This to me is just back to front and is clearly confusing to a lot of people.
Edited 2008-01-14 18:02 UTC
> If they had released 4.0.0 as “Stable” and stuck to
> that, fair enough. What they have done is released
> it and then tried to tell people that it isn’t
> stable.
we released 4.0.0 as stable and added advisory information so people would know what to and what not to expect from it. it’s that simple and not particularly amazing.
Hi asiego, in relation to the points I made, will these be brougt back or will KDE 4 stay the way it is now? My opinion, you could have called “KDE4.0” KDE 4 Developer Release or 3.9 or KDE 4 Developer Preview
Calling it a developer release or even preview would not have been accurate either.
My guess is that the problems originate by misunderstanding KDE 4.0 as a single product, while it is more a set of three products: the KDE application platform (i.e. libraries and runtime infrastructure), the KDE desktop environment (in KDE terminology referred to as “workspace”) and the KDE application suite (e.g. applications like Okular, Gwenview, KDE-Edu apps, KDE games, etc)
So while it might have been an option to use different namings for the three sections, it is my opinion that this would have lead to even more misconceptions.
i’m sure you’ll have a lot of time to consider how that all came to change as you ride into town in your horse drawn buggy so that you can send a telegram and put a mail order in to Sears-Roebuck by post.
life is not static.
You’re kidding me, right? We can just redefine accepted terms with however we like so that they fit how we’ve done things? Why did no one tell me this before?
I declare Syllable “stable” and that all “bugs” are imaginary. We have ten “million” users, although my definition of “million” may differ from yours. That’s O.K, you’ll catch up eventually to avoid confusion.
Sorry, you’ll have to excuse the snarky post but this is the sort of thing that really gets my goat. We’re being told that the version number isn’t important but if it isn’t important, why couldn’t the release simply have been called an Alpha or Beta?
As you already said, alpha means still under development, meaning API changes in KDE, which is mostly a platform more than an application. KDE API is frozen, no alpha state applies anymore.
Beta is testing, and KDE 4.0 is stable, as it runs well. It may contain bugs, like any other x.0 release.
Seriously, take a look at all software projects out there, both open source and closed source, gratis and commercial. You’ll see a lot of 1.0 releases not featurefull nor completely stable. Still nobody talks about them or cares.
The reality is KDE 4.0 as a framework is stable. It’s not a complete desktop, as it’s not intended to be yet. How could it be if most important applications are still under heavy porting? A desktop is nothing without applications, thus KDE 4.0 is merely a framework as of now.
And speaking of it, I’m running Kubuntu with KDE 4.0 right now and works. I’ve tried the soon to be KOffice and I like it, I use KTorrent 3 beta and works fairly well, KGet is amazing with its new interface, plasma *will rock*, Dolphin is what I wanted for simple and easy file management, and Gwenview sports a very interesting interface (best I’ve seen, actually). So it’s not a full release ready to replace KDE 3.5, but it was needed for users to test it and report bugs, and for developers to catch up with the much needed ports (as already mentioned).
You look too much into numbers, as many people here, but fail to see what’s important: KDE 4.0 had to be released when it achieved stability, not when all ports where completed, all features developed, etc. 4.0 is just a number, not really important, and if you can only see a number in such a big step in desktop environments, then shame on you, because you’re missing the whole picture.
‘Stable’ does not mean the same as ‘bug free’.
‘Stable’ generally refers to the stable nature of the API, and that bugs considered to be ‘showstoppers’ by the release team have been fixed.
It is doubtful that any complex application has ever, or will ever, be bug free.
Completely agreed. To me, “Stable” means that it’s not going to destroy my hardware or my data. It doesn’t mean that it’s going to be bug free.
You and I both understand what “Stable” means. It generally means that the developers have fixed all known “High” priority bugs and have usually documented all other known bugs.
Of course no one can fix bugs they do not know about yet.
No matter the name or warnings or whatever that come out, distros will package as they see fit and users will use, for the majority, what their distro packages. If the feature list for the .0.0 milestone has been completed, then its time to release it, start collecting bug reports for the 4.0.x releases and start working on features for the 4.x series.
In the end, all of this noise is going to be nothing more than a foot note in the history of the 4 series anyway.
Well, we got the 15 minutes of hate, and now we get the 15 minutes of love
The devs pushed KDE 4.0.0 back twice, and the release they made was stable, even if it did contain some feature regressions on the desktop (And some bugs in KHTML). I hardly think that 4.0.0 was shooting themselves in the foot. The rest of the KDE apps that shipped saw major improvements (KDE games is actually sexy.)
The release was needed– a project that sits in development too long dies of developer apathy, entrophy, and incest. 4.0.0 will bring feedback, bug reports, and new hands, eyes, and voices (As I’ve said before)… Plus, it’s needed in the broader ecosystem. If you want to see the big 3rd part KDE apps for KDE 4, you need a KDE 4.0.0. If you need to resolve qt / xorg bugs, you need the push from a KDE 4.0.0. If you want Plasma to get mature, you need a KDE 4.0.0. While far from perfect, KDE 4.0.0 does do a good job of teasing about the potential of KDE 4.
The future is bright– and just a little bit of the future is now.
There’s a rule describing the amount of effort you should spend caring about the criticisms of random nameless people on the Internet…
There’s a rule describing the amount of effort you should spend caring about the criticisms of random nameless people on the Internet…
Yes, but…
After 2+ years of development, the investment 30 minutes for a concise response is reasonable, IMHO. Most of the KDE developers have been ‘lucid’ about the state of KDE 4.0.0– and even the KDE ‘fans’ have been largely the same. There’s has been very little PR gloss over the ‘pig’ from the KDE camp. With that being said, letting 3rd parties define perception without having a response after all of the work that went into KDE 4.0.0 would be a little short sighted. Not for the people that use KDE 4.0.0, we know what it is (and isn’t), but for the broader pool of potential users.
Indeed. As semi-official KDE promo dude, I feel I need to step in and make things clear, if I see ppl misrepresenting or simply not understanding things. We, as in KDE, don’t do that enough. I must say aaron is really leading the way in changing that, though.
I don’t quite understand what this article is trying to say. Most OSS projects are very careful with their reputation for quality, often staying at 0.9.x for longer than they really needed to. Are we to understand that KDE is unique in that it is OK for them to push something out the door that they know is not release quality and call it going gold? And that it is good because it gives distros more time to package it, even though they have had access to the packages the whole time anyway? And regarding beneficial effects on distros… didn’t KDE’s rushing 4.0 out the door just royally screw up Kubuntu’s planned LTS release, throwing things out of whack for that important distro’s stable series for literally years?
One thing I’ll say about spin. It’s pretty obvious to people who pay attention when it is being applied, regardless of whether the agent is Microsoft… or someone else.
Anyway, this is a good time to refer to this perennial favorite bit of valuable advice:
http://tinyurl.com/4gus
Edited 2008-01-14 15:27 UTC
Interesting that you mention spin and Kubuntu since there seems to be a lot of spin trying to justify why the LTS release was dropped. As countless others have already mentioned: All other big players (Mandriva, Novell and RedHat) have no problem supporting KDE 3.5 for the next couple of years. The difference is that the other big companies have the resources to support KDE for many even if the upstream support lessens over time while Kubuntu only has Jonathan Riddell who is constantly occupied with cranking out another release while at the same time being the sole paid developer for supporting several releases at once.
Seriously, blaiming the premature release of KDE 4.0 for Kubuntu dropping a LTS release is probably trying to divert from the substandard financial support KDE is getting from Canonical.
Edited 2008-01-14 15:33 UTC
> probably trying to divert from
probably. there’s nothing like ignoring 35% of your user base, especially when that user base includes entire school systems (canaries comes to mind; 300k people involved in that one), governments (french parliament) and businesses…
i continued to be a little shocked at the missteps of Canonical and *buntu in recent times.
For the 300th Billionth time. Just because Ubuntu is the most popular distro out here right now doesn’t translate into cash. Ubuntu relies on money from One person at this time and he is under no obligation to fork over 10 million of his hard earned cash just to please everybody. They make do with what they have. Ubuntu isn’t RedHat with a Time Warner deal under their belt, they aren’t Suse with daddy Novell to throw them cash. I’d be surprised if, after the dell deal, they broke even.
KDE doesn’t fit the criteria that Ubuntu needs, so it doesn’t get the bulk of the support. Gnome does and Ubuntu has built its services and general timetable around Gnome. Like many have said (and I have reiterated countless times) KDE is not complete, why would a distro that is preparing to release an LTS release choose an incomplete unproven DE, and try to support them for 18 months. Ubuntu LTS releases stay frozen and they don’t usually upgrade packages, they just focus on security updates, and minor updates. Would you really want to use KDE4.0.0 without any major updates for a year and a half or would you rather wait until KDE4.1 rolls around and is stable and mature, with all applications ported and running as they should. With everything completed, and the latest additions to the qt kit trickle their way down to KDE?
Personally i can wait a couple of months to get something usable than to have something now that isn;t really meant to be used by the average user.
This is quite true, however, by offering and marketing the LTS releases, they have basically entered the same playing field as the two distributions you mentioned, i.e. “enterprise” distributions, which guarantee their customers an actively maintained software stack over a certain extended period of time.
By dropping such an LTS release without prior warning they loose trust in this area, since the dropping of the LTS basically is a message to their customers that this part of their business model is not as important to them as others, e.g. OEM deals.
I am not sure how you measure completeness but pretty much everyone else on the planet would consider KDE 3.5 a proven software stack.
It is part of the LTS equivalent of other “enterprise” distributions and even used in custom distribution installations like Munich, Germany.
Whatever lead Canonical to leave their LTS customers in the cold rain of an uncertain future, it is pretty certainly not the quality of the KDE software stack.
It is more likely that they are leaving the traditional maintenance contract business model behind in favor of new ones and the dropping of the LTS option for part of their customers is the beginning of this phasing out process.
Yep. I for some reason I had thought that Kubuntu wasn’t going to include KDE4 and instead opted for KDE3, but that is not the case and, imo, that is ass-backwards.
I was initially critical of the Kubuntu decision, assuming that they were taking an “Oooh! Shiny!” approach to their management of that branch of the distro, by going with KDE4 rather than taking the more sensible route of sticking to 3.x for one more release.
But then I heard that you guys were not committing to supporting 3.x for the duration of an LTS desktop release. Is that correct or incorrect? If it is correct, I don’t see how they could reasonably, and in good faith, promise the things that an LTS release implies, regardless of KDE branch they picked. In that way, they were simply taking more responsibility regarding promises made to their user base than has the KDE project.
Or, in simpler language:
“I am rubber, you are glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.”
Edited 2008-01-14 19:57 UTC
Well said – that is the real truth of it all. This is one reason why I do not like Ubuntu, and will not recommend it. If Canonical was serious about improving Linux, and the public’s view of it, it would support KDE in the main release, and support it with the same money/number of developers that it throws to the Gnome desktop environment.
I see no reason why Ubuntu cannot package KDE and release a DVD instead of a CD, especially since Ubuntu will ship out CD/DVDs to you free of charge (great for us still stuck on dialup – thanks Ubuntu!).
Dave
The appeal and the reason I think Ubuntu is so popular is because they only have a one cd installer. It doesn’t require 6 cd’s full of crap to install anything, and they don’t install everything under the sun, just what you need.
CD’s are cheaper to make and ship to users, maybe not a lot cheaper, but when you are a company that doesn’t have a lot of capital and no real revenue coming in other than donations from a certain billionaire, you are going to cut corner however you can.
KDE wasn’t chosen as the default DE for reasons specified in every f–king KDE vs. Gnome post ever made in the last 2 years. If you think Kubuntu should be better then please by all means help out. They can use the help, but unless you can tell me how they are going to spend money they don’t have on something that doesn’t meet their criteria and was apssed over because of it, then you really have no say in the matter.
like I said before, Canonical doesn;t have the type of cash that RedHat or Novell does. They are not a publically traded company with investors and stock holders. They are a small company, last I heard they had only six people who actually work at their headquarters. The fact that they are able to do big things is only because of the communities involvement. Get involved, change Kubuntu’s second tier standing, otherwise you have to live with the fact that resources are scarce and that they made their choice and are sticking to it.
“I don’t quite understand what this article is trying to say. Most OSS projects are very careful with their reputation for quality, often staying at 0.9.x for longer than they really needed to.”
The 0.9.x series generally culminates in a 1.0.0 release. KDE did exactly the same for KDE 1.0.0, IIRC. Projects generally behave the same up to 1.0.0: it usually represents the refinement of a well-tested existing code-base until is is declared “production-ready”. Post-1.0.0, versioning schemes often work differently, as is the case with KDE and GNOME (see below), so I’m not sure why you bring this up in the context of a 4.0.0 release.
“Are we to understand that KDE is unique in that it is OK for them to push something out the door that they know is not release quality and call it going gold? ”
No, in fact it is in the company of luminaries such as GNOME (GNOME 2.0.0) and the Linux kernel (2.6.0), both of which were first releases of *major* departures from the well-established GNOME 1.x.y and Linux 2.4.x codebase, and both of which thoroughly sucked. I’m sure that students of open source history can furnish us with other examples. Heck, we even see the same in the proprietary world: OS X 10.0 shared the same attributes as GNOME 2.0.0 and Linux 2.6.0 – big break; big breakage.
GNOME and KDE both use the same versioning scheme: up to 1.0.0 is the process of refinement up to production-readines; x.0.0 for x>1 is explicitly noted as the first step in a major *break* from the production ready code (more precisely, it is a break in the API, which generally results in significant code-base re-writes).
So personally, I’d turn your question on its head: is KDE so unique that its x.0.0 releases be held to a far higher standard than other core Free Software projects?
Edited 2008-01-14 16:03 UTC
I’ve been running Linux as my primary desktop and at my clients’ sites for 11 years in my business. I’ve used both Gnome and KDE over various periods. I went through the kernel 2.0->2.2->2.4->2.6 cycle. I used KDE before it hit 1.0. Likewise with Gnome. I was using Gnome when it went 1.0. Likewise with KDE. I also used Gnome when it went 2.0. I am using KDE4 *right now*. And so it is with some grounding in history that I can say that this KDE release is seriously *substandard*.
P.S. I also went through the libc5->glibc6 transisition. And I have to admit that the current KDE breakage does not hold a *candle* to that experience!
Edited 2008-01-14 16:32 UTC
> I also went through the libc5->glibc6 transisition.
ugh. don’t even remind me of those times. *shudder* and then that was then followed by the “years of weekly security issues in either bind, sendmail, apache, cron, ssh, etc or all of the above. have fun compiling from source.”. it’s pretty impressive that the community pulled through all that to have what we have now =)
Those of us who experienced all that were younger then!
I’ve gotten so used to modern package managers, modern dependency resolvers, modern DEs, and the fuss-free nature of vendor supplied kernels, that I’m not sure I could go back to those days of scouring the internet for solutions to my netscape 4.5 browser crashing every time it hit a site with java… because the browser was compiled with gcc 2.96 and the plugin was compiled with gcc 2.95.
> Most OSS projects are very careful with their
> reputation for quality, often staying at 0.9.x for
> longer than they really needed to.
yes, the versioning dilemma. what to call the version after 3.5.8 (and soon 3.5.9)? 0.9 doesn’t quite cut it does it? and 0.9 releases *are* releases. they aren’t rcs or betas or alphas (that’s why you’ll often see 0.9beta2 or whatever).
the versioning of 4.0 does work if you realize it for what it is in the open source model, unfortunately many people don’t.
i have a personal theory that we should have perhaps released this as KDE4 v0.1 or something. the version numbers of the packages would still be the same for packaging purposes, but by somewhat turning the version scheme on its head could’ve communicated more clearly to people what we’re doing here.
not that other projects have bothered doing that when in the same predicament. i guess expectations in the community are evolving. not always for the better, either.
> Are we to
> understand that KDE is unique in that it is OK for
> them to push something out the door that they know
> is not release quality and call it going gold
you know what they say about putting words in some one else’s mouth, right? =) we never called this release “gold” as in “here is the gold master DVD, now go run off and make a few million copies of it for distribution to the masses”. we’ve been pretty clear about what this release is, but it is to be expected that not everyone will either hear that or get it. it’s an unfortunate but necessary bit of pain for us to go through; the alternatives are even worse as instead of dealing with, ultimately meaningless, opinion it would give us a dead technology in the mid- and long-terms.
> this is a good time to refer to this perennial
> favorite bit of valuable advice:
except that the article doesn’t particularly apply to what we did. the vast majority of the code base did not see a rewrite (don’t like new names like ‘okular’ fool you, for instance), most of the new code was filling in gaps that were never filled in the first place, and the remaining bits that were rewrites (e.g. the file views or plasma) were pretty much required work (and still represent a small %, low single digits, of the overall codebase in 4.0)
I have to agree here with the KDE camp.
I understand that most project stay beta for a very long time but I think that in part is due to the fact that they don’t want to get this kind of criticism as it will always happen.
With that said, releasing a full distribution or a desktop environment, is always met with more skepticism or caution. Lots of folks will not try out a beta or release candidate but that is what is needed in order to iron all the bugs out.
I have been and still am behind the scenes in distro development and you just can’t get enough people to test it out and give good feedback. Those that do are greatly appreciated but the plain simple fact is that most folks won’t touch beta dekstop environments or distributions with a 10 foot pole until you call them stable.
Its much easier to keep calling it beta and trudging along since you can’t get criticised and can always qualify thing with “Well it IS beta software.”
It takes guts to release it like this knowing things will need to be fixed but as the originator of this said, you won’t get any further until a wider audience tries it out and you HAVE to call it stable in order for a wider audience to give it a go.
Everyone criticises Microsoft for the very same thing but they are subject to the same issues Open SOurce developers of distributions and desktop environments are – you just can’t test every single combination of hardware/software out until more people try it.
I fully understand that folks want things stable as do the developers. Nothing makes us happier than getting good feedback for our hard work and time invested.
The question to everyone is this – “How can we get more folks to try distributions and desktop environments out before they are deemed stable or final?”
I’m not a KDE developer BTW. Just a fellow Open Source guy that has some apps out there and helps with some distributions out there as well.
Trying to decide when to come out of beta and launch a full product is a complicated thing, yeah. You have to look at who you are launching at and what it needs to do for them.
Unfortunately KDE 4.0 launched to two groups of people, and the KDE guys didn’t realize this — or they just don’t understand the second group.
Group 1) KDE 4.0 is done for developers. It is out of beta and ready for non-KDE team members to pick up and develop for.
Group 2) KDE 4.0 is not done for users. It is not suitable for a user desktop.
The name “KDE 4.0” looks suitable for users, but it is not. That is the only problem here.
And that is precisely why Thom suggested it be called something like “KDE 4 Developer Preview” instead of KDE 4.0.
Edited 2008-01-14 15:59 UTC
No, the only problem is that people like you don’t listen to the KDE devs. They’ve been preaching for quite a long time that KDE 4.0 is not intended for the mainstream user base. The typical mainstream user doesn’t even know about KDE 4.0. I’ve never seen it being mentioned in mainstream media (unlike the iPhone, for example).
OTOH the typical consumer walks into a shop, buys an eeePC and doesn’t even know that it runs Linux with KDE 3.4 (IIRC it’s 3.4, not 3.5).
PS: You forgot one group: The non-developing pro user who reads sites like OSAlert and should understand when the devs write “The aim of the KDE project for the 4.0 release is to put the foundations in place for future innovations on the Free Desktop. The many newly introduced technologies incorporated in the KDE libraries will make it easier for developers to add rich functionality to their applications, combining and connecting different components in any way they want.” in their announcements. http://kde.org/announcements/announce-4.0-rc2.php
Edited 2008-01-14 16:33 UTC
Then why do you get KDE 4.0 if you go to kde.org and click to download the latest stable release? If it’s not ready, why isn’t 3.5.8 listed instead? Why isn’t there even a warning that KDE 4.0 is experimental? This certanly gives the impression that the KDE developers think KDE 4.0 is ready.
Personaly I think they should have labeled all KDE 4.0.X releases as experimental and still offer 3.5.8 as the latest stable. That would have made it much more clear that 4.0 is released to iron ut bugs and isn’t intended for general use, while still getting the benefit of having 4.0 finally out.
KDE 3.5.8 already is in every distribution’s repository.
Since it’s stable and the latest release that is the correct. That some parts don’t have some features, and that those are expected to be added later does not change this.
You are completely missreading what the KDE developers are saying, intentional or otherwise.
For KDE the mainstream user are the huge userbase KDE 3 has. Users that for various reasons, like functionality and application availability has chosen KDE as their desktop. Since not all application and functions are avaliable for KDE 4.0.0, it’s not the correct choice for those users depending on those applications and functionality. This fact does not make KDE 4.0.0 any less stable or release ready.
Edited 2008-01-14 19:45 UTC
The pro users get it. The pro users are saying the “KDE 4.0” name is misleading for non-pro users.
The non-pro users are the ones saying KDE 4 sucks. They think this because the name mislead them into thinking it was done.
the end
The pro users get it. The pro users are saying the “KDE 4.0” name is misleading for non-pro users.
The non-pro users are the ones saying KDE 4 sucks. They think this because the name mislead them into thinking it was done.
the end
I’m calling BS right there… The number of non-pros running KDE 4.0.0 is pretty close to zero. Non pros won’t be touching KDE 4 until it is the default KDE in their distro of choice. End of story. Unless you start counting the site admins here as non-pros
(You’re no green n00b if your downloading a bootable CD then fudging with your BIOS to boot it, or if you’re smart enough to point a package manager at a repo labeled ‘experimental / dangerous / testing / whatever’.)
Yes are, or at least can be. I know lots and lots of people are a quite capable doing this, yet are still complete Linux noobs. They may know windows or OS X, and quite a bit about computers in general, but they can still be linux noobs. Perhaps they’re curiose about Linux, heard that KDE4 is the new hot shit and decided to give it a spin and see what the hype was all about.
Then there is the huge groupe which are neither noob nor pro. The world doesn’t always divide up into two nice groups. These are people who have been using Linux for a bit, perhaps after a friend helped them install it. They’re comfortable adding new apps via synaptic, know where Ubuntu keeps the control panel and can follow instructions someone posts on a forum. This doesn’t make them Linux pros. They’re probably not comfortable on the comand line and are incapable of fixing hard problems.
Over the past couple of years this class of linux users has grown substantially. We can no longer simply assume that just because someone uses Linux as their main desktop OS, that they are automatically Linux pros.
Then there is the huge groupe which are neither noob nor pro. The world doesn’t always divide up into two nice groups. These are people who have been using Linux for a bit, perhaps after a friend helped them install it. They’re comfortable adding new apps via synaptic, know where Ubuntu keeps the control panel and can follow instructions someone posts on a forum. This doesn’t make them Linux pros. They’re probably not comfortable on the comand line and are incapable of fixing hard problems.
Yes, and this group will get KDE 4.0.0, and not a terrible experience. They may be a little miffed at needing to use kwrite to modify the taskbar, and if they enable the kwin effects they may get a bit of a surprise… But the desktop is usable and the apps are quite good… And it reeks of potential… (And it’s ‘fast’… And it’s ‘purdy’, at least to my crude eyes)
So, that middle ground aren’t ‘green n00bs’. If they can read the instructions to run it, than it’s probably a good idea that the developers lucidly articulate the caveats that come with a .0.0 release. So we can argue what constitutes ‘a real pro user’. But those with enough skill to install 4.0.0 surly have the skill to read the caveats that come with it (Without the alarmist hit driving perception poisoning tripe you see in some places.).
The bitching pro users complain by referring to an imaginary user group: The non-pro user how knows about KDE 4.0.
This group doesn’t exist unless a pro user explains to him how crappy KDE 4.0 is.
Ask your mom about her opinion about KDE 4.0. I’m sure she won’t even know what you are talking about.
I’m not quite sure you read what I wrote.
I’m on the side of the devs and KDE 4.0 has been released by some distros for further testing. Kubuntu has a 7.10 respin with KDE 4.0.
I like how it looks. It does have some issues but nothing that is a showstopper IMHO.
Until a wider userbase tries it out, it can’t go further than it has though. Yes this is not intended for the general public just yet but if their favourite distribbution puts out an ISO with it, they will try it and that is what is needed and is what happens.
The unfortunate drawback is that articles like the one this one is answering pop up. That is the problem and not with folks like me that fully understand the why’s of this whole thing.
Indeed. It’s not like you can’t use KDE 4.0.0 at all or something. Distributions will be the ones to decide when to put it in by default – KDE 4.0.0, 4.0.5 or 4.1.2 – their choice. Some distro’s want to deliver the latest & greatest. So they release it soon. Others want to deliver a more stable environment, so they wait. And users can always decide for themselves. Nothing wrong with any of that.
> The name “KDE 4.0” looks suitable for users, but it
> is not.
if you seriously try and base what software is suitable for users based on a release number, particularly a dot-oh, i have a Vista license here to sell you. please pay no mind to the years of 0.x releases of software like k3b, though. obviously they weren’t production ready yet
seriously though, i get what you’re saying.
it’s a mismatch between the expectations of different groups. what’s difficult here is that some of those groups are radically changing and with them their sophistication and expectations. the f/oss users of 5 years ago are not much like the typical f/oss users of today, and we probably need to adjust some of our messaging to meet that change.
we’ve been revamping a lot of our communications and interfaces to outside of the project in response to this, but we haven’t retooled much of our “express the engineering” bits.
one of my mentors long ago told me: “if they don’t understand it, simplify it. express it in terms they already know. don’t get frustrated with them, they can only know what they know.” he died a few years back; i still miss him =/ he was full of sage advice like that.
it would be nice, however, if in the process the community took a “work on this together” approach rather than a “fling tomatoes until we get what we want” approach. they both involve expressing displeasure, dissapointment, excitement and satisfaction where they exist … but one is a lot more fun for everyone involved.
I don’t think I’ve been throwing tomatoes at all – although I must say that the possible prospect of throwing tomatoes in your face is kind of interesting. I mean, isn’t that the coolest way of settling an argument? You and the KDE devs on one side of the road, and the nay-sayers (incl. me) on the other side, and then we just throw tomatoes at each other until one of us chickens out. Ooooh arguments would be so much more fun! But I digress.
To start over, I don’t think I’ve been throwing tomatoes. I’ve just listed some of the bugs/weirdnesses (my spell check disagrees with that) that I encountered, and I realised that despite all the warnings – it still let me down. I already adjusted my expectations due to what you and your fellow devs have been saying, and it still let me down.
That’s an honest opinion, and as an editor who usually reviews big new releases in that part of the software world that we cover, I have to express that opinion – I’m not trying to make you look bad, I’m not trying to force anyone into my way of thinking – as clearly expressed by the fact that any “beg to differs” get their place on OSAlert too.
I want an open discussion about KDE 4.0.0 – a discussion that could be of value in future release processes for KDE or any other project out there – open-source or proprietary.
I know there’s this – I’m sorry to say – misplaced feeling that OSAlert is anti-KDE/pro-GNOME within the KDE community, and that is something that truly saddens me. I enjoy using both KDE and GNOME, and wish both of them all the best to reach their stated goals. I tend to use GNOME for a few months, get annoyed by its inconfigurability, switch to KDE for a few months, get annoyed by its configurability, and switch back to GNOME for a few months. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I am very positive about KDE4’s future, something I made very clear in the article. I would appreciate it if, for once, people focused on the positive things OSAlert (pars pro toto here) has to say about KDE – and finally ditch this idea that we are supposedly anti-KDE – or anti anything for that matter.
Again, like I said in the past, Aaron, I wish KDE4 all the best in the world. I like its vision, its ideas, its stated goals. However, if people cannot take honest criticism with regards to KDE 4.0.0, then something is wrong. I’m not saying ‘my’ bugs must be fixed now, or else, I’m just stating what I find wrong about KDE 4.0.0, and apparently, there are quite a few here who agree with me. It is wise to take this critique into account – not to answer fully to it, but just to take it into account. Most of us here want KDE4 to succeed, and we try to do our best to help in that process.
God what a long post. I earned an espresso.
I’ll be very honest and candid about why I have taken the time to express my opinions about the state of KDE 4.0 here on OSAlert. I might not have bothered except that people keep making statements to me like:
“””
Go away then, because certainly between five and ten years from now, and quite probably less, if you’re not using KDE on your Linux/Unix systems then you’re going to be way behind.
“””
and
“””
KDE is the future of the free desktop!
“””
and other rather arrogant sounding statements. Some even more directly implying that non-KDE desktops are doomed.
So it is with a bit of impish satisfaction that I note that KDE4, the incredible technological juggernaut which is supposedly going to wipe the rest of us out of existence soon, and which has now gone gold according to its dev team… is demonstrably a train wreck.
One of the reasons that I cringe when I see FOSS fans who go out of their way to aggravate people who do not happen to share their views is that it’s much easier to make enemies than friends that way. The same sort of reasoning applies here. Don’t make yourself an irritant to people by inundating them with your overenthusiasm… because you can bet they will be there when you stumble.
That said, I am hardly an enemy of KDE. It’s just that although I do sometimes express the reasons that I prefer another DE, I try very hard not to engage in excessive cheer leading or make arrogant and presumptuous statements about it.
And I recognize that most, but not all, KDE fans probably try to follow a similar code.
But whether one admits it or not, a bit of good natured “payback”, now and then, is fun.
Right or wrong, correct or off-base, this “4.0” release is not a positive step.
I have seen almost every excuse now in the book thrown at this release, and none seem to stand up too well. The worst one is the “Well it’s free..i.e you have no right to voice an opinion”. Well if community developed software can not accept criticisms and complaints from the community at large, it sets itself up for major failure, which KDE 4.0 seems to have done.
It is not like any of this is new or just coming out since the release. People have been complaining for months now. I for one have found the whole UI to be a complete disaster. The response there is “Well just use a skin…”. I don’t think I even care anymore to explain just how wrong that is.
I can not stress enough how strongly I agree with some that make the point that the system used to describe any software is just something that can not be ignored. Again, right or wrong is not the point, when you release a “4.0” this leaves the impression that this is a ready to use for the masses final release NOT meant to find bugs. I am left with an overall impression now of KDE team that simply is too arrogant to listen to people outside their inner circle, and too unwilling to adhere to standards of quality. Again, it doesn’t matter whether this is correct or not, it is the impression that is left with the user that matters in the end.
So it is with a bit of impish satisfaction that I note that KDE4, the incredible technological juggernaut which is supposedly going to wipe the rest of us out of existence soon, and which has now gone gold according to its dev team… is demonstrably a train wreck.
Probably not worth it, but:
Hardly a train wreck. All of the apps that shipped saw significant improvements. The new apps were well recieved. Plasma is fast and stable(ish). The whole desktop environment is pretty much the same. The new icons and theme have been generally well received. (Quibbles aside.) Phonon works– even though there is only one backend ATM. Solid is much the same. All of the new frameworks that shipped are much the same. Some ‘stuff’ has been pushed to 4.1, like KDE Pim and the new backend stuff there. OK.
Let’s see– There’s a major new release and the issues are:
-With Kwin effects that are disabled by default. (That actually work fine with my r300 card and the open driver, sans some artifacting)
-The taskbar, more specifically that it requires a text editor to edit it. Check Aaron’s most recent blog for info on that. Something about that being high on the TODO.
-Tales of too much use of ‘Bold’, which tended to be met with calls of, ‘huh?’
-Gripes with the new application launcher, when a ‘clasic’ one is shipped, and more alternatives are in the pipe. (Which shows the power of Plasma vs. kicker.)
-Theme and icon quibbles.
-Stability gripes, that haven’t hit most people. I suspect they haven’t hit most people that actually have KDE 4.0.0 installed. (I’ve had the odd crash, but the desktop environment / xorg has been stable.)
Yeah, the end is near.
Compare that to KDE 2.0.0 (uggh.) or GNOME 2.0.0 (Can you say slow, crashy, and devoid of features.)… No, I’d put KDE 4.0.0 above either of those, but below KDE 3.0.0. KDE 3 was a straight port to Qt 3 mostly, probably because of KDE 2.0.0. That’s why I suspect KDE 5.0.0 will largely follow the path of KDE 3.0.0, especially if all of these new technologies pan out. (Which it looks like they will for the most part)
This is sad, sad, sad.
Does that makes you? “Arrogant”?
Don’t you think you are “going out of your way to aggravate people who do not happen to share your views?”
Do you remember Gnome 1.0? Gnome 2.0? KDE 4.0 is better then both these releases, and many applications are ready. Only the panel/plasma/desktop is a bit behind. So it is not a “Developer Release”. It is a full release, and maybe only the desktop and panel should be maked as “Developer Release”.
But then again, you don’t care, and you are here only to be sarcastic and make fun of people who are giving you all this for free. Are you really trying to understand the other side?
Amadeo,
If you think so than you are taking this *far* *far* more seriously than is warranted or intended. Keep in mind that I have been, in the past, a happy KDE user. And you are probably not familiar with my posting history. (Which is not to imply that you *should* be familiar.) But I have consistently come out supporting the benefits of having competing desktops, and enough choice that no project feels pressured by its users to try to be something it is not.
Sure, KDE 4.0.0 may be a bit of an embarrassment. And I may be having a little fun at their expense. But I think that we all know that a year from now it will have long stabilized, and we will all be back to… well… pretty much where we have been for a few years now. Both major desktops will be strong, and somewhat more refined than they are today. They will still have user bases which differ in pretty much the same ways. The grand prognostications that KDE4 would sweep all the other players off the board will have come to nothing. We’ll still be arguing about which DE is “better”. And E, XFce, Ion3, Ratpoinson, and all the others will still be out there with their own, smaller, but loyal, fan bases.
So getting all steamed up over my honest criticisms today is both unnecessary and bad for your blood pressure.
Don’t worry! Be happy!
-Steve Bergman
Edited 2008-01-14 22:19 UTC
Those reasons are all fine and good but maybe it would’ve been better to find a different way to solve those problems.
KDE devs were facing the problem that not enough people were testing what their RC so they made another RC and called it 4.0. If this trend continues they’ll soon have to tag a release “KDE4.9.42 100% bug free edition” just to make people have a look at it. Let’s please not enter the world of marketing and buzzwords
You know, I like KDE and use it as my only DE but there’s a reason why some of us like FOSS that’s often overlooked. At least it’s one of the main reasons why I like FOSS:
People tell things like they are. They don’t lie to you.
They don’t use a crapload of buzzwords and marketing speech.
When they say something “runs” on my setup they don’t mean “crawls” or “moves slightly faster than a glacier”. They don’t use “stable” to refer to the slight chance of a quantum superposition keeping the program wondering whether or not it should crash as long as you don’t look at it and stay away from the input devices.
The problem is, there doesn’t seem to be any generally agreed upon way on how to do version numbers right. Yeah, I know major.minor.maintenance but the problem is that sometimes a major increase in functionality is accompanied by a rewrite/switching of frameworks which introduces a lot of bugs and sometimes it’s not.
You can argue that the second kind should not lead to an increase in the major version number till you’re blue in the face but that doesn’t change the expectations of your audience. Words have only so much wiggle room before you start losing credibility.
Yeah, I know, the Windows fanboys and maybe some of the most obnoxious Mac or Gnome fanboys are gonna jump up and down and yell “WAHAHA, I told you KDE was DOOMED!!111”
Quite frankly, I figured we shouldn’t care. About the fanboys, that is.
We shouldn’t become deaf to _constructive_ criticism.
We shouldn’t be afraid to criticize our own community.
That’s a hard thing to do when some guys just won’t stop shouting “KDE sucks” all the time and it’s a hard thing to do when your every word is bound to be used against you.
But, please, let’s not become a ‘community’ of infallible leaders and buzzword spouting fanboys. Let’s leave that to the distributions
Edited 2008-01-14 16:55 UTC
… Calm down all of you.
Okay. I did install KDE4, okay, I got bludgeoned by that ….. THING that stays on the bottom of the screen, refuses to reduce, shrink, disappear receive almost anything, been modified in any way and in general is the closest thing to a Freudian trauma I can think of.
I was at least surprised by the fact that the DE still YET has icons with question marks on it ( one of them was a.HTML, go figure).
I was displeaased to see that each time that I logoff/logon KDE4 forgets my wallpaper and greets me with a white page.
I sighed heavily when I saw that Konqueror seemed have entered directly the realm of senile dementia when it started refusing to open flash and general java driven contents and NSpluginviewer decided that it had to emigrate outside the browser.
EVERYONE had that. I had, you had, Thom had, EVERYONE.
After that you know what I had? I had the real and strong sensation that a good job was done and that solid evident results where there under my eyes and I assure you that I have this impression right now.
Jos, one note for you. A user will not behold from bitching about the question mark icons just for the sake of saying “Hey the new QT librtaries work good!” THEY DO NOT SEE THEM!
But I see an impressive array of applications that RIGHT NOW are cool and nice. Dolphin is good and finally I can live with the idea of Konqueror not being anymore the prince of my desktop. The new Gwenview Is MAGNIFICIENT, light, smooth, no silly frilly, a sweet!
I agree with Jos that the situation was at a dead point and started to get dangerous, risking to transfrom KDE4 in vaporware.
So here we are with a DE that is done for a part between 50 and 85 p~A¨ercent ( depends which part we talk of) and I say, let’s get our butt in gear and start section it to death.
I say what follows dead seriously guys. if EVERYONE does disinstall KDE and say “I’ll come back when it is 4.1, the HELL you’re gonna have a 0.1 release. I first would have loved a 4.0 that is PERFECT after that I spent last year laughing my ass off at VISTA. I had not and got my humility pie showed down my penguin throath.
I can swallow that. Now back to work, bicker if you need, curse, insult as much as you want, but do it at things that has to be reported to be fixed.
Because Like it or not 4.0 is out, you want it better? Give a hand, that’s open source baby.
That’s why we choose it.
> Because Like it or not 4.0 is out, you want it
> better? Give a hand, that’s open source baby.
wow.. awesome comment from start to finish.
*applause*
and just so everyone does know, we are “back at work” … over 2000 commits between the day we tagged 4.0 in svn and when we actually announced it’s availability 6 days later… =) what’s also cool is that i’ve seen patches from at least 4 new people since 4.0 was announced so some people are indeed doing exactly what you suggest. and those people are the heroes of free software, in my opinion.
I can’t believe what I’m reading. The response to Thom amounts to “No one uses the betas, so we’re beta testing on real users.”
Suggesting a 0.0 release tells users what to expect is pathetic. A 0.0 realize ought to be complete, and BUGS get fixed in 0.1. Thom is suggesting things like fonts and misplaced options, etc. are a problem. These don’t require heavy production use to uncover, just develop time. Obviously, no one wanted to do it, or they didn’t have the experts on staff, or they simply didn’t care, because they were too excited about the underlying frameworks. That simply signals something unfinished.
We’re all enamored with KDE4, what it brings and what it represents, but what exists today is clearly unfinished, and THAT is a bad thing.
So, you mean that KDE 4.0.0 should have lots of rushed and buggy features, because these can be fixed in 4.0.1, 4.0.2, …?
Get realistic.
No, that would be stupid. Are you somehow under the impression that every single bug is known before shipping? What world do you live in?
No, I’m not, but I never wrote “make it feature-complete, bugs can be fixed later” like you did.
I think KDE 4.0.0 is a good dot-oh release and I think your articles and comments were posted to boost page hits, because using words like “pathetic” are not credible, but sensationalism.
*expects critical comment to be deleted in 5, 4, 3, 2, …*
1. Don’t use quotes around that sentence, I never said that, that’s a flat out lie.
2. I hear what you’re saying, you think people should just kind of flippantly release software with any number of bugs and interface inconsistencies and just let the users find them. That’s cool, I guess, we differ on this. I think when you increment your primary version number, it ought to be properly road tested.
Obviously, you don’t.
Oh, no one will delete your silly comment. We’ll gladly let it live on for all to enjoy. But I hope your peers mod you down, if only because griping about moderation is SOOOO lame.
from the people that brought you Enlightenment 17 and Duke Nukem Forever.
I’m sort of glad the GNOME guys didn’t go with that approach otherwise I’d still probably be using 1.4, seeing as how 2.X has become feature complete and faster than molasses only relatively recently, and it’s still not completely finished.
would 1.4 exist at all?
Edited 2008-01-14 18:09 UTC
> or would 1.4 not exist at all
perhaps not. GNOME 1.0 was an unmitigated *disaster* by everyone’s approximation. but it was a necessary step to 1.4, which was a necessary step to 2.0, which was a necessary step to 2.20 ….
back then they took flack for 1.0, but nothing like this and it was a helaciously bad release that was indeed slapped with a ‘1.0’ sticker when there was no justification to.
but times change and the expectations from the audience have shifted =) complain as we might like, we can do little but to adapt, i think.
I do not care whether one is for decimating or fortifying, in written words, the value of KDE’s latest venture. Write a damn article with complete sentences, proper punctuation and all-around readability in mind, before you put your flag in the ground.
With attention spans dropping faster than the value of the US dollar you’d think the article’s author would remember readability is paramount, not an afterthought for those losers who aren’t SMS texting their thoughts.
That post claims that KDE4 team badly needs bug reports and that distros will better learn to package it if it’s full release. I can’t agree with any. First, there are enough quite visible bugs to fix, I don’t think that development would, at this point, stall because there are less bug reports. On the contrary, there is still some work to do that doesn’t need as much feedback. Secondly, distros (e.g Ubuntu) have been packaging prerelease versions for a while, I don’t think a release that still contains many issues would be so much more popular just because the only difference is a name. Also, packaging developer release requires no more effort than a 4.0.0.
With that said, I think we will nevertheless see quick improvement and polish, and 4.0.0 will be quickly superseeded by 4.1. Anyway, this was a chance to make impact with a polished grand release, but it was missed for development strategy reasons.
Hey cool, I’ve been quoted
I don’t think this necessarily will do any major ‘damage’ to the KDE project. If they can get KDE4.1 right then I’m sure all this will be forgiven and forgotten. Personally I hope 4.1 kicks ass.
Perhaps “shot themselves in the foot” was a bit strong, and perhaps the choice will to turn out to be the right one. I however can’t help feeling that the choice did set the KDE4 project back. Instead of premiering to fanfare and praise it’s been received skeptically and with harsh critisism. Time will tell how things play out.
But again I’m hoping for KDE 4.1 to prove all us skeptics wrong.
On that note are there any good guides for developing apps for KDE4? Not the qt4 stuff, but the KDE specific stuff.
I already know I will not like KDE 4.0, the biggest thing that annoys me is the huge taskbar which one apparently can’t resize. But, will 4.1 fix that? And will 4.1 bring with it anything else worth mentioning or will it be more like a fix’n’polish release? I think I’ll postpone trying KDE4 somewhat, atleast until the taskbar is fixed
But even if I did like it I still won’t migrate until I don’t need to install any KDE3.x libs or dependencies to be able to do all the stuff I normally do (like using music players et al).
I already know I will not like KDE 4.0, the biggest thing that annoys me is the huge taskbar which one apparently can’t resize. But, will 4.1 fix that? And will 4.1 bring with it anything else worth mentioning or will it be more like a fix’n’polish release? I think I’ll postpone trying KDE4 somewhat, atleast until the taskbar is fixed
But even if I did like it I still won’t migrate until I don’t need to install any KDE3.x libs or dependencies to be able to do all the stuff I normally do (like using music players et al).
Aaron’s blog says that panel / desktop is next on the TODO. See: http://aseigo.blogspot.com/ or follow planetkde.org . Given that the lack of configuration is considered a fairly serious regression you’ll see a far more flexible panel by 4.1. Plasma was exempt from a lot of the KDE 4.0.0 freeze (and is far better for it.) so maybe there’ll be some latitude in covering panel regression for 4.0.x. I don’t know for sure, but given the PITA factor of needing a text editor now it wouldn’t surprise me… So you’re probably looking at weeks or months for the panel… A half year for 4.1, the big 3rd party apps, and KDE Pim.
I can’t believe some of the comments I’m reading here.
KDE4 basically has a large bold printed sticker on it that told us all what it is and what it isn’t. It let us know in advance that this release is just the introduction of the platform and is not for day to day use.
This warning I speak of was posted at this very site:
“KDE 4.0 is the first release of “KDE 4″, but take note that the developers have clearly stated that KDE 4.0 is not KDE 4, but more of a base release with all the underlying systems ready to go, but with still a lot of work to be done on the user-visible side.”
For a figure of the press to not only ignore that statement but to write an article disregarding it is a testament to the sad state of the world we live in today.
That’s kind of like smoking, getting cancer, and complaining about it even though that person ignored the warning ads posted all over billboards all over the world.
If KDE 4.0 bothers you that much, start filling out bug reports and wishlists. Help make it better. Put your money where your mouth is and help the KDE community out instead of ridicule it.
I am deploying KDE4 on every desktop I use, putting it through its paces, and filling out bug reports for everything I can think of. It’s the only way KDE4 will become the desktop I want it to be.
And Thom, Aaron Seigo doesn’t owe you a martini for missing the release date, you owe him at least ten for all the crap you put the poor man through. Seriously, this rivalry you have with him does not need to take place on this site, it’s just plain childish.
still a lot of work to be done on the user-visible side
First off, head on over to the KDE website. Notice that they are offering KDE 4.0 as the stable version for download. If the user-visible side of it “still [needs] a lot of work” then why are they releasing it as stable?
The major point that Thom has been trying to make is that it makes much more sense to make a “Developer Release” (or something similar) until all the UI elements stabilize.
Imagine if you had never used KDE before, and you decided to install KDE right when version 4.0 came out. Wouldn’t you expect a project as well respected as KDE in it’s fourth major revision to have a product in which you can make simple configuration changes to the core UI elements (panel, desktop, etc)?
Secondly, you’ve got a lot of nerve telling Thom what not to put on his site.
Edited 2008-01-15 01:53 UTC
*shakes his head*.
Seriously – how *many* Linux people are going to download KDE 4 from the KDE website and compile it manually? Very few I suspect. The vast majority of people will have enough common sense to wait until it reaches the package repositories for their distribution of choice (i.e. experimental for Debian) and they’ll install it that way.
So, bitching about the KDE website saying it’s stable is idiotic imho, when few people will actually get a hold of KDE 4 that way.
What don’t people understand about a stable technology release, that might not have all the bells and whistles?
Let’s have an analogy here…think of the US rocket program in the 50s/60s. Let’s take the stance that Thom, and others are saying – don’t release rockets until the technology is stable enough. Instead of man landing on the moon in 1969, they probably would still not have done so by now, given that approach!
Gee…why do some people seek to deliberately misrepresent what KDE devs have said for a long time? Do you get some devilish fun out of it? Are you bored? Do you have attention span issues?
Get over it…
Dave
Stop twisting my words. I never said KDE 4.0.0 should not have been released. I just said (among a whole boatload of positive things, as Aaron himself already noted) that the amount of bugs, performance issues, and missing basic functionality, make this an unstable, unusable release – even after I adjusted my expectations. This is beta, maybe even alpha quality software. The amount of reported bugs in just the two stories on OSAlert are staggering.
They want people to test it, but they do not want people to use it – that is the message coming across here. Normal people should not use it, the developers have warned for that – yet, the KDE website lists as a stable, final, usable release, and promotes it as such.
Additionally, they ask why people care so much about version numbers, we shouldn’t do that – if that really is the case, than what is the problem with labeling it as “KDE 4 Developer Release 1”? This would’ve prevented a whole boatload of valid complaints.
Melkor, stop trying to make it seem as if all the people here who agree with the above position (and those are many) are out to hurt KDE. This is not the case, we want to help KDE, and your pathetic attempt at black helicoptery here doesn’t help in that respect at all.
Edited 2008-01-15 13:29 UTC
Stop twisting my words. I never said KDE 4.0.0 should not have been released. I just said (among a whole boatload of positive things, as Aaron himself already noted) that the amount of bugs, performance issues, and missing basic functionality, make this an unstable, unusable release – even after I adjusted my expectations. This is beta, maybe even alpha quality software. The amount of reported bugs in just the two stories on OSAlert are staggering.
Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. I am using KDE4 as my main desktop for a couple of weeks and it is neither unstable nor unusable. Neither desktop nor any KDE4 applications crashed for me so far and most of the KDE4 applications are actually better then the KDE3 versions. For me KDE4 is neither alpha nor beta quality. It might not have all features from KDE3, but Gnome doesn’t have them either and nobody calls Gnome unstable or unusable or alpha or beta quality software. The main thing people seem to complain about is the taskbar and it really lacks configurability, but most people on e.g. Windows never configure their taskbar anyway. It does the basic things. Can it be improved? Of course. But calling KDE4 alpha or beta quality just because some configuration options are missing for the taskbar is ridicolous. KDE4 is quite usable and quite stable at least for me. If it crashes for you, maybe you did something wrong when compiling it or your distribution screwed something up.
No Thom – you *knew* that KDE 4.0 was going to be a technology release, and have known for quite some time.
Doing a song and dance post release about something that you already knew is not what I call common sense. I call it making a song and dance to create a scene and garner attention to yourself.
By all accounts the core technologies are stable, and that is *what* really matters.
As to the KDE website, perhaps, in hindsight, it would have been smart of KDE to put a warning on the webpage, and to keep 3.5.x as the default desktop environment (stable by your definition). Perhaps a nice email to KDE would fix this problem?
Dave
It would have been smart to call the release what it actually is, a preview, rather than a stable release. And no hindsight should be required to see something so obvious.
Edited 2008-01-15 23:31 UTC
We could argue that until the cows come home…
Dave
Unfortunately that sticker can not be found anywhere at the official KDE download page ( http://www.kde.org/download/ ). That fictitious sticker only exists for people following these discussions at OSAlert and other sites. Most potential users will never read these. They will hear that there has been a new major release for this free desktop environment, will download whatever is provided and draw their conclusions. And I am fairly sure that the vast majority of users will expect a brand new DE to allow them to resize their taskbars.
Calling the release a 3.9 or a Developer Preview or whatever would have been an obvious way to prevent these users from getting the wrong impression, while giving the opportunity for pro users like you to test and report bugs.
You mean the download page that only offers source code for download?
kde.org is not meant for common users. It’s for developers.
Stop lying. The KDE website says (and I quote): “The aim of the KDE project for the 4.0 release is to put the foundations in place for future innovations on the Free Desktop.”
http://kde.org/announcements/announce-4.0-beta3.php
http://kde.org/announcements/announce-4.0-beta4.php
http://kde.org/announcements/announce-4.0-rc1.php
http://kde.org/announcements/announce-4.0-rc2.php
kde.org is not meant for common users. It’s for developers.
Stop lying. The KDE website says (and I quote): “The aim of the KDE project for the 4.0 release is to put the foundations in place for future innovations on the Free Desktop.”
But umm… if kde.org is for devs where would non-devs read that sticker…?
Common users don’t need a sticker, because they usually don’t install software from external repositories. The distributors handle the decision for them and no credible mainstream distributor will ship KDE 4.0 as default desktop.
The noise over the ways KDE 4.0.0 is incomplete is really a lot of huey. Dot-oh releases are supposed to be just a solid start. The framework that’s there is impressive, and the bugs in rendering are largely from outside of KDE without a cheap workaround. This is quite acceptable. The differences between a “developer release” and a x.0.0 are just semantics. Come on.
I remember when dBase II came out, simply because Ashton-Tate knew that people avoid 1.0 releases and wanted the perception of being on the second iteration. The perception worked. That was a standard in the PC world for a long time. Hence, names and versions are really a lot of huey.
Take the product for what it’s worth. It has potential to shake things up. KDE has put great design first, and it will have its rewards after wiz-bang one-offs have lost their luster.
I’m just a guy with C++ development experience, don’t mind me.
No, not if they mean something. And .0 releases never meant beta. They clearly say that they tried to trick everyone into believing it WAS a .0 release. Tricking users does not go a long way
No-one argues that. See my other comments. But this decision hurts the future of KDE, that’s all we said.
And so am I. As all of us here(or most of us) have some experience or expertise in one language or another. This is beyond language expertise.
You guys have been proven wrong countless times, yet you refuse to accept it. GNOME 2.0 was exactly like KDE 4.0. Did the 2.0 release hurt GNOME in any way? No. Did the Apache 2.0 release hurt Apache’s future? No. Did Mac OS X 10.0 hurt? No. Did X.org 7.0 hurt? No.
Do you accept these truths? Again, the answer is “no”.
I don’t know who these guys are.
I know that KDE 3 never received so much bad publicity
Apples and oranges. KDE 3 was a straight’ish’ port to Qt 3. That’s about a 4 of 10 on the ambition scale. For and apples to apples comparison look at GNOME 2.0.0 or KDE 2.0.0. Those were about 9 of 10 on the ambition scale. Actually, KDE went for more of an 11 of 10 on the ambition scale– A toolkit port, application shuffle, library re-organisation, complete graphics overhaul, and then they ripped out pretty much every establish KDE framework in favour of ‘the standard’ or ‘superior’ alternatives, revamped most GUIs and config screens, then added features for good measure. Oh, and they changed build systems to boot. So that’d be 11 of 10 on the ambition scale. And they had the audacity to mostly deliver. Slackers.
Lamest excuse I’ve heard so far. You don’t trick users because of your ambitions. Anyways you are off-topic here with me, cause I’m probably the biggest supporter of KDE among those who bash this mistake. You see I actually promote KDE and especially in the public sector of my country. I ‘ve made business by replacing windows XP’s with KDE desktops/Servers and OpenSuSE/SLES. I ‘m not some kid trolling around the fora name-calling other people. Simple as that.
From a business/marketing perspective it was a huuuge mistake bar none. End of story. When someone goes out of mom’s basement and actually WORKS with/for Linux, sees things a little different you see. It is not my hobby any more.
Thank god their devs make up for their marketing dept.
It’s no excuse– you compared KDE 3.0.0 to KDE 4.0.0. Apples to oranges. Just as KDE 4.0.0 is not KDE 4, KDE 3.0.0 is very much not KDE 4.0.0. So if you’re going to cite KDE 4.0.0 vs anything, choose a similar sort of thing. KDE 2.0.0 or GNOME 2.0.0 would be the best places to start… Apples to apples please.
Oh, please. You want to talk business/marketing? I’ve been dealing with enterprise clients, and many small-mid sized clients, for well over a decade. Commercial customers value stability and reliability above almost all else. When they implement a software package, particularly as part of their infrastructure, it stays in place for years. They don’t apt-get dist-update every time a new version comes out. Many even avoid bug fixes and security patches until they’ve been regression tested in their environment. But more importantly, the other thing they don’t do is run out of the gates to use a .0 release of anything. Hell, I’ve worked with customers that will spend 12-18 months, even longer in some cases, testing software in their internal labs before it gets an endorsement to the higher ups for consideration.
From a business perspective, nobody will be moving to KDE 4.0 any time soon. These users don’t move to a new release the moment it is out, even when they’re under support contracts that enable them to. It doesn’t work that way. In fact, with new releases, they will generally hold off for at least one or two point-releases to ensure the majority of bugs are worked out before even considering it.
So if we’re going to talk about “business”, then the KDE team did the smart thing. They got the release out the door so that they can focus their efforts on fixing issues and implementing improvements for the next sub-release and point-release. Commercial customers have simply been conditioned to expect that. Might not sit well with the community, for reasons I can understand if not necessarily agree with. But the “community” and commercial users have different priorities, even if there is some commonality.
If you’re rushing to upgrade your users to the latest/greatest of whatever software package is available, you’re not doing them any favors. Red Hat and Novell will be supporting KDE 3.5.x for the next several years because they get that.
There’s no MSesque tactics in play to force people to upgrade to KDE 4.0. KDE 3.5.9 will be out soon, and later updates will follow. The devs get that. They understand that not everyone will be willing to make a drastic change. People happy with KDE 3.5.x can continue to use it for years to come, and even enjoy the flexibility of running KDE 4.x apps while doing so.
FWIW, I moved out of my mom’s basement more years ago than I care to admit.
I know that the KDE team was trying to say far in advance that there is a difference between “KDE 4.0” and “KDE4.” That’s all well and good, and perfectly understandable. After all, after a rewrite, you can’t possibly expect them to have every last one of the planned features in place. But this is just ridiculous. I don’t recall them saying that 4.0 was going to be beta software… nor *should* it be… yet, that’s what it seems to be.
Truthfully, I felt that it was just a cover-up that they all of the sudden tried to “clarify” this and brought it up constantly out of nowhere. It seemed awkward that they would talk like they’re making good progress, show concepts, etc., and make everything seem like it’s going smooth as silk… and then, as the “release date” draws near, they instantly change their tune. It’s as if they knew they over-hyped it, and that they wouldn’t be able to get it up to production quality on time, yet they were set on that date.
And now… this. A beta-quality point-0 release.
Way to go KDE, you’ve successfully let marketing and release schedules take over and stooped down to Microsoft’s level. Congratulations. Good things I didn’t get my hopes up, because quite frankly, what they were promising seemed too good to be true (at least for a while).
Have you even used KDE 4.0’s applications? Have you used Okular? Have you used Marble? Have you used Dolphin? Have you used xyz?
I don’t think you have. All these apps are good and stable. They are not beta quality, but release quality.
A dot.oh release is a feature complete dot.oh release.
A 0.x release isn’t feature complete, but stable.
For unstable versions, developers does have alpha, beta, RC, DP … or – like in the kernel – odd numbers.
Sorry, this release is only meant for publicity, nothing more. Shame on KDE-Team (because KDE 4 platform does have potential),
KDE 4.0 is feature complete for the features that have been targeted for 4.0.
So it all boils down to “we have named it that way, so people would be beta testing on their production machines and to fool distros to use our beta Software as release versions”.
Now i think *that* is a really bad idea. Now distributors will be suspicious of future KDE versions and same goes for users.
Shall I go and list all the other open source applications that are alpha/beta quality (if we’re going to be ultra strict with the term), that people are happy with? Remember Xen? Was very dodgy on initial release, still is according to many people. The 2.6 series kernel still has issues, look how long it took for them to fix the scheduling problems, and to many people it’s still not fixed. I could go on and on and on with a list of applications…but…I won’t. Said softly mostly works, isn’t perfect, and I can live with that.
Dave
So… the KDE team wanted to trick everyone that this was a usable release? In order to get more attention? OK listen here. I use exclusively KDE for the last 6-7(?) years. I hate gnome and I don’t have windows, but this is the weakest decision ever made for the sake of KDE’s future. They lost users and gained none. That’s for sure. No-one says here that KDE 4 won’t be revolutionary, I can even assume that it will be the best DE around. But their release naming was plain wrong by all standards.
So choosing KDE 4.0 as tag instead of KDE 3.95 or developer edition is unlucky to say the least?
In parallel should MS have choosen a different name as well, instead of Vista?