Posted by: Anonymous
on July 31, 2008 09:56 PM
We've been through this before going from KDE 1.x to 2.x. It took nearly a year to get completely solid but was clearly the correct way to develop it then. From 2.x to 3.x wasn't much more than a straight port from QT 2 to QT 3. Even the 3.x series had some rough spots along the way. I especially remember the problems translucent rubberboxes had for awhile. Everyone acts like KDE 3.5.x sprang fully formed from the head of a goddess. I suppose for the more recently minted Linux/BSD users that may even be so; I think some of the loudest haters haven't been around long enough to know that KDE has done this before.
From what I've seen, the KDE devs are doing what is necessary to be competitive with other desktops. OS X and follow-ons to Vista will establish expectations that only KDE 4 and maybe Enlightenment will be able to meet. On the other hand, the haters have three solid points:
1. Aspects of the core desktop aren't fully baked. 4.1 addressed many but not all of those concerns.
2. Many much loved apps haven't been ported.
3. The KDE team did a poor job of managing expectations.
So for now, I'm still on 3.5.9. Believe or not 3.5.10 is around the corner too and I'll be staying on 3.5.x through at least that release. Once the configurability and apps come a bit further, I'll switch. So it is possible to appreciate what the KDE devs are trying to do without inconvieniencing yourself.
I certainly don't need to pour spiteful rants in the KDE Teams direction while they get things better sorted. I don't blame those devs for getting a bit miffed at unconstructive criticism from people who are otherwise leechers.