http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=Software&articleId=9126619&taxonomyId=18&pageNumber=5

Evidently not impressed. Hated it so much he's even installed Gnome!

He's talking about 4.0...

Don't understand why he just didn't keep using 3.5.x, unless his distro of choice (at this time) didn't provide it - but then he could always change distro's. Seem cruel to have to use Gnome

"But the whole "break everything" model is painful for users and they can choose to use something else."

Yes, life is choices

I think the most frustrating thing about that story is, that it comes now, one year late. 4.0 had been released that way, lots of people complained, no real conciliation between the critics and the defender of this release as 4.0 was achieved. But things cooled down and 4.2 is something completely different than 4.0.

This story will do some harm to KDE's reputation, and maybe restart the whole discussion. Well, maybe that will be a lesson for a 5.0 release, that communicating honestly to the users is important, which is IMHO what went wrong with the 4.0 release. Releasing it as 4.0 and claiming at the same time that it's not ready is an impossible thing to explain, esp. in the open source world with it's conservative version numbers. But even in that case it would be better if Linus had said that after the 4.0 release, not now.

Maybe he likes when the system/de is up-to-date. And why to change distro when you are not satisfied with KDE. Change DE. It's was a simple problem - and also a simple solution.

furanku wrote:communicating honestly to the users is important, which is IMHO what went wrong with the 4.0 release. Releasing it as 4.0 and claiming at the

I blame distributions. They pushed 4.0 (Fedora, for example) without realizing the consequences, IMO.

Well at least he realises the reasoning behind the release, but his problem was caused by Fedora pushing not user ready software.

@furanku
I don't agree with the "open source world with it's conservative version numbers" statement because at the time I entered the world of free software (late nineties), Red Hat x.0 was usually beta quality, x.1 was final and x.2 was the polished release (just like KDE 4.x). Then the old kernels had the odd/even versioning denoting stable/development trees, stable programs at 0.16 (elightment atm), versions M1, M2, ... M16, and after that 0.7 (Mozilla - I don't remember the actual versions)... there is absolutely no unique way of versioning in the free/libre software world.

KDE 4.0 was the long awaited release, with much hype put behind it, many fake mock-ups (I remember seeing mockups of composite effects titled 'screenshots of KDE 4 development version' back when the work was still on the kdelibs and KDE4 looked like screwed up version of the 3.x series) and that is the main reason it was /a flop/ - the hype.

It* promised much, and failed to deliver much to the users. On the other hand, it had delivered a lot to the devels. And the results of those goods were the 4.1, and now the 4.2.

* actually /it/ didn't promise much, if we consider 4.0 to be /it/. The promise was for KDE 4, and not for the 4.0, but that truly was impossible to explain, although we all tried.

And as a final thought on the subject, I would rather have it this way, than to keep the versions approaching the 4.0, but never reaching it.

Just look at the Enlightenment - version 0.17 aka DR17. It has been stable enough for daily usage (at least most of the things are), but it is still not proclaimed /final/. The development stagnates (at least from my point of view, which is in case of E17 a user's point of view).

E17 was pretty usable long before KDE 4.0, and was fancy, pretty, full of graphics effects... simply awesome. If they had released on time, it would be the best looking, blazingly fast (worked with all graphics effects under QEmu booted from the Live CD on my old machine) desktop environment for the Free world. And now? Now, if they release it, it will be just one of the DEs. Graphics? KDE has it. Bling? KDE has it...

Enough from me, cheerio!

I like Aaron Seigo's response. It's a good read.

I won't be surprised if a lot of KDE users stay switched on Gnome or something else including Mr. Torvalds.

There are still a lot of bugs and I don't see the drastic improvement that forum users claimed. Also, there doesn't seem to be much concern for users for the complaints and critiques. I guess people don't like their work being criticized. I thought it was constructive criticism. At least, mine was. I was just trying to help.

So ... does anyone here think Linus Torvalds doesn't understand the problems of release politics?

I wonder if he switches de/distros often. I remember the time he announced he liked KDE3 better than Gnome not too long ago. I bet he changes sometimes, I thought (or assumed) he was a Gnome user some time back

Here's the actual thing that he said during the interview:

I used to be a KDE user. I thought KDE 4.0 was such a disaster I switched to GNOME. I hate the fact that my right button doesn't do what I want it to do. But the whole "break everything" model is painful for users and they can choose to use something else.

I realise the reason for the 4.0 release, but I think they did it badly. They did so may changes it was a half-baked release. It may turn out to be the right decision in the end and I will re-try KDE, but I suspect I'm not the only person they lost.

I got the update through Fedora and there was a mismatch from KDE 3 to KDE 4.0. The desktop was not as functional and it was just a bad experience for me. I'll revisit it when I reinstall the next machine which tends to be every six to eight months.
The GNOME people are talking about doing major surgery so it could also go the other way.

(link)

So if Fedora will use a decent version of KDE in 6-8 months, he might be back to KDE.

tkoski wrote:"But the whole "break everything" model is painful for users and they can choose to use something else."

Some of the stuff I've been reading about 4.2 seems to suggest that it breaks config files again. After having to spend a day or so getting 4.1 configured to as near as it let me to what I want, that's going to **** me off very seriously if it's true.

If any of the lightweight window managers I've tried actually looked like they weren't from the 1980s, I'd've been out of here months ago.