There is better user feedback than a poll. You're going for a false dichotomy.

then name the child

These forums (as long as you do respect the CoC - being constructive helps also), mailing lists if you can also supplement opinions with mockups / patches, the Brainstorm, IRC...

And there you do not have any effect of selection at all, do you?

einar is completely correct. I'll try to sum up my experiences a little later.

So what do we discuss about, here? I apologize if really more people around here think that we do not need more coordination in this project. For me the question it should be dicussed if it is meaningful to have something like a KDE project if the parts of KDE do not fit together and the developers will loose the connection to end user needs.

But as noone says: "All this is the fault of these bloody developers!" there must be a different sight on this. In my opinion better processes and mechanism that make developers understand user needs better would be a great help for both sides! Neither this survey nor e.g. my critical worlds about KDE PIM aim to offend someone!

Regards, Martin

I'm glad my poll, however unscientific, has started this discussion. It really needs to be fleshed out. I don't want to sound to dramatic, but developers need to understand that within the KDE user-base there is a growing sentiment of dissatisfaction. Almost a rebellion of the masses against those in the ivory tower or Bastille who insisted "Let them eat cake!" when challenged with any type of dissension or opposition.

If all of this can be cleared up and cleaned up by a better understanding between the two parties I really don't see why any developer would be against such a thing. Some developers within KDE seem really bent out of sorts at any suggestion that they might be wrong. I just don't get that kind of arrogance. The KDE end user doesn't have it for the most part. The end user is very grateful for such a wonderful desktop and the developers who provide it.

Hi Mark,

mshelby wrote:I'm glad my poll, however unscientific, has started this discussion. (...)

If all of this can be cleared up and cleaned up by a better understanding between the two parties I really don't see why any developer would be against such a thing.
(...)
The KDE end user doesn't have it for the most part. The end user is very grateful for such a wonderful desktop and the developers who provide it.

I agree with your statement! But I really wonder where this will lead with only 12 votes, not knowing, how many of the voters come "from the other site".

Martin

While not a scientific poll, nonetheless responses to the two top questions (1 and 3) provide some insight into "how things work". I don't blame any KDE dev for the outcome (good or bad) of any KDE product. In the commercial world, the dev would never see a requirement until it had been collected, analyzed, and completely specified into some semblance of order, priority, and expectation. It's a wonder that KDE does work as well as it actually does, and that is always a question of management vs. luck and extreme, heroic effort.

It must be difficult to be eye-brow deep in a project and still see a product that must be delivered "warts and all" on a time-based schedule rather than on a functionally complete-based schedule. Time-based milestones become millstones. I see the HUGE differences between KDE 4.0 and KDE 4.4, as examples.

I applaud the heroic effort of KDE devs, while lamenting that they are required to be heroes.

Hi!

jglen490 wrote:I applaud the heroic effort of KDE devs, while lamenting that they are required to be heroes.

Maybe, that's the point! Yes, the output is much better than we can expect. But anyway i believe the following: If there is an alternative way to develop software there should as well be an alternative way for quality management and for getting together the two sites users and developers. My question is: What else could we do to improve the situation?

Regards, Martin

In my opinion <puts on bullet proof vest> the same management that so graciously provides the dev resources to actually DO KDE development, needs to also take the next step to adopt any one of a hundred different software development process standards and provide the additional resources for requirements collection, analysis, design, and test. Again, in my opinion, it is readily apparent that some or all of these components are somewhat lacking in support of what IS a fine product but CAN be so much better. The talent is there and certain resources are provided that help get the job done, but project management is not so strong, and process management is even less apparent. Again, I'm not trying to put down any dev, but they all deserve whatever it takes to get it do and produce a higher quality project. </puts on bullet proof vest>.

I'm not sure all that will happen, but some things need to improve so that never again is there a KDE 4.0 even if the first release cycle is somewhere between 4.0 and 4.4. Hey, just sayin'

jglen490 wrote:I'm not sure all that will happen, but some things need to improve so that never again is there a KDE 4.0 even if the first release cycle is somewhere between 4.0 and 4.4. Hey, just sayin'

Good point! Everyone here should stop crying ("developers are ignorant!", "users are silly", etc.) but find and discuss a way to improve the situation.

By the way: I myself think it is ridiculous that only because we talk about open source projects users around here always have to start a discussion with the term "Thank you developers that you do such a great job!" I like it if we tell people that we like there work but did ever someone around here say: "You users out there we like it that you use what we developed and we take a bow because you are willing to work with software that is far away from beeing mature."
Would this really sound silly?

Regards, Martin

jglen490 wrote:I'm not sure all that will happen, but some things need to improve so that never again is there a KDE 4.0 even if the first release cycle is somewhere between 4.0 and 4.4. Hey, just sayin'

Interesting points in many of these posts. I view the 'KDE 4.0' issue slightly differently from jglen490.

IMHO the real problem with KDE 4.0 was NOT that it was incomplete - it was that mainstream distros decided to ship it in that state, so that their KDE users had no choice but to accept it if they wanted or needed to use these distro's current releases. Perhaps KDE and distros need to have as clear as possible a shared understanding of when new software is sufficiently mature to enter the mainstream - i.e. clearer shared definitions of what is 'stable' and what is 'testing'. This is especially important for a project like KDE at the present time, since it has seen such high levels of radical change and innovation over the last two years.

fraxinus wrote:Perhaps KDE and distros need to have as clear as possible a shared understanding of when new software is sufficiently mature to enter the mainstream - i.e. clearer shared definitions of what is 'stable' and what is 'testing'.

Very good point! But this is neither a single problem of the distros. Who told KDE to use release numbers like that? There should at least have been something like "alpha" or "beta" or a more intelligent category so that everyone could have understood what the maturity really was/is!

I've been using computers since 1981, and it has always been understood that if you install a x.0 version of any software you must expect some problems.