On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 17:42 +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
I thought someone wrote some months ago, that the path of gnome was more evolution, instead of the "revolution"-ary path of KDE. Ah, more meaningless broad and vague generalizations. What is meaningless and broad there? Gnome creates 3.0 by taking 2.8 and adding features. KDE creates 4.0 by tossing 3.5.10 out the window and rewriting everything.
As has been stated multiple times - here - by KDE developers - they did *NOT* "rewriting everything". They re-factored some code, rewrote some code, and sent some code out the sheds. The GNOME project has done much the same thing. For example: Glade [a commonly used GNOME component] is deprecated and should not be used in GNOME 3.x applications. There is a new GNOME UI framework for describing interfaces in XML. This is all just the normal life-cycle of large code bases. Describing any of the above cases as "evolutionary" or "revolutionary" is indeed vague and meaningless. If you want to talk about development practices then use specifically development practice terminology. Or don't; because end users don't, and shouldn't, give a crap about development processes.
Then they release 4.0 as a developers-only release, and even 4.1 was for "early adopters". KDE 4.4 is still missing some of the most basic features, such as photo metadata in the file browser. I have filed or triaged well over 1200 bugs at KDE for tens of users, before you go attacking my stance by attacking my interests or intentions.
-- openSUSE w/GNOME <http://www.opensuse.org/en/> Linux for human beings who need to get work done. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org