The critics are wrong: KDE 4 doesn't need a fork (ars technica)

>What I don't understand is, if KDE 4.0 was such a piece of 
>crap, then why did they release it as KDE 4.0? Why couldn't 
>they have released it as KDE 3.99 or KDE 4.0 alpha?
As boudewijn said, KDE 4.0 wasn't such a piece of crap. Plasma was still quite immature, and
there were lots of bugs, but many of the applications already kicked ass (KDE Edu is my
favorite example). KDE's monolithic release model might be partly to blame (for something that
pretty much only amounts to a temporary PR problem), it might have been better to make '4.0'
only include kdelibs (to make it easier for third party developers to work against), and have
a sort of preview release of the other modules at the same time... then again thats kinda what
they did, though with words instead of packages.

>It seems pointless to release an x.0 product and then 
>say "It's not finished." x.0 implies fiished (though 
>likely will be somewhat buggy until x.1").  Doing that 
>is just inviting criticism. I mean isn't that what 
>Microsoft does?
Funny how the KDE team was criticized for the long release cycle for 4.0, and then when it's
finally released it's criticized for not being long enough.