| |||||||||||||
KDE 4, distributors, and bleeding-edge softwareKDE 4, distributors, and bleeding-edge softwarePosted Jan 28, 2009 18:36 UTC (Wed) by NAR (subscriber, #1313)Parent article: KDE 4, distributors, and bleeding-edge software the open source method is based on participation not consumption This is probably very true - however, how is the "World Domination" expected to be reached, when (I guess) most users just want the damn thing work and not that keen on participating in the development effort?
(Log in to post comments)
KDE 4, distributors, and bleeding-edge software Posted Jan 28, 2009 18:54 UTC (Wed) by yokem_55 (subscriber, #10498) [Link]
Simple: Change the culture of computing in general such that participating in the development (at all levels, testing, bug reporting, artwork, translations, coding) of the software that one uses is common-place and expected as a part & parcel of using the software. This may sound like changing the gravitational constant of the universe, but it can be done, if little by little and user by user. There probably is a lot of room for improvement in the software itself, especially with regard to integrated bug reporting, translation and documentation writing.
KDE 4, distributors, and bleeding-edge software Posted Jan 28, 2009 20:12 UTC (Wed) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link]
That's great, but it certainly doesn't mean that there's no room for people who want software that "just works" and don't WANT to participate at ANY level. Those people DO have an option with FOSS: they can pay for it! Then they can support FOSS with their money instead of their time... there are many people who would rather pay money than spend the time and that's perfectly legitimate IMO.
But, those people will not/should not be using Fedora. They should find some commercial distribution where they can pay for and receive supported, tested distributions.
KDE 4, distributors, and bleeding-edge software Posted Jan 29, 2009 1:11 UTC (Thu) by qg6te2 (guest, #52587) [Link] But, those people will not/should not be using Fedora. They should find some commercial distribution where they can pay for and receive supported, tested distributions.I respectfully disagree with this assertion. If one were to pay for a desktop system then the best bang-for-buck is buying a Mac, which has a much more polished and integrated interface. Alas, as we all know it's not open source. OSS projects like Fedora and KDE have the implied responsibility of not releasing less than half-baked goods, of which KDE 4.0 is a prime example. Continuing this free-wheeling super-bleeding-edge approach carries a high risk of dissuading users, be they new or experienced (ala Torvalds). Suggesting that we should all buy RHEL instead (due to more quality assurances) conveniently side-steps the fact that the people behind Fedora should think more about the trade-off between pain (in the form of unusable software) and newness (i.e. new features).
KDE 4, distributors, and bleeding-edge software Posted Jan 29, 2009 1:29 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
there are _many_ distros between the bleeding edge of Fedora and the ultra conservative RHEL extremes.
most of them do not money (although many do offer paid support as an option), and many of them would be a better choice than Fedora.
Fedora very defiantly has a place, there will always be some distro that's on the bleeding edge and trying new things. but to say (or even strongly imply) that everyone should be using either it or RHEL is very wrong.
KDE 4, distributors, and bleeding-edge software Posted Jan 29, 2009 18:56 UTC (Thu) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link]
First, as dlang said there are a LOT of options between Fedora and RHEL.
Second, you've changed the conversation to be "if I want to buy a new computer, what should I buy?", but I'm talking about choosing a Linux distribution. That may involve buying a new computer, but it might also just mean something to install on the computer you already have.
For the record I'm not sure I agree with your assertion about "bang for the buck"; Macs cost quite a few more bucks than you can get an equivalently-powered system running Linux for. Whether that justifies the extra bang you get depends on all sorts of factors which are wildly different for different people. Linux desktop technology has come far enough, now, that its "bang" is equivalent to, and even bigger than, Macs for at least some purposes.
KDE 4, distributors, and bleeding-edge software Posted Jan 29, 2009 19:10 UTC (Thu) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link]
>implied responsibility of not releasing
Maybe you can point to where that discussion took place and everyone agreed.
Derek
KDE 4, distributors, and bleeding-edge software Posted Jan 28, 2009 21:18 UTC (Wed) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
To what end? "The desktop" is in constant development, mostly because people do new things with it.
I was perfectly happy with a working fvwm desktop, but over the last ten years I've had to suffer through two new "desktop environments" each with it's own idea of how cut-and-paste, configuration resources, and focus behaviour should work. Not to mention sound, which in some ways is a lot _more_ broken now than ten years ago.
When your computer is your tool you may not always appreciate development (i.e. change), so taking part in it is not always an option.
KDE 4, distributors, and bleeding-edge software Posted Jan 28, 2009 22:32 UTC (Wed) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link]
But why did you do that to yourself? My 1996-vintage.fvwmrc still works
fine and gives me the same level of functionality it has always done -- and kde apps run just fine if I start them in that environment.
Of course, I only visit fvwm when feeling nostalgic, because, even though
KDE 4, distributors, and bleeding-edge software Posted Jan 29, 2009 8:39 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
That is not exactly correct. FVWM is pretty much a desktop writing framework. It provides you with directives to write your own desktop.
FVWM of today supports many things that 1996 FVWM didn't.
I personally find FVWM too low-level and dumb for my taste. I have to spend too much time configuring it to do what I actually want (as opposed to what I told it). E.g. I never managed to get it to do the proper desktop movement IceWM has (but I'm also a bit lazy).
KDE 4, distributors, and bleeding-edge software Posted Jan 28, 2009 22:21 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
What if they tried to do the same with accounting? Or human resource departments?
That throughout your day at work your going to get interrupted constantly to review applications, figure out tax loopholes, and mediate disputes between other co-workers. Then occasionally you'll have to get in the big-rig and start transporting manufacturing materials to the factories were your going to have to give your input on the metal smelting process.
Seriously. Leave the development and participation of software development to people that actually give a shit; ie: the professionals.
Everybody else has a life that is busy with their own pursuits.
KDE 4, distributors, and bleeding-edge software Posted Jan 28, 2009 22:53 UTC (Wed) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] Simple: Change the culture of computing in general such that participating in the development (at all levels, testing, bug reporting, artwork, translations, coding) of the software that one uses is common-place and expected as a part & parcel of using the software. This may sound like changing the gravitational constant of the universe, but it can be done, if little by little and user by user. Simple? Riiiight. No, it cannot be done. It is head-in-the-clouds attitudes like yours that make a mess of things like KDE 4.0. You can wish all day for whatever you want, but if you put a wish in one hand and a turd in the other, you won't like the result.
KDE 4, distributors, and bleeding-edge software Posted Jan 28, 2009 19:53 UTC (Wed) by roblucid (subscriber, #48964) [Link]
Won't the number of useful testers, only needs to go up with the logarithm, not linearly? You'll hit diminishing returns scaling teams otherwise, with the quality of error reporting getting worse and worse.
The complaint about lack of Alpha & Beta test, is something I've seen in relation to distro's to. The trouble is installing a recent 'real' release, finding it's broken, then waiting 2 months for updates, doesn't make you enthusiastic to try Alpha.
KDE 4, distributors, and bleeding-edge software Posted Jan 28, 2009 21:58 UTC (Wed) by danielthaler (guest, #24764) [Link]
I'm quite happy to test software, if it has already been debugged to the point where it is somewhat usable. Testing before that point is the task of the developers who know their code.
I'm not interested in testing something like KDE 4.0, which I wasn't able to use sanely (I tried).
Another thing (which is mostly not a problem with KDE) is that I expect to receive feedback on bug reports if I make the effort to test some beta/rc. In other words I want to know that my putting up with verious annoying bugs isn't wasted effort.
KDE 4, distributors, and bleeding-edge software Posted Jan 29, 2009 8:45 UTC (Thu) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
I am happy to test software too, but not such big bits as KDE 4. If a given piece of software doesn't work for me, I am happy to try the next version, even if it is more bleeding edge. But I don't want to switch my entire system (which I mainly use for working) to bleeding edge. Gentoo is good in this respect - you can combine a mainly stable, but still pretty up-to-date system with one or two very fresh packages. Unfortunately I had a couple of other issues with it, so I switched to Ubuntu :) (Actually to Kubuntu until they switched to KDE 4, when I dropped the "K"...)
KDE 4, distributors, and bleeding-edge software Posted Jan 29, 2009 14:59 UTC (Thu) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]
Pure consumer end users aren't part of the open source method. That's okay; they can just benefit from it. They're encouraged to, and everybody is a pure consumer of some part of the system or other. The issue is that distributions shouldn't be pure consumers, because their role involves being part of the method for the software that distribute.
|
|||||||||||||