I don't think you can hold GNOME up as a better example at how to handle this sort of shift. Now its been a long long long while...but when gnome 2.0 was introduced..in 2002...didn't that also have some regression-neering?
"Hiding behind the 'this is a mostly a release for developers' excuse is not good enough for me. Gnome is around for years, and the GNU project was not able to deliver an outstanding version yet. Is this the best that the GNU project can offer to the Joe User who wants to switch away from the commercial option of OSX or Windows? Well, nice try
I usually start my reviews with the positive points of a product and then continue with whatever I found as 'bad'. In this case, I just can't hide my dissapointment about the new version of Gnome. As a user, I expected more, and I want more."
Ah yes, that takes me back. Good times...installing Ximian's GNOME 2.0 desktop over RHL 7.3 and watching it bleed.
The only thing that has changed since 2002 and the GNOME 2.0 release..is that there are more users now to complain. I don't think the KDE developers handled communicating 4.0 release significantly better or worse than the GNOME developers did their 2.0 release in 2002...they just happened to do it 6 years later.
Posted Jan 29, 2009 6:29 UTC (Thu) by dkite (guest, #4577)
[Link]
KDE gained a number of users from the Gnome transition. Gnome is gaining
some disappointed KDE users now. When Gnome does their 3.0 switcheroo, KDE
will gain some disgruntled Gnome users.
Something like the tides of the sea.
At least there is a choice.
Sometimes things have to be burnt to make it better. Xorg is doing
something like that right now with similar responses. Usually things get
much better over time, and we forget the turmoil.
Derek
KDE 4, distributors, and bleeding-edge software
Posted Jan 30, 2009 14:42 UTC (Fri) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793)
[Link]
Let's just hope they don't decide to make a major transition at the same time ;-)