The KDE Civil War
Disclaimer: I’m GNOME user and contributor.
From my previous post, it seems that this ‘KDE Civil War’ has more impact than I expected.
Yes, it starts from disagreement on KDE future direction among KDE communities. End users who prefer KDE 3.x approach has criticized KDE developers on their decisions. KDE developers fight back with the “contribution” argument.
There are some notable pieces of writing from KDE developers. The first one is from Troy Unrau. He wrote:
If the users are harming the project, we don’t need those users.
Well, his actual meaning is “contribute, don’t only criticize” but the tone of voice is a bit too strong.
Jason Harris, another KDE dev, support this view in his blog:
We need contributors, not users.
This issue became controversy inside KDE circle. The final result ended up in hatred and tears. Troy Unrau leaves KDE and Aaron Seigo is closing down his blog to invitation only. (It comes back now, seems that he changed his mind)
Many blogs mention this KDE civil flame war. Including Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols (the man who called for fork last time), Linux Today, and OStatic, GigaOM’s sister site on FOSS development. This story also reaches mainstream media, CNET Open Road blog.
I absolutely agree that contributors are far more important than users. But if a number of KDE users, many amount like this case, agree on the same thing that KDE 4 is not what they want, there must be something wrong in the direction. The best solution is KDE developers, who are taking control of the project, should sit back and consider what it is.
Anyway, the biggest problem, as I wrote in previous blog, it’s not about KDE 4 specific but on the perspective, culture, and “paradigm” among KDE developers. So I can’t see any reunited between the two sides within the near future.
If KDE moves on without users, as some said, it still surely be fine and decent software. But, as I also wrote in previous post, dismissing users’ demand will not bring KDE (or any software) to the mass anyway.
The best line of comments I read today are from khensucat:
What is the intrinsic value of any userless software project? What is the point of working so bloody hard on something that you don’t care (indeed, prefer) isn’t actually “used”?
My advise to KDE teams (don’t sure they want it or not but I’ll put it here anyway)
- Conduct a serious, scientific usability evaluation of KDE 4.x. Personal opinion can be argued forever but the expert comments and test results are not. Read Dries Buytaeart’s (Drupal founder) blog on the similar issue.
- Conduct an official user satisfaction survey on KDE web site. Same reason as above, we need statistic, hard figures and real numbers on people opinion.
- mk's blog
You need some perspective. Troy: has to finish school, he's taking a break, he's still on good terms and chats with us all. No tears here.
Aaron: Has been the subject of personal attacks for months now. "You've done one little thing I don't like, you're Hitler." Seriously. On all fronts. He's put up with it long enough.
So your comments on Troy are misleaading, and Aaron, despite what his attackers want to think, does not speak for all of KDE. Plus, he shouldn't have to deal with this crap, which is keeping him from spending his time doing what he loves: coding.
Usability and general happiness are another matter, but 3.5.9 will stick around, and I think the whole "oh no, 4 is terrible!" thing is overblown and will fade pretty quickly.
blauzahl:
Thanks for correct my info. For Troy, I agree with you. But for Aaron, it's another story.
From the KDE outsider like me, Aaron is the most visible man on the project. Probably he is the man behind the most controversial component: Plasma, so the light has focused on him.
The other factor, in my opinion, is his personality. He always counter-argue everyone who criticized Plasma (remember his bet with OSNews' Thom Holwerda?) I also saw his numerous replied comments on various blogs and forum, also Slashdot. Honestly speaking, his comment is harsh and arrogant from we users. I don't surprise why he is under personal attack (while I'm not agree with those attacks as well)
I just wonder on the argument like "KDE 3.5.x will stick around", is it really so? The newer version of major KDE applications e.g. AmaroK or KOffice will be KDE4 only. Does it mean KDE 3.5.x users are not left in dust? It's the same story when PowerPC Mac users felt inferior to those who buy Intel Mac. Yes, PowerPC Mac is still around.
Btw, I think the major problem is the way KDE developers see the world, not KDE or Aaron himself. If these amount of critics arose, they mean you guys have done something absolutely wrong (e.g. release alpha quality software as point zero release, too radical changes and so on).
The solution is easy: just say "Ok, we'll fix them" and people will be on your side. Moaning around the web with "KDE doesn't need users" or "Users are too stupid to understand our ambitious plan" is not, and never be, any relief.
I still support my advise. If you think you are right, give the people scientific, provable number. Saying "KDE 4.8 will be awesome release" is not enough.
{
I just wonder on the argument like "KDE 3.5.x will stick around", is it really so? The newer version of major KDE applications e.g. AmaroK or KOffice will be KDE4 only. Does it mean KDE 3.5.x users are not left in dust? It's the same story when PowerPC Mac users felt inferior to those who buy Intel Mac. Yes, PowerPC Mac is still around.
}
IMHO you're still missing some points. Many opensource projects offer user a choice for their usage e.g. version 1.x for traditional, simple use and intent on statibility, or preferable version 2.x for many new features. The two branches I would said still go along together, parallelly. It's interesting for a software project, when looking for concept and its design. Extensibility plays a big role. (Linux Distro could be an example too, e.g. Debian for a stable server and Ubuntu for Desktop use, they share many things and have specific parts for their concept)
As for AmaroK, it has two branches seperated too follows the KDE dev. 1.4.x continues for KDE3 and 2.0 for KDE4. I think it's the right way for opensource project to extent their project, both branches still under development and users have more choice to suit their demand, which is the better way than merging together and lead to no choice for user anymore. There are not only one type of user in the world!
Concluded from my opinion, your comparision on KDE to PowerPC is totally nonsense, by no mean it could be comparable.
Furthermore, for opensource developer is all about contributation. Most of them do just for fun. It's not a commercial project that have to depends intensively on customers. By the way, many projects seem useless for most people but the idea and implementation could be extended and useful in other case. KDE4, although still buggy, but at this level its features is potentially good enough.
Being fun is ok for any independent projects. But if you want to be mainstream, you must behave like Mozilla Corporation. Listen to users, not developers.
Hmm very interesting to consider the term "mainstream"
I think "opensource" and "mainstream" doesn't go along well. The most mainstream os is windows. Do you have to use only the mainstream project? Why didn't prefer using Windows&Co. The more project go mainstream, much freedom for developers reduce, many new ideas are blocked, and there are afterward too much politically. Many developers begin their new project to follow their idea and stay away from political issues. Their freedom haven't to concern about it.
Additionally, there is not the only path to follow to make the project be mainstream, it's not have to follow the users' perspective only. Linux was created as a hobby from a nerd who doesn't care anyone else think but its features which developer is free to implement persuate user and make it mainstream as an alternative for windows.
I, personally, always lose my interest in mainstream project. gonna try Ubuntu but it seems go more and more mainstream, for me it's boring when people think that linux = Ubuntu. What happens when almost people only using mainstream software? There are no place for interesting idea, no support at all. Luckily, this is not so today. Non-mainstream software are still shining though e.g. gentoo was deployed in many server to improve their performance, or their are some DB which is extremly unknown and can forget how about its market share, but it can do a very important, specific job in the real world which is impossible for every other mainstream DBs. Many people think they choose an alternative way by using linux, to be a fringer, but depends only on Ubuntu would go backward to the much mainstream way.
Mainstream isn't the answer for everyone. Mainstream may be the good solution for enterprise users because of statibility and support (Oh still an example, Redhat have good sight, releashed fedora as opensouce project. Many features developed under fedora was implemented in redhat afterward as well, or I would say redhat is externally developed by fedora people;-) ).
For KDE, to go mainstream or not, should be answered by KDE developers, which I think it's not the main purpose to go mainstream. (At least, at this time KDE3.5 tends to go more mainstream than KDE4)
> The more project go mainstream, much freedom for developers reduce
Isn't it the reason behind 'call for fork KDE'? Shouldn't we support it?
could we say that KDE4 was forked from KDE3? at least at this moment.
But if KDE doesn't support KDE3 anymore, then it's another story.
gnet: I'm fine with your argument but seems that other KDE developers not.
