On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 09:01:54PM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote: > Thought I'd pass this along for those that aren't on lwn. There's a lot > of good (and bad) comments that stem from the article. > > http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/316827/894bd60cdd16f1c9/ There are quite a lot of assertions and conclusions in that article that don't seem cut and dried to me. I don't know to whom in the Fedora community the author reached out before writing it, or whether it's meant to be more of an opinion piece anyway. I'm sure there were people who didn't enjoy KDE 4.0.3 in Fedora 9's initial release. I heard plenty of opinions on *both* sides of the issue, and based on the feedback I got, I believe there were plenty of people who were happy to try the new technology. For those who weren't, we maintained Fedora 8 up until earlier this month, which remains on KDE 3.5.x. Our purpose wasn't to be "more cutting-edge than thou," but rather to put more eyeballs on the advances in KDE and hopefully a better feedback loop, as we explained earlier: http://lwn.net/Articles/293003/ Also, the KDE SIG that did the integration work explains their rationale here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/KDE4FAQ I think we can take away that major desktop platform changes deserve plenty of forward warning for users so they can make informed decisions. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
Attachment:
pgpP5oNGvAGjJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board