i should be working (but i'm fixing my computer).

I don't read too much of the Linux press, but I browse the planet KDE feeds (etc.) that are pre-installed in Akregator. And this is the time to be praising KDE 4, not bashing it.

...

Aaron Seigo finds it necessary to defend himself from the "Linus quit using KDE" onslaught. What an odd time for the Linux press to be dwelling on old news. (BTW, it wasn't all that long ago that Linus expressed his preference for KDE, because I specifically looked up his opinion a year or so back, out of curiosity. I knew my reasons for preferring KDE and I wondered what Linus used as a desktop.)

Based on his reasons for originally selecting KDE (then 3.5 or so) and later rejecting 4.0, I assume Linus will be back. Like any of us, he needs a stable platform that doesn't throw surprises when we try to do something. 4.0 required some work-arounds to do that (and discovering "work-arounds" means lost productivity). 4.2, as far as I can tell, is stable and can do the job.

It's true that the KDE 4 visionaries were a bit rash in their "release schedule" decision-making. Belief in what you are doing and enthusiasm to share what you have created will do that.

For those of us using KDE as a daily working platform, the developer's enthusiasm created some problems. But, to a large degree, those were self-imposed problems. Why? Because we always had the choice to use KDE 3.5 or Gnome. KDE 4.0 was entirely optional.

And the point is, for the most part, we didn't use them. To the extent possible, we used KDE 4.0.

Unlike Windows, the Linux "desktop" is not a unilateral choice. OpenSUSE will easily install several desktops side-by-side and you can select which to use at login. Other distros can accomplish the same, though I am not as familiar with the install process.

The problem with KDE 4.0 was not that it didn't work -- it was that it largely did. Sure, I might have treated it a bit differently had 4.0 been marked "beta 7" or whatever. But ... I would have installed it anyway. And once installed, I wanted to use it.

THAT was the problem. KDE 4.0 showed us new features WE WANTED -- and then disappointed us when they only partially worked. For the out-of-the-box desktop user, this is a non-starter. If needed features don't work, the system is not usable.

And the worst, the really WORST aspect was that Plasma didn't recover from desktop crashes. Add one too many widgets (or the wrong widget), BAM, no desktop. Run updates -- BAM, no desktop. How does an average user figure out how to deal with this? Truth is, they don't. TO BE CLEAR, I HAVEN'T HAD THIS PROBLEM SINCE 4.1.2 OR SO.

(But since I have been getting hits on the search string "KDE 4.2 desktop crash" -- I'll mention a solution again here. From another desktop (eg., KDE3.5, GNOME, ICEWM) or a konsole boot, or a "root" login if that's not crashing, delete (~user)home>.kde4>share>config directory. Or, to clean out even more potential legacy problems, delete home>.kde4. Now when you log in to KDE 4.2, you will start with a "clean" plasma desktop and have to rebuild your customizations. BTW, you can't do this from within KDE4 because the entries are cached and the offending settings will be re-written when you log off. If you are having repeated problems and have 3.5 installed, put a link to KDE 3.5 "kicker" in autostart, because this will give you a menu that allows you program access and the ability to log out. If alt F2 has survived the plasma crash, you could also run kicker -- or other programs -- from krunner.)

(Lastly, some of my earlier blog entries explain how to maintain a "last good boot" rollback, so you don't have to build "your" desktop from scratch after a plasma crash.)

I think the KDE 4 controversy has been one of perception management. From a marketing point of view, you don't want to put something into the hands of the casual user until it is ready. Look how many Windows 7 betas have been downloaded. In other words, there is a lot of Windows 7 out there -- and not one copy "for sale" yet.

As an early adapter, KDE 4.0 "worked" for me, in the sense that I could -- little by little -- see where it was going. (But of course, with Open Source projects, one always has to wonder when, or even if, the project will reach its goals. Many are abandoned along the way.)

Adding to the perception management problem was the vibe that, "Unless you are a 'contributor' we don't care about your complaints anyway." The post in which I referred to the relevant comment (from one of the KDE lists) is THE ONLY one of my many blog entries that has ever received a comment. And, the comment did not quarrel with the basic sentiment, it merely took issue with they way I had paraphrased the original expression. (Ie, one becomes a "contributor" even by writing a "full review." Whether or not my blog entries constitute "contributor" status or only "we don't care about you" status was never resolved.) But, I don't think they really mean it, anyway. If KDE 4 were just an insider's club for people who like KDE 4, then there would not be the present angst about the "Linus doesn't use KDE 4" controversy.

I'll note that by pure coincidence, the KDE 4.0 release also came at a "bad time" for me -- and possibly other computer users -- for this reason: KDE 4.0 shared the "not ready for prime time" attributes of Windows Vista.

Windows Vista shot a huge hole in my productivity. I had been using Linux for some time, but my "main" work machine ran Windows XP because of the proprietary and legacy software I used in my work. For years and years.

But, my computer died and my next computer came with Vista. And Vista DID NOT WORK (although to this day, Microsoft spends millions telling the public it does). Before then, it never mattered to me whether a particular Linux application worked or did not work, because it didn't affected my earnings ability. My livelihood was still tied to Windows.

Vista changed that. I had been in the process of adapting my work to Open Source over a period of time -- and the obvious solution at the time was simply to make Linux my primary work platform. KDE 3.5 was able to meet (most of) that goal.

And then, along came KDE 4.0 -- with the potential promise to solve some remaining issues. Yay!

Except ... not so much Yay! when those features didn't work. And, when I spent time trying to troubleshoot why they did not work -- a process I had just spent massive amounts of time with in Vista -- my "arghhh" level reached an all time high.

It's worth noting that even people involved in developing KDE 4 would comment that they were "also" running KDE 3.5. At 4.0, you could not really uninstall your 3.5 desktop and never look back.

So, I developed what I've referred to in my blog as my KDOMOWS desktop. I ran the GNOME desktop on KWIN(4), with a KDE 3.5 kicker bar and Windows running in Virtualbox. This set up was rock solid and there was virtually no work software need I couldn't meet.

And yet, I never really contemplated making this my "permanent" or even "main" desktop. Why? Well, I wanted the features KDE 4 was going to have. If I did not log into KDE 4, if I did not try out the widgets, if I did not test the programs, how would I know when (and if) everything came together?

Now, lost in the KDE archives somewhere is all the rationalizing spin that came out from KDE. "Even numbered" releases (ie., 4.0) are merely "experimental releases." You conservative types should still be using 3.5. 4.1 (odd numbered) will be the "stable" release.

By that rationale 4.2 is an experimental release, so we should be sticking with 4.1. However, as far as I can tell, the "even/odd" theory has been removed from the KDE website. And, more to the point, you would be crazy to stick with 4.1 because 4.2 is "experimental." The consensus -- and all the excitement in the KDE world -- is that 4.2 is the "real" release. It's the release that 4.0 should have been.

Looking back, I would have been running 4.0 even if they called it 4.0 alpha. I probably would have approached using it precisely the same way I approached the actual 4.0 release. But, instead of blog entries advising that "4.0 has some problems" -- which it did, and which potential users were entitled to know -- I would have been writing posts about how to utilize "the best features in 4.0 alpha while still maintaining a stable Linux install."

In any event, all of that is rather beside the point right now. Aaron Seigo should not feel compelled to write posts with titles like, "I will remain in spite of you." As he correctly points out, with the 4.2 release, KDE developers should be basking in the glow from the success of a major achievement.

I may be wrong -- after all, I have been using KDE 4 since 4.0 beta, so I may be a bit blind to any flaws -- but it seems to me that KDE 4.2 is an "out of the box" desktop that anyone can use. Without resorting to KDOMOWS fixes. (Though you can feel free to slap the "OWS" in there with Virtualbox.)

I will take that a step further. My personal opinion is that KDE 4.2 is the best desktop out there.

So, Aaron, "chill." Ya done good!