4 ms·

I think I understand it. The X.0 is basically the start of a new technology branch -- it's radically different than what came before which is why it's a new ma

I think I understand it. The X.0 is basically the start of a new technology branch -- it's radically different than what came before which is why it's a new major release. And of course any new radically different piece of software will not be stable, so X.0 represents the most unstable version of this new technology and theoretically X.Y where Y is the latest point release is then likely the most bug free and stable. Perhaps this makes more sense in a world where software never needs to be finished.

zanny 10y ago
This is, strangely? The release cycle that KDE Plasma uses. 5.7 just came out, and is the most stable and feature complete 5.x. You should always upgrade your Plasma 5.x, because newer versions are not revolutionary like 5.0 was, they are incrementally better. 4.12 vs 5.0 at release were not even comparable - 5.0 was completely broken. The difference is, that is KDE Plasma. KDE Frameworks, the libraries, are abut to release version 5.24, where they have been getting monthly releases but upon Frameworks 5.0 release they were stable and better than the already existent KDE Libs 4.12 to start out. They are also always backwards compatible, but have incrementally added new features and frameworks between releases. You know, like a real toolkit. And the same applies to Qt upstream, except it does better than Plasma. Qt 5.0 was flat out better than 4.8 right out of the gate, and only gets better. It is also mostly backwards compatible, insofar as it does depreciate and remove features but only over the course of multiple releases. Qt Script only just got removed in 5.7 after being depreciated in 5.0? I believe. The real takeaway should just be that GTK is not a real product, and nobody who wants to make real usable maintainable software should touch it with a ten foot pole. Qt has been great for ~5+ years, and is only getting better (and its getting a lot better every year) so I have no idea why anyone is still even looking at GTK. If you don't like C++, you can do Qt with pure Python or Javascript as well.
xg15 10y ago
> Perhaps this makes more sense in a world where software never needs to be finished. (warning, rant follows) I think this hits the core of the matter. This kind of release cycle - and API design - reflects a way of thinking where the complete ecosystem is expected to be constantly change. Why bother to keep a stable API if "everyone" has automated updates and all programs that could potentially use your API have a full-time development team behind them, ready to instantly react to every announcement you do. Backwards compatibility? Not-for-profit one-man projects? Long-lived software? Naaah, were in the era of the cloud now. Updates are important and at least security-critical software should obviously be maintained. However I think this shift currently goes a lot further than necessary, making constant flux the new normal and articles like this show why this is a bad idea.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Cloudcuckoolanders seems to be a fitting description of many of the people involved with Gnome/Freedesktop these days...

zanny 10y ago

This is, strangely? The release cycle that KDE Plasma uses. 5.7 just came out, and is the most stable and feature complete 5.x. You should always upgrade your Plasma 5.x, because newer versions are not revolutionary like 5.0 was, they are incrementally better. 4.12 vs 5.0 at release were not even comparable - 5.0 was completely broken. The difference is, that is KDE Plasma. KDE Frameworks, the libraries, are abut to release version 5.24, where they have been getting monthly releases but upon Frameworks 5.0 release they were stable and better than the already existent KDE Libs 4.12 to start out. They are also always backwards compatible, but have incrementally added new features and frameworks between releases. You know, like a real toolkit. And the same applies to Qt upstream, except it does better than Plasma. Qt 5.0 was flat out better than 4.8 right out of the gate, and only gets better. It is also mostly backwards compatible, insofar as it does depreciate and remove features but only over the course of multiple releases. Qt Script only just got removed in 5.7 after being depreciated in 5.0? I believe. The real takeaway should just be that GTK is not a real product, and nobody who wants to make real usable maintainable software should touch it with a ten foot pole. Qt has been great for ~5+ years, and is only getting better (and its getting a lot better every year) so I have no idea why anyone is still even looking at GTK. If you don't like C++, you can do Qt with pure Python or Javascript as well.

xg15 10y ago

> Perhaps this makes more sense in a world where software never needs to be finished. (warning, rant follows) I think this hits the core of the matter. This kind of release cycle - and API design - reflects a way of thinking where the complete ecosystem is expected to be constantly change. Why bother to keep a stable API if "everyone" has automated updates and all programs that could potentially use your API have a full-time development team behind them, ready to instantly react to every announcement you do. Backwards compatibility? Not-for-profit one-man projects? Long-lived software? Naaah, were in the era of the cloud now. Updates are important and at least security-critical software should obviously be maintained. However I think this shift currently goes a lot further than necessary, making constant flux the new normal and articles like this show why this is a bad idea.

digi_owl 10y ago
Cloudcuckoolanders seems to be a fitting description of many of the people involved with Gnome/Freedesktop these days...