Except as I stated above that we've demonstrated a correlation between rising CO2 and temperatures lowering. It is hard to claim that we know definitively CO2 causes temperature to rise when historical data argues the exact opposite.
How can anyone hate on Red Dragon (the only good movie Ratner ever directed)? The cast of Red Dragon is amazing. And Cox can't touch Hopkin's performance of Lechter.
The OP never said global warming was a lie. But thank you for inserting bias and proving their point.
When a scientist emails people and says you should intentionally misrepresent and hide data to further the goal of alarmism for funding, that is misconduct. Defending such behavior because one has to be in political camps is abhorrent and anathema to actual science.
A personal disaster doesn't prove anything, nor will it change minds.
Al Gore argued (incorrectly) that we can directly attribute Hurricane Katrina to global warming. And every year since 2005, we've had global warming advocates claim that we're going to have record storms that year as proof.
There is a brilliant article on "suicide fantasy" and how some seem to cheer on our own disaster, because it makes them feel better. It vindicates arguments and assuages the guilt of being a despicable White American.
I do believe that global warming occurs, though I don't think we fully understand our impact on the globe. It seems we have two camps.
One thinks this is all a lie and a conspiracy because reducing pollution costs money, and they'd rather not do that. The other side is convinced that SUVs are definitively destroying the planet, but ultimately that is good because it punishes the evil bastards who drive them.
The side I never see is the one clamoring for unbiased, reasonable research. Alarmism generates more funding, so we go with that. We've turned science into partisan politics, which is the same as saying both sides have killed actual science.
I'm not sure anyone rational ever believed the data was truly faked.
However emails document the need for, and the strategy to intentionally misrepresent the data. The fact that the National Science Foundation (which needs to fight for funding) is claiming there is no proof of misconduct doesn't in and of itself prove anything. It does heavily suggest bias.
Shouldn't we all advocate here for unbiased scientific research?
Ice-core samples have also suggested that historically high CO2 levels have a correlation historically with global temperature going down, not up. So it may not be fair to say that CO2 is clearly the primary culprit in global warming.
And frankly, atmospheric science is exceedingly complicated. It isn't easily simplified. We don't fully understand it.
I'm not advocating we pollute freely, but it is irresponsible to spread bad science and say we know that driving a SUV caused Hurricane Katrina.
More on topic, scientists depend on federal funding. The emails are pretty damning that misconduct occured (not necessarily that global warming is a lie as some would suggest). This decision that misconduct didn't occur is a biased response by those seeking more funding. It is said that science has to be so political.
And yet there are plenty of people who specifically suggest the unspoken rule of software is for end users not to use a.0 release and expect stability. I'll also note that I ran 4.0 even before the release, and didn't have issues. A big part of that was my distro. openSUSE was putting out very good KDE packages. There was a huge trend on bugs.kde.org of bugs submitted from Kubuntu that couldn't be reproduced elsewhere, and even the Kubuntu package maintainers admitted they screwed the pooch with their 4.0 packages. Kubuntu shipped a release without testing it much because the Ubuntu world loves pushing the absolute latest and greatest out before anyone else.
And KDE 4.0 did have alpha and beta releases that preceded it.
The devs repeatedly said it wasn't for everyday use for everyone, and that it was mainly for developers to have a base to build from. No one said you had to use it at KDE 4.0.
The problem was Kubuntu shipping 4.0 when users weren't ready for it, and even worse, shipping a particularly poorly built/packaged version of 4.0.
Oddly enough, other distros didn't have that problem.
It wasn't unfinished. It just hadn't reached full feature parity with KDE 3.5 yet. Holding off on that would mean holding off for probably 2 more years, and holding up third-party development.
Kubuntu was the first distro to ship 4.0. Let's assume you're a Kubuntu user, and you upgrade to a new distro without checking out the changes. That in and of itself rarely is wise. But clearly that is the KDE developer's faults. And the Kubuntu forums, mailing list and website have also mentioned repeatedly what a huge change KDE 4.0 is. And everyone reviewing the distro release are mentioning this. But again, you upgraded to a new distro and never read any reviews, or information about your distro specifically.
That distro made the decision to push something exceedingly new and "unfinished" as the default desktop on day 1. Again, that is the fault of the KDE developers, who don't control distros.
In addition, that distro put out exceedingly broken packages (like openSUSE was putting out very stable packages). That too, is the fault of the KDE development team even though they don't control distros.
Your logic is that if you made no effort to find out any information on what you were installing, then someone else intentionally lied to you.
And then it would have taken that much longer for app developers to start developing for KDE 4.0 if they didn't have a development platform to work off of. Again, they repeatedly stated that KDE 4.0 would serve as a base for developers, and may not be ready for everyday users.
You claim developers would still develop apps while KDE on the whole was in beta, but that just isn't the case. KDE Planet showed the number of commits and new developers, which exploded after the 4.0 release. Many people were holding off for an official standard. If kdelibs, phonon, plasma, etc. hadn't matured to a 4.0 release state, then many developers would hold off, which is precisely what happened.
If you didn't like the Plasma desktop on day 1, you didn't have to use it. KDE 3 was still there. Slowing down the development of applications for KDE 4 wouldn't have improved anything.
You can accomplish this today with the usual virtual desktop option, and with activities, which is even more robust.
I'm not sure where you got the idea they ditched virtual desktops, other than the complaints at the 4.0 launch that you couldn't have a unique wallpaper on each virtual desktop. I'm not sure if this ever changed, because I don't use virtual desktops.
Some people prefer the ability to quickly switch to a desktop with a series of applications already open for a certain workflow without having to open those apps/windows again. I personally prefer not to leave a bunch of apps open in the background (especially for 20 virtual desktops as you describe) unless I need them running.
The OP was asking for the behavior of 3.5 with the graphic features of 4.0.
I imagine if you did an apples-to-apples comparison of speed of KDE 3.5 with Compiz and Kerry vs KDE 4.7 with Plasma and Nepomuk/Strigi, you'll find them pretty close.
Most notably in the 4.0 release announcement. It didn't state it was perfect, but it sure didn't give the impression that it wasn't ready for normal users. see: http://www.kde.org/announcements/4.0 [kde.org]
They made countless comments leading up the 4.0 release that it wouldn't have feature parity on day 1, and that it wouldn't be for everyone on day 1. Just because they didn't repeat those statements in the release announcement doesn't mean they lied.
In addition, the KDE team had been pimping the 4.0 release for months prior to the actual release date.
The KDE team was bragging that the 4.0 release would feature a lot of new tools under the hood like Solid, Phonon, Akondi, Nepomuk, Plasma, etc. Those tools would help developers make killer KDE apps. They didn't claim that everyone was already ported over. Claiming otherwise is the lie here.
No, he isn't. After taking a step back and looking at the whole debacle of 4.0, it's simply stubborn to claim that it wasn't a total disaster, or at the very least misguided.
You have to have a release for developers to build off of. Would you have preferred that they didn't release? It would have taken that much longer to reach feature parity then. And it wasn't like KDE 3.5 disappeared overnight. No one forced you to migrate any faster than you wanted to. In fact, KDE 3.x series is still maintained by others.
There are many freedesktop standards that cross both Gnome and KDE. Sometimes they can both agree on something that makes life easy for everyone. And sometimes they disagree.
The KDE devs for instance came out with a new systray standard that they pushed for freedesktop inclusion, but the Gnome devs rejected it.
As far as theme support, I know in KDE, there are tools to make GTK apps look native in KDE. I don't know about vice-versa.
The openSUSE packages were quite stable, even before the 4.0 final. I ran the beta packages even before then.
The Kubuntu packages were notoriously bad, and Fedoras packages weren't amazing on day one. In that case, many problems were introduced by package maintainers that didn't understand the new build system or where things moved.
I read dot.kde.org regularly, and Planet KDE. Every single KDE dev was quite clear that KDE 4.0 wasn't for everyone on day one, and it wouldn't have feature parity with KDE 3.5 on day one.
Yet every single tech blogger says they were lied to in this massive fiasco that KDE 4 would be perfect on day one. Where exactly was that statement? I think the problem is that a few distros were pushing KDE 4 as a default desktop before it was fully ready for primetime, and Kubuntu in particular was shipping really broken packages.
If you got a KDE 4 desktop before you personally wanted it, or if you had a buggy desktop, then KDE 4.0 was a disaster and the devs lied, even if that really isn't the case. So Aaron is justified in saying 4.0 wasn't a disaster from a developer standpoint. They needed to get a base release out there for people to test, and for developers to develop for. That didn't mean every user would be happy with it on day one. But since people did have bad experiences, you're not going to convince any of those users that it wasn't some unmitigated disaster.
Oddly enough, the Gnome devs have sworn that one of their biggest goals of Gnome 3.0 was to avoid the KDE 4.0 disaster, and they wouldn't push a massive change out the door on day one. And yet you can argue that the Gnome 3 shell is a bigger change, and a bigger removal of features than the KDE 4 launch. And with KDE, most of those features returned in time. They just hadn't been ported over yet. Gnome 3's shell removes many basic features as a fundamental design decision.
In the end, users should make informed decisions about what desktop works best for them be it KDE 4, Gnome 3, Unity, XFCE, etc.
Out of curiosity, what behavior from KDE 3 is not possible in KDE 4?
You can revert to a "classic" desktop with icons, a classic Start Menu, and you can configure the task bar to work just like KDE 3. As far as I know, the only feature I recall from KDE 3 that I haven't really seen in 4 is the optional feature of Mac-like application menus.
I think the issue is that Trolltech/Nokia is moving past Qt 4 series into Qt 5.
KDE has maintained that kdelibs can't break binary compatibility between major versions. If there is a significant change with Qt, and thusly major changes for kdelibs, then they have major release number.
That doesn't mean a massive rewrite and change necessarily like we saw with KDE 4.
Slashdot Mirror
I advocated for unbiased scientific research and that gets modded flamebait. Thanks for proving my point.
Except as I stated above that we've demonstrated a correlation between rising CO2 and temperatures lowering. It is hard to claim that we know definitively CO2 causes temperature to rise when historical data argues the exact opposite.
How can anyone hate on Red Dragon (the only good movie Ratner ever directed)? The cast of Red Dragon is amazing. And Cox can't touch Hopkin's performance of Lechter.
The OP never said global warming was a lie. But thank you for inserting bias and proving their point.
When a scientist emails people and says you should intentionally misrepresent and hide data to further the goal of alarmism for funding, that is misconduct. Defending such behavior because one has to be in political camps is abhorrent and anathema to actual science.
This is itself spin. I love how quickly people are jumping to defend spin while at the same time blasting the other side for partaking in spin.
Both sides are guilty.
A personal disaster doesn't prove anything, nor will it change minds.
Al Gore argued (incorrectly) that we can directly attribute Hurricane Katrina to global warming. And every year since 2005, we've had global warming advocates claim that we're going to have record storms that year as proof.
There is a brilliant article on "suicide fantasy" and how some seem to cheer on our own disaster, because it makes them feel better. It vindicates arguments and assuages the guilt of being a despicable White American.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/12/22/the-suicide-fantasy/
I do believe that global warming occurs, though I don't think we fully understand our impact on the globe. It seems we have two camps.
One thinks this is all a lie and a conspiracy because reducing pollution costs money, and they'd rather not do that. The other side is convinced that SUVs are definitively destroying the planet, but ultimately that is good because it punishes the evil bastards who drive them.
The side I never see is the one clamoring for unbiased, reasonable research. Alarmism generates more funding, so we go with that. We've turned science into partisan politics, which is the same as saying both sides have killed actual science.
I'm not sure anyone rational ever believed the data was truly faked.
However emails document the need for, and the strategy to intentionally misrepresent the data. The fact that the National Science Foundation (which needs to fight for funding) is claiming there is no proof of misconduct doesn't in and of itself prove anything. It does heavily suggest bias.
Shouldn't we all advocate here for unbiased scientific research?
Ice-core samples have also suggested that historically high CO2 levels have a correlation historically with global temperature going down, not up. So it may not be fair to say that CO2 is clearly the primary culprit in global warming.
And frankly, atmospheric science is exceedingly complicated. It isn't easily simplified. We don't fully understand it.
I'm not advocating we pollute freely, but it is irresponsible to spread bad science and say we know that driving a SUV caused Hurricane Katrina.
More on topic, scientists depend on federal funding. The emails are pretty damning that misconduct occured (not necessarily that global warming is a lie as some would suggest). This decision that misconduct didn't occur is a biased response by those seeking more funding. It is said that science has to be so political.
Google bought 10% of Zynga last year.
It takes all of 5 seconds to make folderview the default.
You're saying that you can't use something because you disagree with an easily configurable default?
Actually, in KDE 3.5, errors popped up in random locations on the screen.
KDE 4.x has a nice notification area where all notifications reside.
KDE 4 was very stable from 4.2 on.
And yet there are plenty of people who specifically suggest the unspoken rule of software is for end users not to use a .0 release and expect stability. I'll also note that I ran 4.0 even before the release, and didn't have issues. A big part of that was my distro. openSUSE was putting out very good KDE packages. There was a huge trend on bugs.kde.org of bugs submitted from Kubuntu that couldn't be reproduced elsewhere, and even the Kubuntu package maintainers admitted they screwed the pooch with their 4.0 packages. Kubuntu shipped a release without testing it much because the Ubuntu world loves pushing the absolute latest and greatest out before anyone else.
And KDE 4.0 did have alpha and beta releases that preceded it.
You're missing the point.
The devs repeatedly said it wasn't for everyday use for everyone, and that it was mainly for developers to have a base to build from. No one said you had to use it at KDE 4.0.
The problem was Kubuntu shipping 4.0 when users weren't ready for it, and even worse, shipping a particularly poorly built/packaged version of 4.0.
Oddly enough, other distros didn't have that problem.
It wasn't unfinished. It just hadn't reached full feature parity with KDE 3.5 yet. Holding off on that would mean holding off for probably 2 more years, and holding up third-party development.
Kubuntu was the first distro to ship 4.0. Let's assume you're a Kubuntu user, and you upgrade to a new distro without checking out the changes. That in and of itself rarely is wise. But clearly that is the KDE developer's faults. And the Kubuntu forums, mailing list and website have also mentioned repeatedly what a huge change KDE 4.0 is. And everyone reviewing the distro release are mentioning this. But again, you upgraded to a new distro and never read any reviews, or information about your distro specifically.
That distro made the decision to push something exceedingly new and "unfinished" as the default desktop on day 1. Again, that is the fault of the KDE developers, who don't control distros.
In addition, that distro put out exceedingly broken packages (like openSUSE was putting out very stable packages). That too, is the fault of the KDE development team even though they don't control distros.
Your logic is that if you made no effort to find out any information on what you were installing, then someone else intentionally lied to you.
And then it would have taken that much longer for app developers to start developing for KDE 4.0 if they didn't have a development platform to work off of. Again, they repeatedly stated that KDE 4.0 would serve as a base for developers, and may not be ready for everyday users.
You claim developers would still develop apps while KDE on the whole was in beta, but that just isn't the case. KDE Planet showed the number of commits and new developers, which exploded after the 4.0 release. Many people were holding off for an official standard. If kdelibs, phonon, plasma, etc. hadn't matured to a 4.0 release state, then many developers would hold off, which is precisely what happened.
If you didn't like the Plasma desktop on day 1, you didn't have to use it. KDE 3 was still there. Slowing down the development of applications for KDE 4 wouldn't have improved anything.
You can accomplish this today with the usual virtual desktop option, and with activities, which is even more robust.
I'm not sure where you got the idea they ditched virtual desktops, other than the complaints at the 4.0 launch that you couldn't have a unique wallpaper on each virtual desktop. I'm not sure if this ever changed, because I don't use virtual desktops.
Some people prefer the ability to quickly switch to a desktop with a series of applications already open for a certain workflow without having to open those apps/windows again. I personally prefer not to leave a bunch of apps open in the background (especially for 20 virtual desktops as you describe) unless I need them running.
The OP was asking for the behavior of 3.5 with the graphic features of 4.0.
I imagine if you did an apples-to-apples comparison of speed of KDE 3.5 with Compiz and Kerry vs KDE 4.7 with Plasma and Nepomuk/Strigi, you'll find them pretty close.
Most notably in the 4.0 release announcement. It didn't state it was perfect, but it sure didn't give the impression that it wasn't ready for normal users. see: http://www.kde.org/announcements/4.0 [kde.org]
They made countless comments leading up the 4.0 release that it wouldn't have feature parity on day 1, and that it wouldn't be for everyone on day 1. Just because they didn't repeat those statements in the release announcement doesn't mean they lied.
In addition, the KDE team had been pimping the 4.0 release for months prior to the actual release date.
The KDE team was bragging that the 4.0 release would feature a lot of new tools under the hood like Solid, Phonon, Akondi, Nepomuk, Plasma, etc. Those tools would help developers make killer KDE apps. They didn't claim that everyone was already ported over. Claiming otherwise is the lie here.
No, he isn't. After taking a step back and looking at the whole debacle of 4.0, it's simply stubborn to claim that it wasn't a total disaster, or at the very least misguided.
You have to have a release for developers to build off of. Would you have preferred that they didn't release? It would have taken that much longer to reach feature parity then. And it wasn't like KDE 3.5 disappeared overnight. No one forced you to migrate any faster than you wanted to. In fact, KDE 3.x series is still maintained by others.
http://www.trinitydesktop.org/screenshots.php
Some of those apps never made it to KDE 4 because they were abandoned. There isn't much you can do about that.
However, there are many new apps and plasmoids that only exist in KDE 4 and never existed in 3.
It also looks like Qt 5 won't be as drastic of a change as Qt 4 was, and that KDE 5 won't be as drastic of a change as KDE 4.
There are many freedesktop standards that cross both Gnome and KDE. Sometimes they can both agree on something that makes life easy for everyone. And sometimes they disagree.
The KDE devs for instance came out with a new systray standard that they pushed for freedesktop inclusion, but the Gnome devs rejected it.
As far as theme support, I know in KDE, there are tools to make GTK apps look native in KDE. I don't know about vice-versa.
The openSUSE packages were quite stable, even before the 4.0 final. I ran the beta packages even before then.
The Kubuntu packages were notoriously bad, and Fedoras packages weren't amazing on day one. In that case, many problems were introduced by package maintainers that didn't understand the new build system or where things moved.
It depends on perception.
I read dot.kde.org regularly, and Planet KDE. Every single KDE dev was quite clear that KDE 4.0 wasn't for everyone on day one, and it wouldn't have feature parity with KDE 3.5 on day one.
Yet every single tech blogger says they were lied to in this massive fiasco that KDE 4 would be perfect on day one. Where exactly was that statement? I think the problem is that a few distros were pushing KDE 4 as a default desktop before it was fully ready for primetime, and Kubuntu in particular was shipping really broken packages.
If you got a KDE 4 desktop before you personally wanted it, or if you had a buggy desktop, then KDE 4.0 was a disaster and the devs lied, even if that really isn't the case. So Aaron is justified in saying 4.0 wasn't a disaster from a developer standpoint. They needed to get a base release out there for people to test, and for developers to develop for. That didn't mean every user would be happy with it on day one. But since people did have bad experiences, you're not going to convince any of those users that it wasn't some unmitigated disaster.
Oddly enough, the Gnome devs have sworn that one of their biggest goals of Gnome 3.0 was to avoid the KDE 4.0 disaster, and they wouldn't push a massive change out the door on day one. And yet you can argue that the Gnome 3 shell is a bigger change, and a bigger removal of features than the KDE 4 launch. And with KDE, most of those features returned in time. They just hadn't been ported over yet. Gnome 3's shell removes many basic features as a fundamental design decision.
In the end, users should make informed decisions about what desktop works best for them be it KDE 4, Gnome 3, Unity, XFCE, etc.
Out of curiosity, what behavior from KDE 3 is not possible in KDE 4?
You can revert to a "classic" desktop with icons, a classic Start Menu, and you can configure the task bar to work just like KDE 3. As far as I know, the only feature I recall from KDE 3 that I haven't really seen in 4 is the optional feature of Mac-like application menus.
I think the issue is that Trolltech/Nokia is moving past Qt 4 series into Qt 5.
KDE has maintained that kdelibs can't break binary compatibility between major versions. If there is a significant change with Qt, and thusly major changes for kdelibs, then they have major release number.
That doesn't mean a massive rewrite and change necessarily like we saw with KDE 4.
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
http://www.wikipedia.org/
http://www.khanacademy.org/
http://www.ted.com/
Standford isn't first to this game, but I still applaud them.