The free software revolution VS the dreadlocked deadlockers
I've been running linux for 10 years as my main system. That amounts to a geological era or two in the software world. I have seen some pretty radical things happen to my desktop, namely KDE4, Gnome3 and Unity.
Each of these change shed a clamor of outraged complaints in their wake. For each of them, the song is the same: buggy, ugly and with the wrong approach to computing... Now, hear me out, none are a revolution. None is truly game changing. Each is merely a slightly different way of doing the same old things. And, really, each is an improvement over what was there before. The kids that develop those, aren't fools.
The example of KDE4 is enlightening as it is the oldest. Back in 2008, I tried it right away and I found it beautiful and messy. But it was still a model of simplicity over the cacophony that KDE3 had become. Nowadays, it's a pretty recognized and established environment. The two others are too recent to be examined through the lens of history.
How not to see those waves of discontent as a knee jerk from grumpy fossils that turn sour when their habits are changed? What extremities will they go to if some really disruptive and game-changing technology ever springs out?
And more interestingly, are those the spearhead activists that lead the free software revolution? If so, I'm on my way to the Apple Store.
Enough already with blog articles?