On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org> wrote: > On Wednesday 22 January 2014 19:29:24 Mark Gaiser wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Martin Klapetek >> >> <martin.klape...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Mark Gaiser <mark...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It just shows that not everyone is happy with the initial proposal. >> >> >> >> "The next version of plasma" has always been made public under the names: >> >> - PW2 >> >> - Plasma Workpaces 2 >> >> - Plasma 2 >> >> >> >> Yes, we right now have "Plasma 4.xx" >> >> We call it "Plasma". We hardly ever put a version behind it. >> >> >> >> I really think it makes perfect sense to just call it "Plasma 2". It's >> >> very much in the direction you folks (those blogging about plasma) >> >> have always named it. To me it just doesn't make much sense to >> >> suddenly entirely drop that de facto new name for "Plasma June/2014" >> >> or "Plasma Angelfish <date>" or whatever the order is. >> > >> > Let me give a different example from the same area - do you remember >> > Windows Longhorn? Everyone was talking about "Longhorn" always and how >> > revolutionary and new it will be...and then, Windows Vista came out. From >> > the very same company, Windows Vienna turned into Windows 7. And many >> > others could be found. >> >> The comparison isn't fair. >> The name change from Longhorn to Vista had cost Microsoft billions! >> Literally. The change from Vienna to 7 wasn't that big of a deal since >> it was already mostly known as windows 7 before it became the official >> name. > > I think this comparison is fair and I had it already written in my reply to > Markus (removed it as I don't like referring to the competition). Btw. how do > you know that it cost Microsoft billions? AFAIK "normal" users didn't know > that the next version was called Longhorn in the development. We shouldn't > expect that we as a group of engineers know these names, means that anybody > else knows the name.
I can't find raw numbers on windows 7, but remember an article where a number in billions (1.7?) was named. I could find one from Windows Phone 7 which is 1 billion http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/26/microsoft-half-billion-dollars-windows-phone-7/ However, "only" 500 million was for marketing in that article. > > The comparison is fair as it shows that it is a normal thing in IT development > to rename the working title once the software goes into production. > >> >> Big company's can pull these stunts. They have the marketing budget. >> We - KDE - can't pull that stunt. There is no marketing capital like >> those big company's have. We need to slowly build momentum starting >> from the very first blog about a new piece of software and sticking to >> it's name or change it slightly. But the general structure should >> remain the same i think. > > That's just not realistic to assume that we can get the name of the product > before we start developing. Should we not blog about our process just because > we haven't named it yet? We work in an environment where our development > process is extremely open. We have to work with that and make the best out of > it and not stick our head in the sand and say that it's already too late. We > are not driven by Phoronix reporting everything we do. Do you really have to pull in Phoronix? That makes no sense. > > Following this we are not allowed to change the version number for KWin, right > - it has to be 5, /5 or next which I used in the blog posts? Or what about > giving KWin/Wayland a different name? All not possible because I already > blogged about it before talking to the marketing team? That doesn't make > sense, marketing comes last. For what it's worth. I don't give a thing about "marketing value" behind a name for marketing purposes. If i pick a name i want one with a meaning to me. For example my QML file browser "Accretion". At that time it looked like a awesome name since i only looked at one meaning that fitted my reasoning very well. Recently i have learned that it might have more negative then positive meanings so i probably have to figure out a new name for that. That sucks hard, but isn't that big a deal since nearly nobody is using it (it's unusable anyway). Thus i'm in a different position. But for well settled names it makes no sense to drastically change it. Which is about to happen for Plasma. For you - for KWin - there isn't an issue. KWin is a well established name and you only increase the version number. That's how it should be done imho. In my opinion a new name should be chosen when you make a completely new project. Like the new name of Nepomuk: Baloo. It's worth it because it's entirely different. Apparently my view on these things is wildly different then most other people in this thread. That is also the beauty in KDE. We can openly discuss this. I'm a minority with just a few others agreeing. I have no roots in plasma, just an opinion. I think my point is clear (and not shared by many others). So be it, no harm taken :) Just out of curiosity, what is the final naming conclusion for the next plasma version now? A complete example please. Plasma <CodeNam> <year>.<month>? Yes, i kinda lost track in this topic. _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
