Am Montag, 6. Oktober 2008 schrieb Frank Reifenstahl:
> > On Monday 06 October 2008 10:23:04 I.s,baran Akçay?r wrote:
> >> I love and enjoy using kde4 ( a normal user would not definitely
> >> )
> >>
> >> thanks for your work btw, but i think the same about versioning,
> >> to
> >>
> >> early to say even "it works" or "stable"
> >
> > Just a couple of comments about this curiously unhelpful thread -
> >
> > The KDE team distributed KDE 4.0 as a developer distribution. If
> > packagers made the decision to include it in their distros, that
> > has helped and hindered the team in equal amounts, I think.
> >
> > Second - the stability and state of things working does vary
> > enormously according to your distro, and possibly the combination
> > of your hardware and distro. I know this to be a fact, as I have
> > two distros running KDE4 at the moment and have had a third one
> > not long ago. One of those is considerably more stable than the
> > other two.
> >
> > It would be sensible, before writing this kind of criticism, to
> > acknowledge that many factors, including human failure, may
> > contribute to problems.
>
> I am running KDE since its first days of availability and it helps
> me a lot doing my everday work as a software developer and
> administrator. Thank you a lot! But I can't help thinking that with
> KDE4 we witness a change of philosophy. Up to now I was struck that
> the Opensource community prefers a reserved approach regarding the
> announcement of improvements. Changes to the first digit of the
> version number were somehow hold sacred.
>
> I still wonder about the stubbornness of the KDE team trying to
> make us believe distributing a developer version as a dot zero is
> quite normal and ok. The next thing to happen is that BMW announces
> a new car for the experienced driver. A car without steering wheel
> and a missing wheel front right. Your own fault if you bought one.
>
> I hope you can see my point. Faith banks on reliability.
May be that was not the best decision to release KDE4 that early.
There were many discussions about that. But here we are.
I remeber the days when KDE changed from 1.x to 2.0. That was a bad
experience as well. KDE 2.0 was very slow and very buggy. 2.1 was
much better and at the end of 2.x lifetime, many users were happy
using it and did not find any reason for KDE3 and to change to it.
I used 2.0 and 3.0 from the early days. But I omited the 4.0 version
for performance reason and lack of time. And I was not sure if
plasma is the way to go. Currently I think it is. I am planing to
migrate from 3.5 to 4.1. But there is no need to hurry, I don't miss
anything in 3.5.
And what Anne took into account, some distributions seems to have huge
problems to get KDE3 and KDE4 running side by side.
It is easy to critizise a decision someone else has made. But what was
the alternative way to go?
I don't think it is worth to discuss the release schedule on and on. I
don't think the release team will make such a decision once more.
Take the energy and report every bug you found in the software not in
discussing historical facts.
And sometimes a installation leads to a almost instable system. I had
it once, too. A clean new installation of the same distribution
brought me back a rock stable system. It is not always a fault of the
KDE guys.
I don't want to offend someone this are just my thoughts.
Martin
>
> Kind regards
> Frank
> ___________________________________________________
> This message is from the kde mailing list.
> Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
> Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
> More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde mailing list.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
