KDE 3.5.6 released w Kubuntu packages

[Angus Prune]

On 1/29/07, Donn <donn.ingle at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not sure I'd expect the above users to be updating KDE anyway.
> > Surely to those users KDE is part of the operating system rather than
> > an app.
> Yeah - I would put KDE in the O/S category. This thread kind of developed from
> an earlier comment about the latest KDE not being available on Dapper. Still,
> if it can be (reasonably) available I think it should be.
>
> > Now I don't understand packaging, but isn't it relatively trivial to
> > install 'unsupported' versions of apps on ubuntu by hand anyway
> > (whether from a deb or from source)?
> Yes and no. I have found Firefox 2 and Open Office to be kind of "semi static"
> in that they bring a bunch of libs and stuff with them and they can run out
> of a single directory. That's great. It even makes me wonder why they cannot
> then be brought swiftly into repos for old versions of Ubuntu. But, here's a
> possible reason, FF2 on Dapper is pretty shaky. It kept crashing on me and I
> eventually zapped the directory.
>
> > So wouldn't those people who /really/ need the latest version of
> > something be able to get it despite it not being supported?
> Yes, but then why emphasise apt-get and company? All my comments are in the
> light of the assumption that Ubuntu is trying to play in the same traffic
> that Windows plays in.

apt-get is something which windows has /no/ equivalent of.  It has its
drawbacks, upgrading apps on old distros and so on, but the /whole/
thing is an enhancement over windows.

Unfortunately it has the consequence (IMHO) of meaning that less work
has been done on installing software outside the repo world, but thats
something which is being worked on by many people on many projects
around the world.

> > > Now -- I am saying *IF* Gnu/Linux makes it impossible to do this *THEN*
> > > it should be spelled-out and quite apparent in all Ubuntu documentation.
> > > If it's not spelled-out, then many users (and I have experienced one
> > > personally and read many more on the forums) will leave in disgust and
> > > confusion.
> > > I am saying full disclosure; here are our skeletons, watch them dance!
> > They aren't skeletons - in windows world you would get App v1.0
> > They would release a couple of intermediary versions, if at all.  I
> > few bug fixes and security updates.
> > Then 18 moths later they would release App v2.0 which may or may not
> > run on the same version of windows, may not save to the same file
> > format, may not be compatible with the same plug-ins etc etc.

> I give that I may have had an unusual experience, but my Windows years were
> nothing like that. I use the example of my pal in Johannesburg who is still
> on Windows 98 and he runs Firefox 2.0. That's what Windows users expect,
> it's "natural" (as it was to me before the truth began to dawn.)

But those are also the windows users who probably cause an absolute
nightmare for every user of this list when they drag them round to
clear all the spyware out of the gutter.

Don't forget that for most windows users a new operating system ~= a
new computer.

> I never had a problem going from one version of something to the next. I used
> Dreamweaver 1 through 4. Freehand 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Corel Draw - many
> versions. I used various browsers like Opera and Netscape, all with multiple
> versions. Oh I could spend ages recounting apps. They all worked no matter
> what Windows I used.

> > Just try working in an office with old versions of MS Office on some
> > machines - its a nightmare.
> My last experience with Office was early in Windows 2000 days. I grant you
> that since then it may have become more difficult. A lot of this is
> intentional as Microsoft is starting to edge Pirates out.

You missed my point in both this and the previous section - my point
was that I cannot open a doc file created in Office 2003(?) with
Office 97, in fact I have never been able to successfully (ie. that it
works fully) open an office document with a previous version of
office.
Now this is a deliberate ploy - why would you update Office otherwise
- but it doesn't change that fact that a windows box can /effectively/
(ie, it doesn't open what they want it to) for users more often than
you think.

One of the directors at work is stubbornly using his old 98 laptop
with office 97 on it and it causes all sorts of problems for anyone
that has to send anything to him.

I think you are overestimating the ease of using windows.  It wasn't
until I went back to windows (on a laptop) after using linux for 9
months did I /really/ start to see allot of the things which are
simply bizarre and unintuitive about it.  These were things I just
took for granted at the time as I grew up in the windows world - but
coming back to windows it seems far more of a pain in the arse than
linux.