ignazio_io at yahoo.it
Thu Jan 17 18:55:33 GMT 2008
Derek Broughton wrote:
> Billie Walsh wrote:
>> Sylviane et Perry White wrote:
>>> On Thursday 17 January 2008 16:24, Wulfy wrote:
>>>> By synecdoche, KDE 4.0 *is* KDE4... to say it's not KDE4 implies it's
>>>> not even *part* of KDE4, which is patently false...
>>> Well... I'm not mankind and that implies I'm not even part of it, doesn't
>>> it? The OP just meant you can't juge a set from one of its parts.
> Er, no. You are not _all_ mankind, yet it's perfectly acceptable to say
> that you _are_ mankind (odd, yes; archaic, certainly; but still correct).
>> However, as there are no other parts at this time, KDE 4.0.0 would the
>> "whole" of KDE4. Therefore KDE 4.0.0 = KDE4 and KDE4 = KDE 4.0.0 .
> Impeccable logic :-)
Unfortunately it is wrong :) a container is not equal to the things it
contains, even if it only contains one; the only exception being a
container which contains itself.
My 2c: it just means: this is the first version we churn out, following
the usual naming conventions this would have been version 0.1 since it's
still unstable and incomplete but we already had too many previous
versions to restart the counter, and in the end what's all the fuss
about? Most of the code is brand new, therefore it has bugs (sad but
true when talking about software, it's called bleeding edge for a
reason). Hopefully it will improve, in the meantime leave the marketing
do the chatter (none will be able to stop that anyway :) )
More information about the kubuntu-users