KDE4.3 beta issues

[Willy K. Hamra]

David McGlone wrote:
> On Thursday 28 May 2009 09:33:09 pm Terrell Prude' Jr. wrote:
>> Willy K. Hamra wrote:
>>> Terrell Prude' Jr. wrote:
>>>> Dotan Cohen wrote:
>>>>>> IF it were not meant for end users, why was it the ONLY version of KDE
>>>>>> offered in 8.10?
>>>>> That is a distro issue, not a KDE issue. Be mad, but at *buntu, not at
>>>>> KDE. KDE still offers KDE 3.5.10 for download, and still calls it "the
>>>>> more mature version":
>>>>> http://kde.org/download/
>>>> Kubuntu's inclusion of it is, yes.  On that point, we agree and always
>>>> have.
>>>>
>>>> HOWEVER...the release of that barely-beta set of tarballs known as KDE
>>>> 4.1 (and not "KDE 4.0 Beta") is a *KDE PROJECT* issue, *not* a distro
>>>> issue.  Same for what got called 4.0 (should've been called "KDE 4.0
>>>> Alpha").  Again, let's hope that the KDE Project doesn't make that kind
>>>> of mistake again.  You say "be mad," well, what will make your user base
>>>> mad is when you don't own up to your own mistakes and try to blame a
>>>> version numbering mistake on your part onto the distros.  Don't do
>>>> that.  If it's not ready for end users yet, then release the code, fine,
>>>> but don't call it "4.0" or "4.1" without ""alpha" or "beta" on it.  What
>>>> part of that are you not understanding?
>>>>
>>>> --TP
>>> KDE has the right to name it whatever they want. the KDE4 API was mature
>>> enough, and KDE 4.1 was mature enough to be released as *4.1* with a
>>> warning that applications are bound to crash, and it's NOT for
>>> productive use. KDE had every damn right, being *their* project, to even
>>> call it KDE 4.5 if they want to, as long as their warnings exist.
>>> the one to be blamed is kubuntu. THEY are the ones who had no right to
>>> include such software in their distro and claim it a stable distro for
>>> releasing.
>> You're right, they had the right to name it "Cucamonga And We Are Stupid
>> 99.999 Omega-3" if they so chose.  But if that's how KDE is going to
>> start doing it now, then I'm staying the hell away from any KDE .0, .1,
>> or .2 software.  They're getting to be too much like Microsoft now.  I
>> don't blame Kubuntu for KDE's inappropriate version numbering, and I
>> will not.
> 
> I thought KDE 4.0 and later wasn't all that bad. I ditched KDE 3 all together 
> about a week after 8.10 was released. I knew if I installed 8.10 the only 
> choice was going to be KDE 4 and I took that chance and I went all the way 
> through the PPA's on a desktop and a laptop and I've now landed on KDE 4.2
> 
> Now that I think about it, I really  don't remember anything that didn't work 
> except IMAP address book.  Derrick informed me that it was a problem with 
> Dovecot and not KDE.
> 
> I really don't understand why you are so bitter about how KDE introduced 
> version 4, it worked fine for me and a few others that I had installed on their 
> computer, and there is probably many on this list also.
> 
> Here's how I feel about it, KDE 3.xx was very stable, and If 4.xx wasn't 
> cutting the cake for me, I'm not going to complain about it, I'll just move 
> back to what I know works for me.
> 
> Isn't that what Linux is all about? Check this out...... Try to find windows XP 
> on the shelves in stores today. Good luck! Every store pulled XP for the much 
> crappier Vista......... How's that for choice? At least KDE isn't sticking a 
> gun in your face forcing you to install 4.xx, which is pretty much what M$ 
> does.
> 
thank you David for this wonderful response, as it's very true, and i
completely agree with it.

-- 
Willy K. Hamra
Manager of Hamra Information Systems
Co. Manager of Zeina Computer & Billy Net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 257 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kubuntu-users/attachments/20090529/5c7358b9/attachment.sig>