Kubuntu 14.10 end of life

[Ralf Mardorf]

You are angry, but you don't explain the benefits of the new KDE, resp.
don't care about the drawbacks for many KDE users. Those users are
disappointed and explain issues. Why does it make you angry?

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:45:39 +0200, Jörn Schönyan wrote:
>Sometimes there is need for a technology change. Life is changing, and
>technologies change, too.

But there never will be a time when it makes sense to use such a Pot:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/The_Design_of_Everyday_Things_%28cover_1988%29.jpg

>If you want something what never changes, use BSD. You are wrong in
>the linux world. If you want something that never breaks, you are even
>wrong with computers.

You are mistaken, but discussing BSD, Linux and computers in
general would be much to off-topic. Neither talking about how many
developers are full time paid developers does lead to anything.

>All that rants make me quite angry - if you people aren't happy with a
>distro and aren't willing to help, then go away instead of wasting
>other peoples time!

This discussion isn't about Ubuntu, neither about the flavour Kubuntu
per se. Users might install Kubuntu to avoid issues with Ubuntu, resp.
to avoid issues with other Ubuntu flavours. They not necessarily want
to use KDE. However, many users want to use KDE, but they want to use a
stable KDE environment and stay with their work flows. It's true that a
LTS might be the better choice, but it's untrue that the policy to
introduce unfinished, unstable new software as stable release is good
for progress/evolution. This is just a fashion, of a part of the Linux
community, not a policy of the Linux community as a whole.

To discuss the approach to continue releasing unfinished, unstable
software is also a contribution to the community, a contribution the
Linux community needs.

The Problem is that as soon an environment isn't backwards compatible
and brakes things, others have to work around it, fortunately not the
whole Linux community follows this policy. A desktop environment is
nearly as important as the kernel is. I hope the behaviour of desktop
environment developers soon will follow what for the kernel
development already happened.

"Kay - one more time: you caused the problem, you need to fix it. None
of this "I can do whatever I want, others have to clean up after me"
crap.

                 Linus" - https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/2/420

Regards,
Ralf

PS: Since you mentiond Arch and your argumentation is based on what
other do, Arch did not switch to Plasma 5, upstream did and Arch simply
is a rolling release, following official releases from upstream. Arch
isn't user-friendly, it's user-centric and an Arch user maintains
her/his own install. You can't compare this with a user-friendly
release model distro. Also comparisons with commercial distros is
questionable.