Kubuntu 14.10 end of life
joern.schoenyan at web.de
Fri Jul 24 11:49:04 UTC 2015
Am Freitag, den 24.07.2015, 11:40 +0200 schrieb 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?
The benefits? Plasma 5 is way faster (so that fixed complains in the past,
KDE software would be too slow/heavy) and it paves the way for Wayland
(but I guess that is the next thing you will complain about). "Many KDE users"
stay with the LTS releases, and because of that 15.04 was the right time to
change to Plasma 5 to make it ready for the next LTS.
> 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:
You and your dumb tea pot!
> 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.
Plasma 5 isn't that unstable as you describe it. Yes, it is unfinished -
but many people are using it and are happy. The rest can stay with 4.x
until 5 matures enough.
> To discuss the approach to continue releasing unfinished, unstable
> software is also a contribution to the community, a contribution the
> Linux community needs.
No it's unnecessary, it wastes time.
> 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.
Of course the desktop is important, you are totally right with that.
> "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"
> Linus" - https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/2/420
> 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
Right: upstream can't care longer about KDE 4.x and recommended to
switch to Plasma 5. So Kubuntu devs did it. If you are unhappy with, you
know what is to do.
More information about the kubuntu-users