[15.04 64Bit]-Stop Complaining About It...

[Valorie Zimmerman]

Hmmm, I'm seeing some accusations here for which I've seen no evidence.

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 5:57 PM, David Lang <david at lang.hm> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 2015, David Lang wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 May 2015, Felix Miata wrote:
>>
>>> David Lang composed on 2015-05-16 17:01 (UTC-0700):
>>>
>>>> I actually don't like Fedora because they are more interested in
>>>> experimenting with things that keeping them usable for the users. I use
>>>> Ubuntu instead of Debian because Debian doesn't update frequently enough
>>>> (without going to sid with all the disadvantages of Fedora). Ubuntu's 6
>>>> month cycle of tested, reliable releases has been a good middle ground. But
>>>> if Kubuntu is redefining this, I don't see where it fits. If you are happy
>>>> with 2+ year release cycles, use Debian. If you want bleeding edge, use
>>>> Fedora. What niche is Kubuntu trying to fill if the non-LTS releases are
>>>> supposed to be treated as bleeding edge?

Who said that this release was bleeding edge? It is not, it is very
stable for almost 100% of users. It is true that we're still missing a
few features we had in Plasma 4, but stability has been very strong.

I've been running Plasma 5 for nearly a year, and have shed very little "blood."

>>> I doubt Kubuntu was or is trying to emulate Fedora. Most likely 15.04 got
>>> KF5 because upstream KDE announced KDE4 support would terminate before
>>> release of 15.10, and upstream asserted KF5 to be good enough to replace
>>> KDE4. That left the Kubuntu packagers with two poor choices for 15.04,
>>> knowing most users could be satisfied sticking with 14.10 or 14.04LTS
>>> instead of jumping into latest.
>>
>>
>> That would be one thing, but the attitude I've been seeing here of "If you
>> want stable use LTS" or "If you insist on running cutting edge you are going
>> to bleed" or "if you don't like it, go back to windows" are far more
>> reflective of the Fedora attitude than "upstream is forcing this" (although
>> I did see a couple people say that the reason was that upstream support for
>> 16.04 was the issue)

I'm curious - where do you see this attitude? LTS are given extra
polish so that they are stable, for sure. That has always been the
case. That does not mean that releases in-between LTS are bleeding
edge, however.

>> Whenever the switch from 4 to 5 happened, there would be some things not
>> yet possible on the new version compared to the old version, but some of the
>> things that made it through a pretty significant, and were reported prior to
>> the release (and the response I saw of "too bad, we're past the freeze
>> cutoff" also show what I see as a poor attitude. The reason for the freeze
>> isn't to say "no more changes", it's to catch things like this so they can
>> be fixed. If they can't be fixed you need to either hold off on the release,
>> or revert to the prior version that didn't have the problem.

Some things can be fixed after a freeze, and some cannot. We had
Project Neon for over a year for "bleeding edge" testing, which was
really useful. We had runnable alphas for testing, as well as two
betas. We had a nice community of users who did test, and did report
bugs, and some whom even wrote patches.

> In case I'm not clear, it's not that I expect perfection, but when problems
> do show up, the response to the people reporting the problem can either make
> things better or worse. For the 15.04 release, the responses have been
> making things worse. Blaming users for upgrading to a standard release is a
> really bad approach to take.
>
> David Lang

Your fellow users blaming folks is not the same as developers casting
blame. Please remember that most of the people speaking up on this
list are your fellow users.

Valorie