| 1 |
On 10/07/2016 19:43, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 12:22:32 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> The KDE project are notorious for that, or at least in my book they |
| 5 |
>> are. I told them last year that if I'd allowed an embryonic KDE-4 out |
| 6 |
>> the door the way they did I'd have been out of a job quicker than you |
| 7 |
>> could say "quality control." |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The KDE project clearly stated that the first few KDE releases were not |
| 10 |
> production ready and should be considered betas, at best. The problem was |
| 11 |
> caused by distros that went ahead and included KDE 4.1 nonetheless. |
| 12 |
> Probably because they liked the higher version number :( |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The distros did worse than that - most of them just dropped KDE-4.1 on |
| 17 |
the users and removed KDE-3. People were left with something that |
| 18 |
couldn't possibly work. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
What they should have done is marked KDE-4.1 as "optional/experimental" |
Archives