Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 4th Jan 2008 20:47 UTC
KDE KDE's Aaron Seigo (who owes me a Martini) wrote about a few often-heard misconceptions and questions regarding KDE 4.0, which is supposed to be released January 11th. "Now that 4.0.0 is tagged and out and that bit of worry and concern is behind me for the moment, I wanted to take a moment to talk really bluntly about 4.0. In particular, I'm going to address some of the common memes in fairly random order that I see about kde 3.5 and 4.0. I'm going to speak bluntly (though not rudely) so prepare yourself."
Thread beginning with comment 294299
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Sat 5th Jan 2008 00:49 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

"Because you don't know how release candidates are being used here and because you don't understand 'release early and release often'. Ergo, you're stupid.
"

I think stupid is someone who doesn't know the meaning of RC and tells the world is wrong. Who may be that one?

"Did he? What exactly did he tell us to wait for? "

It was a long discussion between a poster nad aseigo in one of the commits digests, here, enjoy your self.

User: > The Release candidates and daily builds are informative enougth. aren't they?

aseigo: no, 4.0 will be.

"I'm glad you think so. Meanwhile back on planet Earth, a few people actually read the article. You'd think you had some kind of vested interest in it"

Oh, I forgot that aseigo is your idol, sorry, but hey sweetheart, he is just a human who happens to make misstakes too.

Reply Parent Score: -6

RE[3]: ...
by KAMiKAZOW on Sat 5th Jan 2008 01:00 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

User: > The Release candidates and daily builds are informative enougth. aren't they?

aseigo: no, 4.0 will be.


"4.0 will be informative" is the same as "4.0 will have mainstream quality"?

Reply Parent Score: 4

v RE[4]: ...
by Hiev on Sat 5th Jan 2008 01:05 in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
RE[4]: ...
by ralph on Sat 5th Jan 2008 06:32 in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

"4.0 will be informative" is the same as "4.0 will have mainstream quality"?

Uhm, no, it isn't?
Especially when taking into account that for months now aseigo and others involved in kde4 told everyone who would listen in every interview, blogpost, etc. that kde 4.0 would be rough around the edges and would not be mainstream quality.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: ...
by segedunum on Sat 5th Jan 2008 01:22 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I think stupid is someone who doesn't know the meaning of RC and tells the world is wrong.

How do we know when we have a Release Candidate sweetheart? At exactly what point do we know? Is it a point in time (this wasn't a time-based release), or a set of requirements you have attached to the underside of your toilet seat that tells you?

Alphas, Betas and Release Candidates, and what constitutes a major release, are defined by actual requirements, or via time-based releases, and not by you. KDE 4.0 was designed and destined to be a target development desktop platform - and it is.

People who are coming up with definitions of Release Candidates and Betas haven't got the faintest idea what they're talking about, because what they are depends totally on what the end release is actually designed to be - not on what you think it should be.

aseigo: no, 4.0 will be.

What is KDE 4.0 designed to be, exactly, and what have people been telling you that it's going to be for months? The poster in that comment thread (I Googled) is about your level - ergo, it's you. Nice one:

http://dot.kde.org/1198130504/1198177658/1198191398/1198193468/1198...

Oh, I forgot that aseigo is your idol, sorry, but hey sweetheart, he is just a human who happens to make misstakes too.

Whatever hinny (nicking other peoples' little phrases you find annoying, priceless. For everything else, there's Mastercard).

Reply Parent Score: 3

v RE[4]: ...
by Hiev on Sat 5th Jan 2008 01:42 in reply to "RE[3]: ..."