Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th Aug 2010 22:00 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Thread beginning with comment 436599
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-02
That's not what we're discussing here. I'm not trying to say 4.0 was a quality release, because it wasn't. KDE4 didn't become remotely stable enough until 4.3, and I still won't use it as my primary environment (though I am going to give the new release another try; I am a sucker for new software).
What Thom has been saying is "If it's not finished, don't apply the magic, sacred .0 version number" -- which radically misses the point of a version number, ascribing to it some kind of significance that it does not and should not have.