Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Apr 2011 17:50 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Thread beginning with comment 469363
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.
RE[5]: Tested it for a few hours
by orestes on Wed 6th Apr 2011 23:12
in reply to "RE[4]: Tested it for a few hours"
They deliberately released admittedly beta quality code as a point zero release and then tried to justify it by attempting to redefine the standard expectations of what a point zero release is for the sake of getting wider testing. I'll agree that the distros were partially to blame for pushing it as a replacement for 3.x so early, but they aren't solely to blame by a long shot.
RE[6]: Tested it for a few hours
by kaiwai on Thu 7th Apr 2011 05:07
in reply to "RE[5]: Tested it for a few hours"
They deliberately released admittedly beta quality code as a point zero release and then tried to justify it by attempting to redefine the standard expectations of what a point zero release is for the sake of getting wider testing. I'll agree that the distros were partially to blame for pushing it as a replacement for 3.x so early, but they aren't solely to blame by a long shot.
Personally I found what KDE 4.0 no better or worse than Apple with Mac OS X 10.0 when it was first released where Apple offered machines with OS 9 and dual boot configurations, free upgrade to 10.1 for those who took the plunge first. At some point you have to get the software out there, it is hardly the fault of KDE developers if distributions ignore the advice and decide to make it a default desktop.





Member since:
2007-02-17
The KDE team didn't do that, the various distributions did. The KDE team said they wanted people to try KDE 4.0, in order to get feedback. They did not say they wanted people to use KDE 4.0 as their primary desktop ... it wasn't ready for that.