The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Feature Complete vs Stable
by Sebastian on Monday 17/Mar/2008, @02:14
|
There are many places where the UI is not polished (visual artefacts, even on main components, poor performance at some commands). These "bugs" do not agree with "instability" - nothing is crashing. But still they prevent many early adopters (like me) from using 4.0. There are probably different definitions of something being "unstable" in terms of developers' and average users' view. I do not want to go into detail. I just want to clarify this fact. Though I want to point out that exactly the kind of reply made by you is what makes people upset.
Yes, you are right: KDE is not crashing all the time (if at all). And yes: Not all features from KDE3 are there. But this is not the point. There are many other things in between which are lacking. By replying in such a way you just ignore the feelings of many users (as it was posted many times on the dot). If you would have said: Yes, there are issues we are aware of, but at least the DE is not crashing, but has only polishing and feature issues which will be addressed in 4.1, it would have been fine probably.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Feature Complete vs Stable
by Carlo on Tuesday 18/Mar/2008, @10:36
|
> Stability is different from matching (and surpassing) all the features of KDE 3.
This stance isn't wrong, but right either. There is a certain set of base functionality a user can expect to be in a comparable state, when switching from one stable called major release to another and in case of KDE this includes kdepim. Calling KDE 4.0 stable is just annoying for end users, even excluding lack of polishing here and there or questions of stability and other bugs.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|