>Why was kde2 'released' when it was clearly not ready to come out of beta ?
Because there was just to many people who couldn't wait any longer ! KDE was already too much delayed.
Furthermore, there's not so many bugs. Are you trolling ?

• Re: KDE wins Linux Journalīs Editor Choice Award by Marco Krohn on Thursday 16/Nov/2000, @02:33

  I don't think he is trolling. From time to time I hear complaints that konqui or kde2 in general is very unstable. Probably kind of misconfiguration? I can assure you that I use KDE2 for more than 3 months and konqui runs very stable (max. 1 crash per week).

  [ Reply To This | View ]

• Re: KDE wins Linux Journalīs Editor Choice Award by Nicolas on Thursday 16/Nov/2000, @03:09

  I think you have right. Most stability problem reported by KDE users on KDE2 could come from configuration. My personal experience is: - Using pre-compiled rpms of KDE gave me lots of problems. That was on Beta3, but I'm sure most of my problems was coming more from precompiled than beta status. - Compiling myself KDE2.0.0 sources, I have now a very stable release and I can use this desktop as my default without any problem. All apps are ok, especially Konqui. I think KDE should have a look at it, as it could give a bad image of unstability while KDE2 is really a great desktop.

  [ Reply To This | View ]

• Re: KDE wins Linux Journalīs Editor Choice Award by kidcat on Thursday 16/Nov/2000, @05:00

  >>I can assure you that I use KDE2 for more than 3 months and konqui runs very stable (max. 1 crash per week). That is unfortunately not _very_ stable. That is reasonable stable. But then again.. we cant complain since we didn't pay for it ;) To Ross Evants: I don't care whatever there a bugs in there or not. It was important that 2.0 came out, since bugs are found (and fixed) much faster if it becomes a public release. Not saying that alpha/beta/RC versions should be released as stable just to make people find all the bugs. But when the bug-level has reached er sane level there is no good reason why that (huge) part of the community who can't (like me) figure out how to compile from CVS shouldn't help finding the rest of the 'pitty' bugs. After all 10.000 developers can't find all the bugs as fast as 1.000.000 users... right? /kidcat

  [ Reply To This | View ]

• Re: KDE wins Linux Journalīs Editor Choice Award by Christian Lavoie on Thursday 16/Nov/2000, @05:24

  I have been using the Debian's version of KDE2 since the day the packages came out. I can tell you one thing: There's little I can't blame on Debian's packaging (and since these are supposed to be unstable, this is not meant as criticizing the .deb packager), or on the feature-not-implemented syndrome (say, Konqueror doesn't support this-or-that). In the last months (including the self compiled KDE2 before the .debs) KDE2 has, au contraire, impressed me with the overall stability it has. I still use the catchy phrase "I reboot windows more often than I reinstall linux" to lure new people to linux. Using a 2.4.0-test11-pre5, on an unstable distro, with, until recently, phase2 .debs for X4 has proven that things ARE working great, IFF you are using a distro that knows what packaging means. (Sorry to all {other-distro} lovers) In this case, I really feel the RPMs are to blame, or the RPM-packager, or maybe even the underlying distro (RH7 anyone?) for the overall stability of KDE. Conclusion: Our main competitor out there (Windows) is much worse than we are at stability. KDE2 performs well when packaged correctly (or self-compiled, from what I know), and is even faster (on my 133mhz computer) than the other *NIX desktop. Before blaming the KDE guys for unstable software, look deeper to see if someone isn't really the cause of the screw-up...

  [ Reply To This | View ]

• Re: KDE wins Linux Journalīs Editor Choice Award by Karl Günter Wünsch on Thursday 16/Nov/2000, @06:33

  To me most of the stability problems I experienced were linked to two causes: a) I definately had some old configurations from the beta-versions around. After I got rid of them stability improved. b) gcc > 2.95.2. Because of the better diagnostics gcc 2.96/2.97 give I always had this beast around for compiling and on my first try compiling the final KDE 2.0 sources I managed to compile them (mostly) with that experimental compiler. No wonder that it didn't work. I since recompiled with gcc 2.95.2 and since have only seen one abnormal program termination coming from kmail which was being fed an ugly (microsoftish encoded) thing, I couldn't make heads or tail of... regards

  [ Reply To This | View ]