Op wo 20-08-2003, om 13:26 schreef cobaco: > On 2003-08-20 12:36, Isaac To wrote: > > >>>>> "cobaco" == cobaco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Why KDE cannot be used on servers (how about a X terminal server? You > > don't have to set it up?) > not what I meant: off course it can be used on a server, so can the gimp, > this > doesn't make the gimp server software does it? All I'm saying is that KDE, > when installed on a server is not a mission-critical piece of software.
You're trying to say that it's impossible for an organization to install some thousands of X terminals that all run KDE (which, of course, is installed on the server)? Or do you just mean that in such a situation, the users' desktops aren't mission critical? Happy me, to not have to work where you work. > Besides major bugs would've been filtered out by the kde release proces, and > minor bugs would not interfere with functioning of a server. You can't know that. If the primary function of that server is 'to support X terminals or diskless clients that run KDE', then KDE probably is "quite" mission critical. > > and why on stable you do not expect a stable KDE? > kde 3.2. will be the stable kde release come 8 december It's hardly relevant for Debian how KDE manages its stable releases, is it? > >What I perceived: if you want an updated KDE, go run testing or > > unstable. If many people like a really updated KDE, one of them should act > > up and package a CVS version in experimental. > unless I'm completely mistaken the kde packagers commit there directly in kde > cvs. That's not what's meant here. [...] > >And I don't mind Debian stable being marked as "always > > having an outdated KDE". It is supposed to work that way. > While I agree it wouldn't be the end of the world, and it has certainly been > that way sofar, I most definately do _NOT_ agree that "it is supposed to work > that way". Then I suggest you start maintaining KDE backports for stable, because it most certainly is supposed to work that way. We don't provide updates for stable; as such, the logical result is that stable becomes outdated. > Stable having outdated software is an (undesired) side-effect from > keeping the stable release stable. If we can have up-to-date software that > is also reasonably stable (again this is end-user software, not > server-software) this is better no? It depends on what you find most important. If stability is most important, then no, it isn't. If being up-to-date is most important, we'd be wasting our time with all this freezing anyway. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org "An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts." -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts.
signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
