Re: Bits from the RM

[Isaac To <kkto@csis.hku.hk>]

>>>>> "cobaco" == cobaco  <cobaco@linux.be> writes:

    cobaco> <quote>Basically, it's the difference between having a sysadmin
    cobaco> spending fifteen minutes every day or week tweaking your server
    cobaco> to keep it running, or having a sysadmin come in for a week once
    cobaco> a year to do a major upgrade.</quote>

    cobaco> Note that the RM was talking about servers there, while kde is
    cobaco> end-user software, big difference IMHO. Taking into account that
    cobaco> kde isn't server-software and that kde won't do release if there
    cobaco> are major bugs left I don't think stability should be a problem
    cobaco> in this case.

Why KDE cannot be used on servers (how about a X terminal server?  You don't
have to set it up?), and why on stable you do not expect a stable KDE?  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.  I really don't see the point to let in
really new packages that we don't know whether other packages are broken by
it.  And I don't mind Debian stable being marked as "always having an
outdated KDE".  It is supposed to work that way.

Regards,
Isaac.