Re: Bits from the RM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2003-08-20 15:17, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 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)?
not what I'm trying to say
>Or do you just mean that in such a situation,
> the users' desktops aren't mission critical?
>
> > 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.
KDE is not mission critical in the sense that when a user's KDE-instance
crashes the KDE-instances of the other users will continue to run. Just like
when -in that same organization with some thousands of X terminals- 1 X
terminal has a hardware problem this is not a mission critical problem (for
the organization, it may be considered a mission critical problem for the
user of that particular terminal).
The mission critical software in this example would be the
ltsp-server-software.
> > >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 having an outdated KDE".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 for stable; as such, the logical result is that stable becomes outdated.
I wasn't implying we should provide updates to stable, all I was saying is
that at the moment a release becomes stable, then -if at all possible- this
software should be up-to-date.
I don't agree that 'software in stable is supposed to be out-dated', I do
agree with 'software in stable tends to become outdated'.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 Stable having outdated software is an (undesired) side-effect from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.
It's not a question of either stability or either up-to-dateness but of the
right balance between the two. IMHO that balance lies differently for
server-sofware then for end-user software
NOTE: by server-software I mean software providing some service to the
network, not just software running on a server-machine.
- --
Cheers, cobaco
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\ / No proprietary formats in attachments without request
X i.e. *NO* WORD, POWERPOINT or EXCEL documents
/ \ Respect Open Standards
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
http://www.goldmark.org/netrants/no-word/attach.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/Q4/s5ihPJ4ZiSrsRAq93AKCIHusZiafUHssWxE5t5KzNK3BdVQCfQkSv
VHbpDTmGpH+eGTkb2Vj1acY=
=mmjd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: