-----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 having an outdated KDE".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 for stable; as such, the logical result is that stable becomes outdated.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don't agree that 'software in stable is supposed to be out-dated', I do agree with 'software in stable tends to become outdated'.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 Stable having outdated software is an (undesired) side-effect from 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-----