On Sunday 24 October 2010, Renaud MICHEL wrote: > On samedi 23 octobre 2010 at 22:55, Michael Scherer wrote : > > then wouldn't it be better to have a way for kde to work when being too > > broken ( ie, a safe mode, like windows and firefox ) ? +++ > You can "fix" a KDE configuration problem by removing (or renaming if there > are some important things to get back) the .kde(4) directory. > A newbie can do that, if he still has access to a file manager. --
That's what my provocative message was frankly intended to point out. Having system components which are fail-tolerant themselves, makes a secondary DE obsolete. But, having GUI-dependant components, which are also fail-prone, introduces this need to bloat our installations with duplicates. The simple answer would be to have the _distros demand stability from upstream projects_. Additionally, the distros (as final selectors of software) should prefer the projects which have sound policies about error-handling and degraded-mode operation. Stability, IMHO, is not what Debian does: take 7 versions back and call them "stable". It is the result of software quality procedures, objective choices when deciding about code merges, "software engineering" when developing something. -- Say NO to spam and viruses. Stop using Microsoft Windows!
