On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > On KDE's primary mirror: > > Parent Directory - > 3.4.3/ 10-Jan-2008 22:34 - > 3.5.6/ 06-May-2008 21:59 - > 3.5.7/ 06-May-2008 22:00 - > 3.5.8/ 16-Oct-2007 17:06 - > 3.5.9/ 06-May-2008 22:00 - > 4.0.0/ 02-Apr-2008 08:41 - > 4.0.1/ 02-Apr-2008 08:41 - > 4.0.2/ 02-Apr-2008 08:41 - > 4.0.3/ 02-Apr-2008 03:43 - > 4.0.4/ 06-May-2008 22:06 - > > All considered stable by the KDE developers.
"By KDE developers", that's the keywords. Obviously as a counter argument, 4.0.x is considered highly experimental in Debian (it's not even in unstable, it's only in alioth/experimental). Disclaimer: I'm not saying do not try FC9 or KDE4, I'm obviously 'for' trying them. I'm just trying to straighten the issue of stability (they meant differently to different people; what's stable for KDE people might not be stable enough for workstation users or newbie users). OT: Heck, Windows Vista is stable by Microsoft standard when they launched it. d: Chris _______________________________________________ Slugnet mailing list [email protected] http://wiki.lugs.org.sg/LugsMailingListFaq http://www.lugs.org.sg/mailman/listinfo/slugnet
