On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:44:21 -0600, Dale wrote:

> > No it's not. One is a bald statement of fact, the other contains a
> > judgement by using negative terminology.

> If they didn't drop the ball,

They didn't, they made a decision. You may not like that decision, but
that does not make it a mistake ("dropped the ball" has a clear
implication of a serious mistake). Look at how many people have
jumped to side with you in this complaint

> then why is Redhat having to pick up that 
> ball?  If KDE hadn't dropped the ball, then Redhat wouldn't have to
> pick up that same ball.

Red Hat are simply doing what they have already been paid to do. Do you
really think they have a serious problem with this? Of course not,
otherwise they would have made sure 3.5 development continued, they have
the clout.

> I realize that M$ is a paid OS but doesn't KDE receive contributions
> for themselves?  Gentoo does?  People donate to Gentoo.  I don't think 
> Gentoo would make a decision like this.

The key word there is "donate". They are not entering into a contract to
supply a specific level of service, they are usually donating for what
they have already received. I know I didn't start donating to Gentoo
until I had been using it a while.

> > Well, very little has changed. Most importantly, KDE 3.5 still works
> > as well as it ever did. It was never gong to be developed any more
> > anyway. As far as Gentoo dropping it from portage is concerned, the
> > fix for that is editing one line of make.conf, which is hardly an
> > onerous task. The KDE 3.5 ebuilds are still maintained, they've just
> > moved to a different repository. This really is a non-issue.

> And some of the KDE 3 stuff is having to be removed either for security 
> problems or they don't compile.  I subscribe to -dev too.  I see the 
> last rites for them.

Removed from where? From the portage tree maybe, but they have been moved
to an overlay so they are still available to Gentoo users.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If it doesn't fit, you're not using a big enough hammer.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to