Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

KDE's Version Timing Drops It In Ubuntu Support Priority

Posted by Zonk on from the not-tomorrow-but-soon dept.

News.com is reporting that the next version of Ubuntu will see KDE unsupported, but only for the time being. Because of the dramatic changeover from KDE 3.5 to 4.0, Ubuntu sponsor Canonical is unwilling to initially support the popular Linux GUI. Gnome will still be supported, and the company expects to return support to kubuntu soon. "Developer interest is focused on KDE 4.0, but it's not mature enough yet to use in the next KDE-based variation of Ubuntu, called Kubuntu, Scott James Remnant, leader of the Ubuntu Desktop team, said in an explanation to a Kubuntu mailing list. But most Kubuntu developers adding features "upstream" of today's products are focused on KDE 4.0, meaning that it's risky to release a long-term support version based on 3.5."

3 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. News? by dropadrop · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I don't get the point of this article. So it's not time for a new release of kubuntu, and this is news?

  2. FYI by empaler · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Trolling spamlink above. Don't believe me? Check the URL.

  3. Re:Someone explain how LTS works to Zonk? by immcintosh · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Um, I might point out that the last definition of "since" in the very page you cited is synonymous with because. To quote:

    -conjunction
    ... 8. because; inasmuch as: Since you're already here, you might as well stay.
    Now, regardless of whether you are of the opinion that this is an unacceptable neologism, they may, at least according to dictionary.com, absolutely be used synonymously in this context.

    ...any more so than "way" should be considered anything other than a piss poor if not bizarre unit of quantitative or qualitative measure.
    Way out there? Actually, the use of "way" as a measure of degree seems to be derived from "away," and, again if dictionary.com is to believed, can be traced several centuries back (this use originating sometime around 1175-1225 according to that source).

    To be blunt, the only thing wrong with either of these seems to be that you don't like them, as they are clearly recognized as acceptable English usage, and have been for a long time. Normally I would ignore grammatical nitpicking, but the combination of patronizing tone and outright incorrect assertions here got my goad.