Posted by: Anonymous
on July 30, 2008 01:32 AM
Why must open source software be "technically always Beta"?
Was KDE 3.5 Beta? It worked fine for me. It was more stable for me (on several computers) than Windows was in the past (don't know about Vista). But if your point is that software is normally Beta, then perhaps KDE 4.x is Alpha.
We suggest Firefox as an alternative to IE, not because we want to see people fumble with unstable software, but because it works well. Similarly, new releases of Open Office and GIMP and K3B and Audacity and many other open source products are relatively stable and work well.
We should encourage KDE to specifically identify which KDE products are competitive with the norm with respect to stability. KDE should pay some price in terms of critical response when KDE releases software with lots of problems. While I think some comments go too far or are too crude, those critical comments do contain some truth.
Those who would discourage critical comments on the basis that we should expect open source software to be unstable... well, shame on you.