Yes, I know what LTS stands for: long term support. But what I'm really asking is: Does anyone know the criteria by which an LTS is defined? To me I had hoped that LTS would mean that there would be upgrades for that version until the next LTS was released -- the exception would be if major new features were added (such as plasmoid desktop).
I've been using Kubuntu since 6.xx and have always upgraded to the latest stable version. But I was getting tired of always tweaking things and thought that sticking with an LTS would be worth a try. However, since installing LL (10.04) I have been rather disappointed with the amount of problems I've faced -- the main ones being the instability and bug ridden versions of KDEpim. To me, KDEpim is a large part of what Kubuntu is. Now I have read many postings about these problems (including here in Soapbox), but I have never understood what the criteria are for pronouncing a specific version to be "LTS".
What is disturbing is, that it appears to me, that there may be a separation between the programmers and bug fixers, and the individuals that set the long-term goals of KDE. Why I say this is because I see that there are areas in the KDE development that are WAY behind in their demands (and this may not be any fault of the programmers). But the result is that bureaucracy has overtaken the development of KDE. If this is so, it would be very unfortunate. I would like to see a quality product put out -- especially when it is a LTS, and then I would like to see continued support in the same way that the most recent versions are updated. As for me and my situation, it appears that I will have to upgrade to 11.xx because many of the fixes that I must have done will not be done in 10.04 (i.e. kde 4.6 cannot be used on Lucid). I would really like to see that KDE developers (i.e. leaders) stop pushing just for the sake of meeting a deadline and instead focus on making a quality product rather then setting unattainable goals.
This is my little soapbox... Does anyone agree? Or do you have further insight or clarification into this situation that would help me to understand what is happening?
I've been using Kubuntu since 6.xx and have always upgraded to the latest stable version. But I was getting tired of always tweaking things and thought that sticking with an LTS would be worth a try. However, since installing LL (10.04) I have been rather disappointed with the amount of problems I've faced -- the main ones being the instability and bug ridden versions of KDEpim. To me, KDEpim is a large part of what Kubuntu is. Now I have read many postings about these problems (including here in Soapbox), but I have never understood what the criteria are for pronouncing a specific version to be "LTS".
What is disturbing is, that it appears to me, that there may be a separation between the programmers and bug fixers, and the individuals that set the long-term goals of KDE. Why I say this is because I see that there are areas in the KDE development that are WAY behind in their demands (and this may not be any fault of the programmers). But the result is that bureaucracy has overtaken the development of KDE. If this is so, it would be very unfortunate. I would like to see a quality product put out -- especially when it is a LTS, and then I would like to see continued support in the same way that the most recent versions are updated. As for me and my situation, it appears that I will have to upgrade to 11.xx because many of the fixes that I must have done will not be done in 10.04 (i.e. kde 4.6 cannot be used on Lucid). I would really like to see that KDE developers (i.e. leaders) stop pushing just for the sake of meeting a deadline and instead focus on making a quality product rather then setting unattainable goals.
This is my little soapbox... Does anyone agree? Or do you have further insight or clarification into this situation that would help me to understand what is happening?
Comment