Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 17:53:31 +0200 From: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> To: Miguel Mendez <flynn@energyhq.homeip.net> Cc: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, Will Andrews <will@FreeBSD.ORG>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: removal of QT1/KDE1 ports Message-ID: <3CC18EFB.5010307@gmx.net> References: <200204190230.g3J2U5b84091@freefall.freebsd.org> <20020419014600.A32104@xor.obsecurity.org> <20020419124703.GX89460@squall.waterspout.com> <20020419125818.B47724@xor.obsecurity.org> <3CC07B89.29E1C322@FreeBSD.org> <3CC082E5.5050400@gmx.net> <20020420124521.A44482@energyhq.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Miguel Mendez wrote: > I don't agree at all. How about people using older hardware? Those > computers, e.g. old laptops, can run KDE1 just fine, but don't have > the power to run KDE[23]. Or shall we assume that only fast hardware > is supported? Please, don't turn FreeBSD into a kind of RedHat > thing. People with old hardware really should not use KDE1. Why? Because development for KDE1 has stopped, development on KDE1 has stopped, bugs aren't getting fixed, nobody supports it (try to file a bug report at bugs.kde.org for anything older than 2.2 if you don't believe me). Unlike the webbrowser-situation (where we have Netscape which is rather small but not really up to standards, too, but has to be kept because all modern alternatives are so bloated), there are plenty of alternatives for setups that require small-footprint desktops, which are still being supported by their developers. -- Michael Nottebrock To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3CC18EFB.5010307>