Aaron Seigo talks life, free software and reinventing the Desktop (ComputerWorld)

> About the worst case, Canonical employee claim that upstream will not continue to support
KDE 3.5 codebase long enough but they never asked the KDE project and that claim is wrong.
Also they would not be the alone one doing the work, as eg Novell supports KDE 3.5 code base
as part of SLED 10 until 2011 (extended even 2013).

I disagree with the first part, and agree with the second one.

1. The KDE project can say that it intends to support KDE 3.5.x for 3 years, but Canonical is
being realistic here: KDE is a volunteer project. Supporting KDE 3.5.x is not a glorious job,
and hence most people will prefer to hack on 4.x. Furthermore, the KDE project cannot *commit*
in any binding sense to supporting KDE 3.5.x for three years, such a commitment has no
standing. The volunteer developers can change their minds tomorrow - one of the perks of being
a volunteer. Canonical feels that this is too risky, and I tend to agree.

2. You're right about Novell, Canonical wouldn't be alone with the problem. While it doesn't
solve the problem, it might make it much more reasonable. So I do see your point - Canonical
could have made an effort to support Kubuntu as LTS for 8.04.