Rebranding: To what extent? I don't think renaming all files is necessary. I think most of the branding issues are resolved. If the user is addressing app names, I am content with the old "K" naming scheme. I also like the idea that with the "K" naming convention people can see and remember the KDE3 roots, which I think is a selling point.

KOffice: I never piped in on that debate, but I see no reason to maintain most of KOffice. LibreOffice is more than acceptable as a replacement. I do think the wiki needs to be updated with instructions how to build LibreOffice to ensure native KDE3/Trinity file picker support (using the --enable-kde build option). I think a handful of apps from KOffice should be maintained, such as Kivio, Krita, etc. I don't see a need to maintain the main apps.

Digikam: Are all the new features provided in the QT4 version necessary? I am no camera junkie, but I depend upon Digikam in KDE3 to interface with my digital camera. I'd hate to see that app disappear in Trinity. I'm happy with the older version of Digikam. The appeal of Trinity is that of being light weight compared to KDE4 and GNOME 3. I see no reason not to maintain light weight versions of various apps.

Browser: I don't see a viable solution to providing a built-in web browser for Trinity. Konqueror in KDE3 never was as extensible or usable as Firefox. That is not going to change soon in KDE4. I think web browsers should not be a concern or component of Trinity. I still think Konqueror in KDE3/Trinity is the best file manager available. I hope that does not change.

Light weight desktop: I don't use KDE 4 enough to add to the perception of being bloated. I agree that KDE4 from upstream is configured for bleeding edge hardware with all the various desktop effects enabled by default. Likewise with GNOME 3, which works only on hardware with 3D video accelerators. I have noticed that since the advent of GNOME 3 and Unity, many people are now offering "light weight" distros. The new Porteus portable system, a successor replacement for Slax, uses Trinity 3.5.12. Other distros are now offering Xfce and LXDE as choices over KDE4 and GNOME 3. Many people are unhappy with the direction of KDE4, GNOME 3, Unity. I foresee no reconciliation because the people controlling those environments are on a different plane of existence than people who want light weight but flexible desktops.

In other words, there is a healthy market for Trinity. Stay focused on the desktop and existing apps in the source tree.

Will users compare Trinity to KDE4? I think that is inevitable and unavoidable. Reviewers are likely to notice what "features" are available in KDE4 and unavailable in Trinity. With that said, the same can be done with comparing Xfce and LXDE to KDE4. There is a significant difference and always will be --- and should be. Any reviewer who argues otherwise is missing the point.

I vote for not worrying about trying to maintain Trinity as feature rich as KDE4 or backporting features. There is too much a price to pay. The user who is attracted to Xfce, LXDE, and Trinity are not looking for every single feature imaginable. They want a flexible but stable desktop. They want a sense of continuity and cohesiveness with apps. Trinity provides that.

The competition for Trinity is Xfce and LXDE, not KDE4.

Complete the cmake conversion. Resolve a few dozen critical and paper cut bugs. Update the wiki and web sites to emphasize the light weight appeal. I expect to read many positive reviews when Trinity 3.5.13 is announced.

Darrell