On 2011-07-06, Darrell Anderson <humanreadable@...> wrote: > 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. You make a good point here. > > 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. When you put it that way... Is it possible to maintain a subset of KOffice? Like Darell said, only a handful of apps? Or is it all or nothing? > > 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. > > Well put in many ways. -- later, Robert Xu + rxu AT lincomlinux DOT org