> On Saturday 12 November 2011 23:53:26 Kate Draven wrote:
>
>> > On the other hand, if our developers spend all of their time debunking
>> > said accusations properly, rationally, and logically, there will be no
>> > time left to fix bugs and improve the project, thus killing it from
>> > another angle.
>> >
>> > My gut instinct was to remove the source of the baseless accusations.
>> As
>> > that is not an option at this point, we will need to set up a triage
>> > system for dealing with such things.  I cannot handle it alone; just
>> > dealing with this and debunking the binary compatibility "problem" has
>> > sucked up a lot of time that should have been spent on the move to
>> GIT.
>> >
>> > Be aware that while I will not be "censoring" the list, just ignoring
>> > baseless criticism does NOT mean it just goes away.  In fact, many
>> people
>> > will read the criticism and take our silence as confirmation that it
>> is
>> > correct.
>
> Please tell me, is this a baseless criticism
> or not?
>
> "KDE3 I can understand, as it is technically dead."
>
> "KDE:KDE3 is still stuck on 3.5.10, and therefore does not impact us."
>
> "You "fixed" the HAL dependency by removing much of the functionality "
>
> "You are not allowed to continue using the KDE trademark"
>
> "At worst, it could be considered trademark infringement and subject you
> to
> civil and/or criminal liability."
>
> This bullshit is by Robert Xu and Pearson. So it was you who started the
> baseless accusations. By the way, public libel is also a criminal offense
> in this country.
>
> I monitor your patches and include anything useful in KDE:KDE3
> (and not only from Trinity).
> Thus if KDE:KDE3 as you claim is dead, outdated and not maintained, then
> Trinity is also.
>
> I was just responding to your offenses.
>
> There is no single security patch or other bug fix in Trinity that is not
> (or cannot) be
> taken to KDE:KDE3 (except those Ubuntu and cmake-specific).
>
> ====================
>
> Well, actually I thought we were doing common deal, but Pearson's
> reasoning seems incompatible
> with such approach. He accused me of stealing users, intending to overtake
> leadership and
> other things I was never intended to. He already banned me long ago from
> all Trinity mailing
> lists except -devel. I thought he was sorry about this, but now it seems
> this behavior is persistent
> and progressing. He takes my patch one day and shuts my mouth the other
> day.
>
> That said I now regret that I ever contributed any patches to Trinity.
>
> ====================
>
>> From what I can tell your software does NOT have an upstream.  If you
>> were
>> to build TDE 3.5.13 on OpenSUSE then it would.
>
> Okay. This means you do not want to be upstream for KDE3, contrary to what
> you claimed before.
> You're only upstream for Trinity.
>
> ====================
>
> To conclude, I will spread the word about Trinity and its unbalanced
> leader.

A note to anyone reading the above message: The accusations against my
character and this project are baseless.  I will not bother to refute them
as it would simply be a waste of my time.

If Ilya would like to use his own project instead of the TDE project that
is his decision.  In fact I encourage him to do so!  Users, keep in mind
that there is NO UPGRADE PATH OR COMPATIBILITY between KDE:KDE3 and TDE,
so switching from one to the other will require manual reconfiguration of
installed KDE3 derivative software.

As a reminder, projects such as KDE3 and TDE are GPL licensed.  This means
that we can legally pull patches whenever we want to from any KDE3
derivative project (and vice versa).  In my experience any non-trivial
patches from KDE:KDE3 were not submitted to this project as claimed, and
instead had to be extracted (and repaired) some time ago from the original
OpenSUSE KDE3 builds.  The only submitted patch
(http://patchwork.trinitydesktop.org/project/trinity/list/) removed a
large chunk of HAL-dependent functionality and was therefore not included.

I mean no disrespect to Ilya's character and never have.  This does not
change the fact that many have perceived his behavior on this list as
rude, which I think has led to things escalating further than they should
have.  We are both attempting to further the same goal, albeit in vastly
different and apparently incompatible ways.

Tim