On Sunday 11 December 2011 21:29:03 Werner Joss wrote:
> On Sunday 11 December 2011 20:33:36 Timothy Pearson wrote:
> > To the users here: please don't bash KDE4 itself when the discussion is
> > revolving around kwin. ;-) Keep things on topic--if there are aspects of
> > kwin4 you can't stand please bring them up politely and ask for them to be
> > resolved. It is quite possible that upstream can be more responsive than
> > TDE due to more developer resources; what we will need to gauge is
> > upstream's openness to our suggestions.
> however, it is clear that there _are_ serious disagreements on how to best
> provide a 'kde 3.5 computing style' to users.
> martin, e.g., claims that all what is needed for that would be to port
> kicker + kdesktop from kde 3.5 to kde4, but it is not:
> - kde 4 performance/responsiveness on some older hardware is absolutely
> poor, thats simply a fact
well it runs on tablets and smartphones, so I rather doubt that this is
"simply a fact".
> - the kde 3.5 experience does also consist of the
> simplicity/robustness/maintainability (from user's perspective) of
> - this means: no nepomuk, no local database server, no akonadi, no virtuoso,
> just plain text data/config files (and no, I don't want to discuss the pros
> and cons of these components, its just the fact that they can no longer be
> disabeled without losing basic functionality)
What you mention is all irrelevant when discussing kwin. We neither use a
database server, nor akonadi, nor virtuoso. We are as robust as ever
(currently one reproducable crash) and more robust than the fork currently in
Trinity (due to introduced bugs by Trinity and due to more robustness by
Btw. I really, really recommend you to not going into the direction of FUD
with Trinity. Claiming for example that Trinity is better because it does not
use Akonadi/Databases/$foo is just bad. It only illustrates that you don't
understand the problem at all.
My recommendation to you: concentrate on the 3.5 desktop experience and don't
mention KDE 4 technology. It will only result in rejection from KDE. That's no
help for you.
> there is more, of course, but it should be clear that what trinity wants to
> provide (and is supposed to) just cannot be achieved by simply porting 2
Then think about what you want to provide and what you can provide. You don't
have the manpower to develop all of KDE 3. This is no offense, it's a fact.
From what I have seen when looking at the commit history the Trinity team is
smaller than the KWin team. And with each day passing it will become for you
more and more you have to maintain. Think of HAL...