Message: previous - next
Month: April 2012

Re: Re: [trinity-devel] Re: Resolving the TWin/KWin Fork Issue

From: Martin Gräßlin <mgraesslin@...>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 21:15:39 +0200
On Sunday 29 April 2012 19:38:28 Mag. Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> > So to me the question whether openbox or fvwm should be used instead of
> > KWin or TWin is just invalid.
> No, the question stays unanswerd: Kwin = QT4, TWin = TQt3. So where is the
> point to switching?
> > This means the question is what are the advantages of using KWin over
> > TWin.
> > Well I'm not going to repeat what I have written in the past [2].
> That does not answer the question, either. In fact it puts KWin on par to
> fvwm, openbox etc. as far as it's relation to TDE is concerned.
no it doesn't. KWin provides the same level of integration to Trinity as it 
has ever done, whether you call it KWin or TWin or FooBar doesn't change the 
fact that it is afterall KWin. Just for the fun of it, I just searched for the 
term "kicker" in KWin's source code and it still finds 11 reference.

So no, the question whether TWin or KWin is a completely different one to 
whether TWin or openbox.