On Thursday 23 August 2012 13:55:05 Timothy Pearson wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > And no, because it's KDE 3 does not count in this case.
>
> </snip>
>
> Why not? Dragging in a ton of extra libraries just for one small app is
> not a good idea; in fact if fixing the KDE3 version were not an option I
> would rather see kbugbuster rewritten for Qt4 only without any KDE
> dependencies at all.
You see these are the points which I so-much dislike about the Trinity fork:
the fork is based on wrong assumptions.
Please do your homework about the "ton of extra libraries" especially in the
light of Frameworks 5. Now I will get back as an answer that a KDE 4
application will pull in evil Nepomuk and much more evil Akonadi which in turn
pulls in the most evil of all called MySQL.
And I will have to tell you for the felt 100th time that none of these are a
required dependency for a KDE application.
And even if what is so bad about an extra dependency? Can someone explain that
please? And if you try to do so, please also think about the current cost of
disk space (according to Wikipedia 3.5�/GB in 2011) and RAM doesn't matter as
an app only pulls in what it really links anyway.
>
> Then there is the matter of good integration into the desktop environment;
> this is very difficult to do with two different toolkits and will yield a
> non-native feel to the resulting application.
right, like not seeing any difference between GTK2, GTK3 and KDE applications
[1]. What a surprise: KDE is the only environment having matching GTK2 and
GTK3 styles.
Oh and then there is the Plastique widget style shipped by Qt which is just
the same as the one used in KDE 3. And there's of course qtcurve [2] offering
matching styles for KDE 3, 4 and GTK.
I find it a really, really sad thing to bring look as a justification of a
fork. It just illustrates how ridiculous this whole thing is. Please think
about it.
Regards
Martin
[1] http://hugo-kde.blogspot.de/2011/04/taste-of-things-to-come.html
[2] http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=40492
Attachments: