> Does Trinity team want a role of an upstream for KDE3? Yes we do, but at the same time we do not want to be saddled with the KDE name. If we were to remain "KDE3", instead of rebranding to TDE, we would forever remain in the shadow of KDE4 (and KDE5 when it comes out, etc.). As stated on one of our pages, we aim to keep the spirit of the old KDE3 interface alive, but will gladly accept innovation within the established interface style. For example, while we have no desire to copy Plasma or other similar features from KDE4, a new program that makes it easy to configure and control monitors was included in the TDE source; user visible changes were made to bring the desktop lock system up to modern standards, etc. We are not against change in general, we simply ask that the user is given as much information as possible about (and tight control over) the task at hand. I have definite theories on interface design involving how to maximize I/O to and from the slowest link in the system: the human operator. So far these theories line up exactly with the TDE interface (with some exceptions of course, but these are being rectified). As long as the new feature being added does not collide with these theories, chances are it will be welcomed with open arms. Also, if it does collide I am more than willing to explain why I would consider it to be suboptimal. > Is seems that as you claim Trinity is a totally new product you do not want such role. We do actually. Trinity is an exciting new development of KDE3, it has KDE3 roots, and it is the most likely candidate for upgrade from an existing KDE3 system. We simply do not want to continually live in KDE's shadow, or be hampered in our efforts to improve this excellent desktop environment. > In that case I will request removal of KDE3 from the next openSUSE release. > I do not want to be attacked for including software with no upstream. 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. Tim