>> 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.

Why do you assume I meant Akonadi and Nepomuk?  An extra dependency is
still an extra dependency, and it still consumes disk space (and RAM when
the application is running).

> 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.

If you like the (IMHO ugly) Oxygen style, yes.  This is sort of like the
old Model T argument: you can buy it in any color you want, so long as
that color is black.

> 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.

QtCurve doesn't work on GTK3 and there are no plans to add support at this
time AFAIK.

> 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.

This is NOT justification of a fork.  Rather, it is a group of software
developers deciding to work on a platform that is more comfortable for
them to use.  Think about this: with KDE4's vastly superior developer
resources and larger userbase, why is the KDE4 version of kbugbuster not
being worked on and fixed, whereas TDE is considering fixing its version
of the same application?  Could it have something to do with the differing
styles of computing favored by TDE versus KDE users?

I don't want this to turn into an argument.  If upstream (KDE4) decides to
make kbugbuster work, then we probably won't work on fixing our version. 
Right now, however, there is no incentive whatsoever to fix KDE4's broken
code.

Tim