On 02/12/2012 08:05 PM, Larry Stotler wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Timothy Pearson
> <kb9vqf(a)pearsoncomputing.net> wrote:
>> > A hypothetical poll for users here....
>> > If TDE were to close down, which desktop would you use instead? You would
>> > be allowed to abandon Linux entirely in this scenario. ;-)
>> > Please state why you have not already switched; i.e. what item are missing
>> > or suboptimal in the other environment.
> I've been using Linux since 1999. My first was Red Hat v5 which had
> gnome or something. Gave up because I didn't like it. Then I found
> S.u.S.E. v5.3, which had KDE 1.x. Wow! this is what I was missing.
> Having come from a DOS and then OS/2 background, KDE was a lot like
> the Workplace Shell. I could get things done easily and the desktop
> made sense. Over the years I've used many distros and tried many DEs.
> I still stick with openSUSE and KDE3(thanks the to hard and dedicated
> work of the KDE3 repo maintainers). I've debated trying TDE, but
> haven't because of a lack of openSUSE support and because the current
> KDE3 works fine for me.
Tim,
Take note, there is some familiar and fantastic talent on trinity-devel
today. Glad to see you all. Thanks Larry!
--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
This should be cleared. Are we going to port trinity to qt4 or don't.
There are users in the IRC channel who ask about this, and I don't
really know how to respond, since it isn't clear to myself.
For what I understood: we won't port trinity to Qt4, we will add
possibility of using qt3 and qt4 together. Is this correct?
Hi.
I'd like to undergo an effort to cleanup and reorganize all of our kcm
modules. Over time there have been features added which are placed in the
wrong section, other times things have been done inefficiently or made to
be overly complicated.
I think an "audit" of our modules would be good, from a user perspective.
This weekend I tried KDE4.0 and like Trinity it is plagued with this same
confusion. I hadn't noticed it in trinity because I am so used to it,
growing used to it over time. Trying to configure kde4.0 left me with
confusion most users will feel with KDE3/Trinity. Our control system isn't
laid out very effectively.
I am going to open an etherpad for this. I would also like any
users/developers to respond to this email with anything they find to be
weird/out of place.
I'll start: the Kicker configure screen, underneath appearance has an
"advanced options" button. There is nothing advanced about these options
and it should be more clearly organized.
Lets try and sort this out!
Calvin Morrison
I'm using a GIT version of TDE.
When I try to run kompare I receive the following dialog:
"Could not load our KompareViewPart."
X session output:
The Trinity ltdl loader was unable to dlopen() the shared library '/opt/trinity/lib/trinity/libkomparepart.so' : '/opt/trinity/lib/trinity/libkomparepart.so: undefined symbol: _ZTI15QSplitterHandle'
The Trinity ltdl loader was unable to dlopen() the shared library '/opt/trinity/lib/trinity/libkomparepart.so' : '/opt/trinity/lib/trinity/libkomparepart.so: undefined symbol: _ZTI15QSplitterHandle'
I rebuilt the tdesdk package to no avail. Ideas?
Darrell
While troubleshooting why I no longer can use kompare built from GIT, I ran across this in my configure output:
checking if kstartperf should be compiled... no
Curious, I discovered that building the app is disabled in the tdesdk root configure.in.in through the DO_NOT_COMPILE variable.
A little more searching revealed that this has been the default since 3.5.10.
Curious, I disabled that command and kstartperf built.
But doesn't run. For example:
kstartperf kedit
kedit: symbol lookup error: /opt/trinity/lib/libkstartperf.so.1.0.0: undefined symbol: lt_dlopen
1. Although kstartperf is a simple program, is there a reason why this app is not built by default (a carryover from the KDE days)?
2. Seems I might have discovered another bug with building tdesdk. Seems ltdl is missing from the linking process. I suspect if we solve either run-time bug we solve both.
Darrell
> Read list messsages on the Web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/
I just recognized this typo ("messsages") at the end of each e-mail on this
mailing list. Also, "Web archive" should probably read "web archive". Whoever
is able to change this, please fix it. :)
--
(hopefully this posts to the correct thread since it was started before I re-subscribed, I tend to unsubscribe when I'm not able to pay attention to the mailing lists)
I'd probably either keep the latest stable TDE release, or I'd switch back to KDE 3.5 and use that for as long as I can get it to compile on my systems (and I'dmake my own packages). I might even make my own efforts to pick up where it left off once my programming skills were up to par.
Failing that, I'd probably fall back to Fluxbox. It has always been fast and stable on all my systems, and it is extremely difficult to work in unneeded dependencies due to it's minimalistic design/featureset and minimal dependencies (such as when package maintainers pull in GTK libs for KDE3/TDE with no qt-gtk-engine or GNOME stuff for Firefox/Iceweasel).
What I don't like about Fluxbox is the right-click root menu (I prefer that to be from my panel, such as with the KMenu/TMenu), and the lack of extra apps, such as file manager, PIM, etc. Another problem is the lack of icons on the desktop (this one is very minor since I'm rarely working with my desktop, and I can always use fbdesk or the likes). I usually end up using my KDE3/TDE apps from within Fluxbox, however.
My second choise would probably be LXDE. It already includes most of the components that I am used to having, and it (mostly) resembles my default KDE/TDE setup. The downside is that it doesn't include all the apps needed to fully replace my TDE desktop (the first thing that comes to mind PIM, such as email, calendar, and chat). Also, it looks a bit clunky. The default color scheme looks a bit off, as do some of the dialogs (either that, or my eyes just aren't used to the general theming and arrangement).
I guess the main reason I use TDE is for the available apps (everything I need is there, and more), the default theme is easy on the eyes, and I'm obsessed with tweaking.
The primary downside (for me) of TDE when compared to Fluxbox and LXDE is speed -- both Fluxbox and LXDE are faster with the initial loading, and with loading apps when my CPU is under stress; TDE apps are slow loading compared to LXDE when my CPU usage jumps up, but they are both roughly equal under light load. (I can do some testing on this and provide results once I have my new hard disk)
The only other disadvantage of TDE that I can think of is small screens. On a (now considered) small 1024x768 screen, I feel a bit cramped, but it's bearable; LXDE is slightly less cramped, and Fluxbox fits perfectly. Going smaller than that, it barely fits, even with all the tweaking I can do to fit things in. Only Fluxbox would be my choice in this situation (admittedly, I haven't tried LXDE with anything smaller than 1024x768). With netbooks out, this definately needs to be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, I don't use netbooks, so I won't be able to test any changes on smaller screens.
--
Kris Gamrat
Ark Linux webmaster
http://www.arklinux.org/
If I understand correctly, KBabel is a development tool through which developers handle translation requirements for KDE3/Trinity apps.
Anybody here who is familiar want to provide an overview of using KBabel? Advantages? Disadvantages?
Darrell
In attempting to install TDE 3.5.13 packages for Debian Squeeze, apt occassionally spits out a forbidden message for the following IP:
77.95.64.134 port 80
Also, some of the mirrors seems a bit laggy, while others work fine. If all mirrors are configured properly, then there's not much to be done. Just throwing that out there just in case. I know bandwidth is sometimes an issue, and of course it's unreasonable to expect mirrors to host only one project :-)
--
Kris Gamrat
Ark Linux webmaster
http://www.arklinux.org/
