29 Aug
2012
29 Aug
'12
1:07 p.m.
On 29 August 2012 05:08, Serghei Amelian <serghei(a)thel.ro> wrote:
On Wednesday 29 August 2012 04:28:54 Timothy Pearson
wrote:
I don't understand this obsession for Qt4+ and KDE4. KDE4 is every time a step
behind GNOME. For this reason I preffer to patch a little the Qt3 to support
glib mainloop and then I will develop various applications based on excellent
libraries provided by GNOME community. Moreover, glib integration is not
broke Qt3 API, so I don't need to patch any of older KDE3 apps.
A couple of thoughts here,
1. Bugs. Yes there are still bugs in this software, I do not think
there is any "drowning" going on. Yes with the hard work of Darrell,
Slavek and David we have seen many any many of these small to medium
bugs be resolved. Meanwhile Tim has taken on serious bugs. Users are
reporting problems, but for every user that reports problems there is
anothre user that is not having any problems.
2. HAL.... Darrell you said you think people are leaving trinity
because of HAL? Users do not give a flying fark about HAL or what it
is. I suspect few of them understand or even have knowledge of it's
existance. What is imperative is that no matter what backend is used,
the functionality is the same and the transistion is seamless.
I say push a SRU, a bug fix release. That will help spark interest,
and help users get the updates they need.
Calvin
I suspect
the KDE3 and Trinity camps could work together --- but the
proverbial olive branch is to strip the TQ interface from Trinity.
From a technical perspective this would be a MAJOR, if not FATAL, step
backward. Once this is done we would relegate ourselves permanently to
the back waters of desktop environments, solely because we will NEVER be
able to be fully compatible with (or use internally) Qt4, Qt5, or any
future Qt products. Keep in mind that Qt4+ -based programs make up a
large chunk of the halfway-decent new applications being generated for
Linux, and that lack of proper integration between Qt4/TDE would likely
prevent anyone from even trying TDE, let alone using it on a daily basis. If anything I would propose the opposite, that
the KDE:KDE3 developers
adopt the minor object renaming that is required to fix the Qt4
compatibility problem and come work with us. While the original
tqtinterface was difficult to use and undocumented, the new TQt layer is
nearly transparent and the oly visible change is the use of TQ* objects
instead of Q* objects. I routinely convert TQt3 code to Qt3 code using
nothing but find+replace ("TQ"-->"Q" and
"ntq"-->"q"), so the changes are
not drastic.
Minor hack or no, it is ugly. Replacing strings automatically introduces a
risk to make unwanted changes (which sometimes are translated in strange and
hard to hunt bugs).
In any case, KDE3 will not dissapear so soon, my business is running on top of
KDE3, so i'm forced to maintain it :)
--
Serghei
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/
Please remember not to top-post:
http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting