I just think
it's a bit silly that there are multiple
KDE3 forks. I don't see how our project has any incentive to keep our
code the same. Since the changes are nominal, a quick search and
replace will probably make it usable with other kde3 versions.
One of the reasons behind the multiple forks is the TQt VS
Qt issue. That's why it is important to have a good motivation and
explanation around this. Especially if you consider multiple forks silly
and you want to work towards more unification.
I understand that TQt inside the Trinity source was part of
an approach that is replaced partly now by another approach on the
library side. I hope Timothy can be a bit more clear about all the details.
At one point there was the question of compiling Trinity
code against either Qt3 or Qt4 with TQt. Now there seems to be the
approach to combine Qt3 and Qt4 usage in a single application (but I
also see TQt mentioned then). Right now it has become a bit unclear for
most people which things serve exactly which purpose. Maybe there is
also already some documentation on this that I'm overlooking?
There are no technical papers at the wiki explaining the benefits, reasons, or how the TQt
layer functions. Without this information, TQt becomes a "black box" or more
crudely, a pain in the butt because nobody understands the vision or the technical
functionality in order to embrace a positive attitude.
My personal view is if TQt adds value to the existing KDE3 code base, then let's push
some technical papers to the wiki. Good information tends to quiet people and helps them
understand the vision.
A few people have left or reduced participation with Trinity because of the TQt debate. I
am aware that some people with OpenSuse are keeping KDE3 alive. Yet I am unaware of other
KDE3 forks. Where are these projects?
Significant effort was put into TQt. Yet there have been times in my computer projects
when I faced the reality that previous time and energy invested was not going to provide
perceived long-term benefits and I abandoned the idea. If TQt is becoming one of those
types of projects then let's get this in the open and discussed. If TQt is a non
negotiable then this project becomes little different from other notable software projects
--- unless there is information available explaining the vision and functionality.
If TQt is a good idea but can't be supported long-term because of a lack of manpower,
then we make a hard decision to remove TQt and move on.
If removing TQt encourages people to become involved and unifies the various KDE3
continuation efforts, then I believe we need to consider that avenue.
If TQt is alienating people and causing KDE3 forks, then we all have lost and the other
desktops prevail by attrition and splintering. I'm sure that tickles the hell out of
some people who never wanted KDE3 extended in any way.
Darrell
