12 Nov
2011
12 Nov
'11
12:19 a.m.
Hi!
This is an extensive objection by a KDE4 developer against marketing and promoting KDE3
and/or Trinity.
I would like to see what can you say in response as it seems he expresses quite common
sentiments of distributions developers towards
KDE3.
He also links an extensive article in German in a respectable Linux journal named
"Trinity - desktop with no future ".
The machine translation is here:
http://translate.google.ru/translate?hl=ru&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3…
12 Nov
12 Nov
3:10 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Fwd: Re: [opensuse-factory] The release notes/product highlights for 12.1
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:19, Ilya Chernykh <anixxsus(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi!
This is an extensive objection by a KDE4 developer against marketing and promoting KDE3
and/or Trinity.
I would like to see what can you say in response as it seems he expresses quite common
sentiments of distributions developers towards
KDE3.
KDE3 I can understand, as it is technically dead.
Trinity, however, is not.
1) Quality and security. Despite the KDE:KDE3 maintainer's high degree of
activity in packaging every KDE 3 app out there and adapting the KDE 3
platform to build on current distributions, it is a mistake to equate this
with sufficient maintenance to ensure adequate code quality to include this in
our distribution. The KDE 3 and Qt 3 codebases are massive, include code in
all the worst places to have a vulnerability, have been essentially
unmaintained for over 2 years now, and *include many known bugs and
vulnerabilities that have only been fixed in the 4 releases*.
This is nothing to do with Trinity.
Assurances that the project is now maintained upstream by the Trinity project
are hollow; the Trinity group is only a handful of people, none of whom are
the original maintainers or developers of the code, and most of their effort
is spent on writing a Qt4 compatibility layer and in porting the build system
to cmake, not maintenance. In any case, the packages in KDE:KDE3 are based on
3.5.10 and only include some changes from the Trinity project's fork, which is
now 3.5.12.
While this may be partially true, we are getting more help everyday.
The focus has currently shifted off a Qt4 compatibility layer to
maintenance and cmake, because not only is cmake vital to fixing build
problems, but that actually counts as maintenance. Also, we have
gotten Trinity to build on more recent environments, and plan to allow
it to do so for the future. We will always continue fixing bugs, and
patching up security holes. We will always welcome outside help to
this task, which has been gladly accepted.
The Qt4 compatibility layer is not top priority.
KDE:KDE3 is still stuck on 3.5.10, and therefore does not impact us.
It was your decision to keep it there.
openSUSE Factory maintainers made an error of judgement to resume including
KDE 3 packages while they demonstrably fulfil the latter 3 of our drop
criteria [2], and marketing should not join them in this.
This is regarding KDE:KDE3, so I will not comment on this.
As for Trinity, however, they do fulfill criteria.
It fulfills the latter three criteria well, so it works. And
openSUSE's Security Team can work with us.
--
later daze. :: Robert Xu :: rxu.lincomlinux.org :: protocol.by/rxu
3:46 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Fwd: Re: [opensuse-factory] The release notes/product highlights for 12.1
On Saturday 12 November 2011 00:10:22 Robert Xu wrote:
Trinity is KDE3. You did not anything special yet to say Trinity is not KDE3.
Porting to cmake does not suffice.
You are saying like if Trinity was not using Qt3 and KDE3 codebase.
This is not specific for Trinity. It is known that fixing build is not that difficult.
Look, KDE:KDE3 has MUCH more patches than your Trinity has if you are inclined
to compare and attack us. Trinity still depends on deprecated HAL, for example.
If KDE:KDE3 does not fulfill the criteria, then Trinity does not fulfill either.
This is an
extensive objection by a KDE4 developer against marketing and promoting KDE3 and/or
Trinity.
I would like to see what can you say in response as it seems he expresses quite common
sentiments of distributions developers towards
KDE3.
KDE3 I can understand, as it is technically dead.
Trinity, however, is not. 1) Quality and
security. Despite the KDE:KDE3 maintainer's high degree of
activity in packaging every KDE 3 app out there and adapting the KDE 3
platform to build on current distributions, it is a mistake to equate this
with sufficient maintenance to ensure adequate code quality to include this in
our distribution. The KDE 3 and Qt 3 codebases are massive, include code in
all the worst places to have a vulnerability, have been essentially
unmaintained for over 2 years now, and *include many known bugs and
vulnerabilities that have only been fixed in the 4 releases*.
This is nothing to do with Trinity. Assurances
that the project is now maintained upstream by the Trinity project
are hollow; the Trinity group is only a handful of people, none of whom are
the original maintainers or developers of the code, and most of their effort
is spent on writing a Qt4 compatibility layer and in porting the build system
to cmake, not maintenance. In any case, the packages in KDE:KDE3 are based on
3.5.10 and only include some changes from the Trinity project's fork, which is
now 3.5.12.
While this may be partially true, we are getting more help everyday.
The focus has currently shifted off a Qt4 compatibility layer to
maintenance and cmake, because not only is cmake vital to fixing build
problems, but that actually counts as maintenance. Also, we have
gotten Trinity to build on more recent environments, and plan to allow
it to do so for the future. We will always continue fixing bugs, and
patching up security holes.
Can you please point to some security holes closed so I could use them for
arguing?
We will always welcome outside help to
this task, which has been gladly accepted.
The Qt4 compatibility layer is not top priority.
KDE:KDE3 is still stuck on 3.5.10, and therefore does not impact us.
It was your decision to keep it there.
Ok, I will up the version to 3.6 so "not to stuck with 3.5.10".
openSUSE
Factory maintainers made an error of judgement to resume including
KDE 3 packages while they demonstrably fulfil the latter 3 of our drop
criteria [2], and marketing should not join them in this.
This is regarding KDE:KDE3, so I will not comment on this.
As for Trinity, however, they do fulfill criteria. It fulfills the latter three criteria well, so it
works. And
openSUSE's Security Team can work with us.
4:24 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Fwd: Re: [opensuse-factory] The release notes/product highlights for 12.1
<snip Sometime try reading our patch list--it's
right on the TDE homepage under
"Patches". Then come back with specific questions based on your newfound
knowledge.
<snip
>> The Qt4 compatibility layer is not top
priority.
> >> KDE:KDE3 is still stuck on 3.5.10, and
therefore does not impact us.
>> It was your decision to keep it there.
> Ok, I will up the version to 3.6 so
"not to stuck with 3.5.10".
And what justifies such a version bump?
<snip > If KDE:KDE3 does not fulfill the criteria,
then Trinity does not fulfill
> either.
You are making baseless accusations here. Either stop this behaviour
immediately or I will ban you from these lists with a public explanation
of both your trolling behavior and the KDE:KDE3 repository's serious
problems.
Timothy Pearson
Trinity Desktop Project
KDE3 I can
understand, as it is technically dead.
Trinity, however, is not.
Trinity is KDE3. You did not anything special yet to say Trinity is not
KDE3.
Porting to cmake does not suffice. > > Assurances that the project is now maintained
upstream by the Trinity
> project
> > are hollow; the Trinity group is only a handful of people, none of
> whom are
> > the original maintainers or developers of the code, and most of their
> effort
> > is spent on writing a Qt4 compatibility layer and in porting the build
> system
> > to cmake, not maintenance. In any case, the packages in KDE:KDE3 are
> based on
> > 3.5.10 and only include some changes from the Trinity project's fork,
> which is
> > now 3.5.12.
I must ask you officially to stop "representing" the Trinity project when
you are not (and have never been) authorized to do so. You are apparently
doing great damage to this project and if it continues I will be forced to
publicly deal with your incorrect claims.
> Look, KDE:KDE3 has MUCH more patches than your Trinity
has if you are
inclined
to compare and attack us. Trinity still depends on deprecated HAL, for
example.
You "fixed" the HAL dependency by removing much of the functionality that
relied on HAL! That is a terrible way to handle an open source project.
What's next, removing the desktop entirely because it relies on Qt3?!?
4:35 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Fwd: Re: [opensuse-factory] The release notes/product highlights for 12.1
On Saturday 12 November 2011 01:24:43 Timothy Pearson wrote:
You must concede that the changes do not suffice to claim Trinity is not
technically KDE3 any more.
Where I represented Trinity?
Not that much. Which functionality has been removed?
(I actually do not want to defend my work here, I even do not want you to use my patch,
write your own, best one).
Then I will puvblicly explain your Trinity's serious problems :-)
Trinity is
KDE3. You did not anything special yet to say Trinity is not
KDE3.
Porting to cmake does not suffice.
Sometime try reading our patch list--it's
right on the TDE homepage under
"Patches". Then come back with specific questions based on your newfound
knowledge. > >
Assurances that the project is now maintained upstream by the Trinity
> project
> > are hollow; the Trinity group is only a handful of people, none of
> whom are
> > the original maintainers or developers of the code, and most of their
> effort
> > is spent on writing a Qt4 compatibility layer and in porting the build
> system
> > to cmake, not maintenance. In any case, the packages in KDE:KDE3 are
> based on
> > 3.5.10 and only include some changes from the Trinity project's fork,
> which is
> > now 3.5.12.
I must ask you officially to stop "representing" the Trinity project when
you are not (and have never been) authorized to do so. You are apparently
doing great damage to this project and if it continues I will be forced to
publicly deal with your incorrect claims.
No need. I will announce myself that Trinity rejected cooperation.
Look, KDE:KDE3
has MUCH more patches than your Trinity has if you are
inclined
to compare and attack us. Trinity still depends on deprecated HAL, for
example.
You "fixed" the HAL dependency by removing much of the functionality that
relied on HAL! That is a terrible way to handle an open source project.
What's next, removing the desktop entirely because it relies on Qt3?!? If KDE:KDE3
does not fulfill the criteria, then Trinity does not fulfill
either.
You are making baseless accusations here. Either stop this behaviour
immediately or I will ban you from these lists with a public explanation
of both your trolling behavior and the KDE:KDE3 repository's serious
problems.
4:44 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Fwd: Re: [opensuse-factory] The release notes/product highlights for 12.1
<snip>
Is this supposed to frighten me? I have been dealing with baseless
accusations against the TDE project ever since I founded it over 3 years
ago--yours would be no different.
Timothy Pearson
Trinity Desktop Project
You must concede that the changes do not suffice to
claim Trinity is not
technically KDE3 any more.
No I do not. Apparently you cannot read English very
well, so I will
explain it simply:
1.) Trinity has a different set of goals than KDE4 or your KDE:KDE3
repository.
2.) We have been reaching those goals through changes to the TDE source code.
3.) TDE has features and bugfixes that are not present in KDE4 or your
KDE:KDE3 repository.
4.) You are not allowed to continue using the KDE trademark while claiming
your product is superior to the latest versions of KDE (KDE version 4.8
IIRC). At the very least this is bad practice; it looks as if you are
attempting to fragment the KDE developer community, and you are causing
ill will between any KDE3 derivative projects and the KDE community. At
worst, it could be considered trademark infringement and subject you to
civil and/or criminal liability.
Where I represented Trinity?
Apparently you wrote a letter to OpenSUSE trying to lump TDE in with your
KDE:KDE3 repository, which the OpenSUSE developers (rightly) rejected as
false.
You are making
baseless accusations here. Either stop this behaviour
immediately or I will ban you from these lists with a public explanation
of both your trolling behavior and the KDE:KDE3 repository's serious
problems.
Then I will puvblicly explain your Trinity's serious problems :-) 
5:19 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Fwd: Re: [opensuse-factory] The release notes/product highlights for 12.1
Hi,
Ilya Chernykh wrote:
Hi!
This is an extensive objection by a KDE4 developer against marketing and promoting KDE3
and/or Trinity.
I would like to see what can you say in response as it seems he expresses quite common
sentiments of distributions developers towards
KDE3.
He also links an extensive article in German in a respectable Linux journal named
"Trinity - desktop with no future ".
The machine translation is here:
http://translate.google.ru/translate?hl=ru&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3…
It seems in the other thread there were some miscommunications and
opinions which are not really relevant for the original question.
Ilya's question about a response to the above article is a valid one and
this is also exactly what we have already been discussing on both IRC
and Etherpad. Although some of the issues may only apply to Trinity and
not KDE3 in OpenSUSE, I think it would be good to share what we have
been writing so far.
There are two main points of criticism in the article:
- lack of developers
- binary incompatibility
While writing about the second, it turned out this was closely linked to
the first. Here is the page on which we've been discussing these issues:
http://trinity.etherpad.trinitydesktop.org/19
Most of the technical things are written by Timothy, I'm not very
knowledgeable in this area.
Ilya, if you would be able to read this page an give your technical
feedback on the text, this would be really appreciated.
This does not address all the issues from Will Stephenson's mail yet,
but it should address the main points from the above article.
Julius
4830
days inactive
4830
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Ilya Chernykh -
Julius Schwartzenberg -
Robert Xu -
Timothy Pearson