On Saturday 26 May 2018 07:52:18 Jimmy Johnson wrote: I'm systemd and want to assimilate trinity

Hi wofgdkncxojef, Just in case you didn't know, TDE will almost never accept even the slightest change in _anything_, so if you want to do some things, you either have to fork, or go away... Lol, I am exagerating it a bit here, but see that there is very few dev, very few time for what would be needed to re-arrange so many packages. Even the project ''owner'' does not work on it anymore, maybe because of time constraints or lack of interest. Have you already looked at how many packages are in TDE in Synaptic? I agree with you that the default theme is a joke, and this is partly why I make my remaster with PCLinuxOS and TDE: To show that there is something to do with TDE, while retaining the good work flow of KDE3. At this moment, I see TDE to be quite like Debian: Horrible out-of-the-box experience, but great experience afters days of tweaking. -Alexandre ________________________________ De : Slávek Banko <slavek.banko(a)axis.cz> Envoyé : 26 mai 2018 09:59:03 À : trinity-devel(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net Objet : Re: [trinity-devel] Renaming and split in to official and extra On Saturday 26 of May 2018 07:30:16 wofgdkncxojef(a)gmail.com wrote: Hi all, wofgdkncxojef, at begin, I would start with formality. It is good to imagine yourself in society at first. Using a very anonymous email with no signature is not a very trusted method. Second: Trinity is simply not just a basic programs, but we have to manage the entire 'ecosystem'. That is why we provide a new home for all Trinity and old KDE3 applications that our users desire. That's why we provide binary packages for a large number of distributions and versions - both 'deb' and 'rpm' based. At the same time, it gives us some independence from distributions, their goals, their development cycles. The division of applications into "first category" and "other" I do not see as useful. We simply need applications "to be able to compile and functional". The fact that some applications get more patches and other less patches is a natural way to split applications. At the same time, less patches do not indicate that the application is not useful, is not used, is not good. It's always about whether users are interested in the application and whether someone can contribute by code and find time to put their hands on the work. By the way, one basic division already exists. There are basic packages such as tdelibs, tdebase, tdegraphics,... that contain common libraries and also some applications, and besides, the application folder that contains other applications. Your proposed list of "first category" application completely ignores the fact of what part the source code is. Are you currently unaware of the source code structure or are you suggesting breaking the existing tdebase, tdegraphics,...? Claiming that a Konqueror is not a good file manager because an outdated web component is a bit funny. What is the impact of web component on managing local files? We all know that Konqueror is not enough on modern websites for the role of the Internet browser. But it does not disqualify it from the file manager role. At different intervals, there is a demand that we need to "rename completely everything" to allow become part of official distributions. Yes, we are all aware that the conflicting names and the resulting location in /opt/trinity is a thing that prevents us from doing so. Yes, we all know it would be good to do it. The problem, however, is that a renaming of everything is a very challenging task, for which we do not have enough time of developers to devote to this. Additionally, here is also the fact that renaming will not be beneficial for existing users - rather, they will not be delighted. I do not say we do not want to rename everything. I just say we prefer other things that seem to be more useful for our users. If there is a strong enough will to prepare a renaming of everything, it is appropriate first to prepare a complete list of things to rename and their new names. This means not only applications as seen by users but also related libraries. And also the names of the objects and the method. For example, kate, libkatepart, libkatepartinterfaces, libkateinterfaces, libkateutils. As soon as we have a complete renaming plan, we can begin to address its implementation. Cheers -- Slávek

Mike Bird wrote: +1 here - exactly my motivation - I turn the PC on and can work. I configured it maybe 12y ago and managed to migrate to TDE - this was only effort in configuration. This is my motivation to use TDE - it is extremely reliable and also light weight. exactly Amen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 > Hi Alexandre, > I am sorry that you have this attitude. But I understand - the reactions of users here to your proposals were often > too personal and unnecessarily inadequate. However, remember that the current splash screen is the result of a > consensus from your proposal. Likewise, the opening screen in Konqueror, KMail, the look of help pages, and so on. > Let me say that the impressions of your designs here are written down significantly. > During your earlier activity, I assumed that your theme will be incorporated as another of the basic themes. > Unfortunately, you have been discouraged by users feedback and therefore this work is still awaiting to completion. > Although we have conservative users as well as developers, we are not closed to new proposals. > Cheers Hi everyone, in addition to Slavek's excellent replies, a few extra notes from me. - From time to time, people come around with new ideas that they would like to see in TDE. I also followed that path initially and put in a lot of ideas for improvements and for giving TDE more exposure. But as many of you have realized, most of those ideas never got implemented. This is not because TDE is closed or against changes, but because of: 1) TDE wants to remain slim and efficient (i.e. don't want to become another KDE4, Gnome3 or whatever...) 2) any change affects lot of people. So if I like a button in a specific place or a particular theme, it doesn't mean that the other users will like it. Changes should keep this into account and be reasonable and possibly provide an enable/disable of new featues 3) lack of developers. Yes, I know, that's the main problem :-) Example: renaming a class seems trivial, but it means renaming, testing all, make sure everything is fine and most of all (since renaming would go into the next minor release) it means that every new fix made in a minor release would require extra work when backporting to a maintenance release (because the names are different). So something that looks trivial is not always trivial. All these to say that we appreciate all contributions that we get and all the effort that you do, but also to remind you that we need to keep our feet on the ground since the project is maintained on a voluntary effort and the workforce is what it is. Don't get discourage if some (or most) of your changes never get anywhere, we are doing the best that we can :-) Cheers Michele

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 2018/05/27 11:52 AM, Jimmy Johnson wrote: Some graphic was updated for R14.0.0 release, with an effort to make it consistent across application. Some time ago there was a discussion on the forum on changing the TDE logo (proposed by some new users) but it ended up in nothing since there were to many different opinion. IMO, the current graphic looks ok, could be better of course, but at least it is clean and tidy. If a user want to propose a new theme, he can prepare the require work and submit for inclusion in TDE. Some themes were added in the past (like baghira, ia-ora or something like that). There is also one proposed by Alex and currently waiting for inclusion. A new theme may not become the default one, but if someone puts in the effort to get it to work and it looks nice and tidy, it can definitely be added to TDE. Much more long term (and again it clashes with the lack of developers) there has been discussions about a plan to have a web site to host themes and other things, and then let the user download and install them as they see fit. Cheers Michele

wofgdkncxojef(a)gmail.com wrote: Perhaps you'll understand it better if I try to explain by example: The owner of the company does not have to work in the company, so that the company moves forward. The company is missing man power and cache. Timothy accepts donations - if you wish write down what you want to see done and if I am not wrong he can make estimate in terms of work hours and cost. If you are ready to pay the price, you can have what you want. People have their roles and duties. Handle the people with respect and care. regards

wofgdkncxojef(a)gmail.com wrote: look if I don't like something for example in Microsoft Windows, I will not call Bill Gates to complain. Your voice was heard and you got multiple answers. I think it is enough talking. There is the bug list - get to work ;-) regards

wofgdkncxojef(a)gmail.com wrote: Oh man, who cares - don't you have more important things to do in your life?

You read my list too literally. It's just an initial sloppy proposal. All the basic stuff stay in. Distributions don't want to take in stuff that **seem** not to be maintained by upstream, they are afraid, they will end up doing all the support. Their users expect a minimum of quality. The important word here is ****SEEM**** The split will in practice change nothing for trinity devs. It just about putting forward a bundle, that trinity devs reasonably guarantee they will maintain. This way distros will be more open in taking it in. You already want kdesktop not to crash, you already want kicker not to crash, you already want sound etc..... For example, from what i've seen.... kmines seam to work perfectly. Yet, it will not be included in the official/main bundle, because other stuff are more important to guarantee they work well enough, like kdesktop. If kmines is in the main bundle and it brakes, and it's not fixed, the distros will get very annoyed. It's like .... i think gstreamer, that splits it's packages in normal, bad and ugly. Extra doesn't imply they are shit, just that they are less maintained. Distros want to see maintainers upstream. Distros will never accept konqueror as is. Dolphin on the other hand, looks ok. Unless you want to put the effort of either fixing konqueror, or gutting web browsing out until it's fixed and maintaining a second unofficial version with konqueror as is for users that want it. Yea, just give dolphin to the distros, and let users add a repo and install konqueror them selves. Properly rename just a small subset of stuff. Leave the rest in opt, or just give them a very generic rename like "trinity-oldname". Not renaming, and putting stuff in opt was stupid to begin with. Properly renaming stuff, will give the impression to distros that things are been maintained. Perceptions matter. And this is why i'm starting this discussion. The whole point of doing this is to get included in distros. Been included in distros matters. You get more users and more devs. for your example, leave kate in extra. kate could be renamed as trinity-kate, then mechanically libtrinity-katepart..... on the other hand kwrite could become trinity-editor or something like that. If it uses libkate then maybe libkate should change to something else too, like libtrinity-editor and still be used by kate and konqueror and whatever....

On Sunday 27 May 2018 03:08:08 Slávek Banko wrote: -_- just forget it.

On Sunday 27 May 2018 10:35:48 Slávek Banko wrote: All the stuff i'm saying, have the long term strategy of attracting more devs. There's no willingless at all to do that. There's no leader here to keep the project on tract to a long term goal like that. It's only the next bug fix that matters here.