Not that KDE Classic doesn't have it's advantages but I personally think it
is important to differentiate between what are generation 3 apps and the new
apps. Most of them are now very different pieces of software and having them
all called *k*whatever does not help someone distinguish between them,
especially when there is one of them that is already at 4 in the major
version number.
Best regards,
Tiago
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 5:34 PM, David C. Rankin <
drankinatty(a)suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
On 03/03/2011 07:28 AM, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
> Yes :) I got to thinking that I didn't
want some automated domain
> > purchaser snatching it for resale because it was mentioned on a public
> > website (the mailing list and IRC logs). I won't be activating it
until
> the
new website is complete (hopefully soon!).
>
Recently I saw in the KDE forum that somebody suggested that Trinity
could be
named "KDE Classic" to empathize the
connection with all the KDE heritage
and
history and also underline that it is the true
KDE.
I think I should agree that this is reasonable idea.
- It would spare you from re-branding and re-drawing the artwork.
- KDE is well known desktop and brand.
- Many KDE3 apps claim they are written for KDE. This may create
confusion
with some users if they use Trinity.
- Continuous version system (KDE Classic 4 etc vs. Trinity 4).
- You empathize that KDE3 did not dead, and KDE Classic is the true KDE
rather
than KDE SC 4.
- Parallels with Mac OS Classic, Windows Classic (a Windows appearance
theme)
terms.
- You can keep the both names: "KDE Classic by Trinity project" etc.
I thought many times what would happen if the creators of KDE4 named
their
desktop "Plasma" or something and left
the brand of KDE to KDE3. I think
in
that case KDE4 would not be so popular because
the users would not
associate
it with KDE and perceived only KDE3 as the last
true KDE. Indeed the name
means very much.
If you look at the openSuSE and kde lists as early as 2008, I thought "KDE
Classic" made sense for
kde.org for 4 reasons:
(1) there was no rational reason for 'abandoning' the kde3 code - it was a
fantastic desktop;
(2) kde3 and kde4 are not mutually exclusive, they can both exist
side-by-side,
(3) continuing to offer kde3 provided users a 'choice' of kde desktops
(which
is what open-source is supposed to be all about), and
(4) the manpower provided by
kde.org required to maintain kde3 was
minimal
compared to the requirements of developing the new kde4.
Basically, it was a "why throw the baby out with the bath water?" issue.
I think
kde.org may be more receptive to this idea now than they were 2
years
ago and this project has proven the kde3 can be maintained and moved into
the
future with virtually no resources from
kde.org, ...and... to be fair I
should
also add a 5th reason it makes sense for
kde.org to continue KDE Classic.
It
provides them with a fallback:
(5) "what do we do when kde4 blows up in our face?"
:)
--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 messsages on the Web archive:
http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/
Please remember not to top-post:
http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting