Fwd: Re: [trinity-devel] Fwd: Re: [opensuse-factory] The release notes/product highlights for 12.1
Hello,
I really dislike this kind of childish conflicts :(
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Fwd: Re: [trinity-devel] Fwd: Re: [opensuse-factory] The release notes/product highlights for 12.1 Date: Saturday 12 November 2011, 00:10:49 From: Ilya Chernykh anixxsus@gmail.com To: Serghei Amelian serghei@thel.ro
Hi, Sergei!
Since Pearson accused me in criminal violations and banned from the mailing list, please forward my last response which I was unable to post with an answer about crimes I allegedly commited.
-------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
I really dislike this kind of childish conflicts :(
Which is why I removed the source of the conflict.
What I am seeing is a fundamental difference in how the developers of these two projects (TDE and his KDE:KDE3 repository) think a KDE3 fork should be handled. I am more than willing to hear and act upon *constructive* criticism, but so far Ilya has not provided so much as one sentence of well thought out and reasoned argument to this list.
On the original topic, binary compatibility was addressed on the Etherpad and can be discussed further at the meeting. Ilya is welcome to join the meeting once he understands and acknowledges the fundamental differences between his project and the TDE project, and stops making ridiculous suggestions for dramatical effect.
I do not like having to deal with anyone in this manner, and sincerely hope that further discussion on the mentioned topics can be civil and constructive.
Timothy Pearson Trinity Desktop Project
On Saturday 12 November 2011 01:06:57 Timothy Pearson wrote:
Hello,
I really dislike this kind of childish conflicts :(
Which is why I removed the source of the conflict.
What I am seeing is a fundamental difference in how the developers of these two projects (TDE and his KDE:KDE3 repository) think a KDE3 fork should be handled. I am more than willing to hear and act upon *constructive* criticism, but so far Ilya has not provided so much as one sentence of well thought out and reasoned argument to this list.
Hi Tim,
Criticism of any kind (constructive or not) is a very important component of freedom. It's just freedom of speech, if you do not like his ideas just ignore it. As a person who lived under comunism I'm very sensitive to any kind of censorship (which is useless anyway in this case, because he can express his opinions elsewhere). For this reason I hope you will change your mind and unban Ilya.
Thank you.
[...]
On Saturday 12 November 2011 01:06:57 Timothy Pearson wrote:
Hello,
I really dislike this kind of childish conflicts :(
Which is why I removed the source of the conflict.
What I am seeing is a fundamental difference in how the developers of these two projects (TDE and his KDE:KDE3 repository) think a KDE3 fork should be handled. I am more than willing to hear and act upon *constructive* criticism, but so far Ilya has not provided so much as one sentence of well thought out and reasoned argument to this list.
Hi Tim,
Criticism of any kind (constructive or not) is a very important component of freedom. It's just freedom of speech, if you do not like his ideas just ignore it. As a person who lived under comunism I'm very sensitive to any kind of censorship (which is useless anyway in this case, because he can express his opinions elsewhere). For this reason I hope you will change your mind and unban Ilya.
Thank you.
[...]
-- Serghei
OK. Technically I didn't ban him, just temporarily removed him from the list as a "slap on the wrist" so to speak.
He is free to sign up again. I will not be responding to his posts, but that does not mean that I agree with them at all.
Tim
On Saturday 12 November 2011 01:06:57 Timothy Pearson wrote:
Hello,
I really dislike this kind of childish conflicts :(
Which is why I removed the source of the conflict.
What I am seeing is a fundamental difference in how the developers of these two projects (TDE and his KDE:KDE3 repository) think a KDE3 fork should be handled. I am more than willing to hear and act upon *constructive* criticism, but so far Ilya has not provided so much as one sentence of well thought out and reasoned argument to this list.
Hi Tim,
Criticism of any kind (constructive or not) is a very important component of freedom. It's just freedom of speech, if you do not like his ideas just ignore it. As a person who lived under comunism I'm very sensitive to any kind of censorship (which is useless anyway in this case, because he can express his opinions elsewhere). For this reason I hope you will change your mind and unban Ilya.
Thank you.
[...]
-- Serghei
OK. Technically I didn't ban him, just temporarily removed him from the list as a "slap on the wrist" so to speak.
He is free to sign up again. I will not be responding to his posts, but that does not mean that I agree with them at all.
Tim
And as an addendum I should probably post the reason that he was even temporarily removed.
Remember that these lists are public and archived, and also that sometimes people read the lists (e.g. via Google) before deciding to use a project. That means that if we do not deal with baseless accusations against the project they WILL pile up and cause us to lose users, developers, and over time may accumulate enough to kill the project entirely.
On the other hand, if our developers spend all of their time debunking said accusations properly, rationally, and logically, there will be no time left to fix bugs and improve the project, thus killing it from another angle.
My gut instinct was to remove the source of the baseless accusations. As that is not an option at this point, we will need to set up a triage system for dealing with such things. I cannot handle it alone; just dealing with this and debunking the binary compatibility "problem" has sucked up a lot of time that should have been spent on the move to GIT.
Be aware that while I will not be "censoring" the list, just ignoring baseless criticism does NOT mean it just goes away. In fact, many people will read the criticism and take our silence as confirmation that it is correct.
Tim
Tim & Serghei
I understand your worries, and they are valid.
I also know that intelligent people do not take silence as a yes, but rather as a no. In most cases anyway.
May I suggest a disclamer. Something like
NOTICE: This/These email(s) is/are representative of the author's view(s) / opinion(s) ALONE. The lack of response DOES NOT confirm this author's statements as fact or as commonly accepted opinion. Nor do they represent the feelings and/or view point of any party involved with the Trinity Project.
This/These email(s) are being delivered to all on the mailing list out of respect for each individuals right to free speech and each person's right to information without censorship. NOT as any form of agreement or confirmation thereof.
Thank you
I hope this helps.
Kate
On Friday 11 November 2011, Timothy Pearson wrote:
On Saturday 12 November 2011 01:06:57 Timothy Pearson wrote:
Hello,
I really dislike this kind of childish conflicts :(
Which is why I removed the source of the conflict.
What I am seeing is a fundamental difference in how the developers of these two projects (TDE and his KDE:KDE3 repository) think a KDE3 fork should be handled. I am more than willing to hear and act upon *constructive* criticism, but so far Ilya has not provided so much as one sentence of well thought out and reasoned argument to this list.
Hi Tim,
Criticism of any kind (constructive or not) is a very important component of freedom. It's just freedom of speech, if you do not like his ideas just ignore it. As a person who lived under comunism I'm very sensitive to any kind of censorship (which is useless anyway in this case, because he can express his opinions elsewhere). For this reason I hope you will change your mind and unban Ilya.
Thank you.
[...]
-- Serghei
OK. Technically I didn't ban him, just temporarily removed him from the list as a "slap on the wrist" so to speak.
He is free to sign up again. I will not be responding to his posts, but that does not mean that I agree with them at all.
Tim
And as an addendum I should probably post the reason that he was even temporarily removed.
Remember that these lists are public and archived, and also that sometimes people read the lists (e.g. via Google) before deciding to use a project. That means that if we do not deal with baseless accusations against the project they WILL pile up and cause us to lose users, developers, and over time may accumulate enough to kill the project entirely.
On the other hand, if our developers spend all of their time debunking said accusations properly, rationally, and logically, there will be no time left to fix bugs and improve the project, thus killing it from another angle.
My gut instinct was to remove the source of the baseless accusations. As that is not an option at this point, we will need to set up a triage system for dealing with such things. I cannot handle it alone; just dealing with this and debunking the binary compatibility "problem" has sucked up a lot of time that should have been spent on the move to GIT.
Be aware that while I will not be "censoring" the list, just ignoring baseless criticism does NOT mean it just goes away. In fact, many people will read the criticism and take our silence as confirmation that it is correct.
Tim
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@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
On Saturday 12 November 2011 23:53:26 Kate Draven wrote:
On the other hand, if our developers spend all of their time debunking said accusations properly, rationally, and logically, there will be no time left to fix bugs and improve the project, thus killing it from another angle.
My gut instinct was to remove the source of the baseless accusations. As that is not an option at this point, we will need to set up a triage system for dealing with such things. I cannot handle it alone; just dealing with this and debunking the binary compatibility "problem" has sucked up a lot of time that should have been spent on the move to GIT.
Be aware that while I will not be "censoring" the list, just ignoring baseless criticism does NOT mean it just goes away. In fact, many people will read the criticism and take our silence as confirmation that it is correct.
Please tell me, is this a baseless criticism or not?
"KDE3 I can understand, as it is technically dead."
"KDE:KDE3 is still stuck on 3.5.10, and therefore does not impact us."
"You "fixed" the HAL dependency by removing much of the functionality "
"You are not allowed to continue using the KDE trademark"
"At worst, it could be considered trademark infringement and subject you to civil and/or criminal liability."
This bullshit is by Robert Xu and Pearson. So it was you who started the baseless accusations. By the way, public libel is also a criminal offense in this country.
I monitor your patches and include anything useful in KDE:KDE3 (and not only from Trinity). Thus if KDE:KDE3 as you claim is dead, outdated and not maintained, then Trinity is also.
I was just responding to your offenses.
There is no single security patch or other bug fix in Trinity that is not (or cannot) be taken to KDE:KDE3 (except those Ubuntu and cmake-specific).
====================
Well, actually I thought we were doing common deal, but Pearson's reasoning seems incompatible with such approach. He accused me of stealing users, intending to overtake leadership and other things I was never intended to. He already banned me long ago from all Trinity mailing lists except -devel. I thought he was sorry about this, but now it seems this behavior is persistent and progressing. He takes my patch one day and shuts my mouth the other day.
That said I now regret that I ever contributed any patches to Trinity.
====================
From what I can tell your software does NOT have an upstream. If you were to build TDE 3.5.13 on OpenSUSE then it would.
Okay. This means you do not want to be upstream for KDE3, contrary to what you claimed before. You're only upstream for Trinity.
====================
To conclude, I will spread the word about Trinity and its unbalanced leader.
On Saturday 12 November 2011 23:53:26 Kate Draven wrote:
On the other hand, if our developers spend all of their time debunking said accusations properly, rationally, and logically, there will be no time left to fix bugs and improve the project, thus killing it from another angle.
My gut instinct was to remove the source of the baseless accusations.
As
that is not an option at this point, we will need to set up a triage system for dealing with such things. I cannot handle it alone; just dealing with this and debunking the binary compatibility "problem" has sucked up a lot of time that should have been spent on the move to
GIT.
Be aware that while I will not be "censoring" the list, just ignoring baseless criticism does NOT mean it just goes away. In fact, many
people
will read the criticism and take our silence as confirmation that it
is
correct.
Please tell me, is this a baseless criticism or not?
"KDE3 I can understand, as it is technically dead."
"KDE:KDE3 is still stuck on 3.5.10, and therefore does not impact us."
"You "fixed" the HAL dependency by removing much of the functionality "
"You are not allowed to continue using the KDE trademark"
"At worst, it could be considered trademark infringement and subject you to civil and/or criminal liability."
This bullshit is by Robert Xu and Pearson. So it was you who started the baseless accusations. By the way, public libel is also a criminal offense in this country.
I monitor your patches and include anything useful in KDE:KDE3 (and not only from Trinity). Thus if KDE:KDE3 as you claim is dead, outdated and not maintained, then Trinity is also.
I was just responding to your offenses.
There is no single security patch or other bug fix in Trinity that is not (or cannot) be taken to KDE:KDE3 (except those Ubuntu and cmake-specific).
====================
Well, actually I thought we were doing common deal, but Pearson's reasoning seems incompatible with such approach. He accused me of stealing users, intending to overtake leadership and other things I was never intended to. He already banned me long ago from all Trinity mailing lists except -devel. I thought he was sorry about this, but now it seems this behavior is persistent and progressing. He takes my patch one day and shuts my mouth the other day.
That said I now regret that I ever contributed any patches to Trinity.
====================
From what I can tell your software does NOT have an upstream. If you were to build TDE 3.5.13 on OpenSUSE then it would.
Okay. This means you do not want to be upstream for KDE3, contrary to what you claimed before. You're only upstream for Trinity.
====================
To conclude, I will spread the word about Trinity and its unbalanced leader.
A note to anyone reading the above message: The accusations against my character and this project are baseless. I will not bother to refute them as it would simply be a waste of my time.
If Ilya would like to use his own project instead of the TDE project that is his decision. In fact I encourage him to do so! Users, keep in mind that there is NO UPGRADE PATH OR COMPATIBILITY between KDE:KDE3 and TDE, so switching from one to the other will require manual reconfiguration of installed KDE3 derivative software.
As a reminder, projects such as KDE3 and TDE are GPL licensed. This means that we can legally pull patches whenever we want to from any KDE3 derivative project (and vice versa). In my experience any non-trivial patches from KDE:KDE3 were not submitted to this project as claimed, and instead had to be extracted (and repaired) some time ago from the original OpenSUSE KDE3 builds. The only submitted patch (http://patchwork.trinitydesktop.org/project/trinity/list/) removed a large chunk of HAL-dependent functionality and was therefore not included.
I mean no disrespect to Ilya's character and never have. This does not change the fact that many have perceived his behavior on this list as rude, which I think has led to things escalating further than they should have. We are both attempting to further the same goal, albeit in vastly different and apparently incompatible ways.
Tim
On Sunday 13 November 2011 00:29:39 Timothy Pearson wrote:
The only submitted patch
This is not true. I contributed these patches: http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1317502993:5402bbfde73f33c76f17a72bcd6... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1315109543:90c6afc471fdb1a7761a1fab509... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1304806557:e789477ef1d0a99f7795890210b... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1299984139:790391e3a90a709160301953e47... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1298313909:f0023a8307d74fa725424821433... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1297797316:cc0ad49c75d6cf6b4e63eb8c601...
and a fix to this bug: http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=139
(http://patchwork.trinitydesktop.org/project/trinity/list/) removed a large chunk of HAL-dependent functionality and was therefore not included.
As can be seen from the patch, it does not remove any functionality, just the opposite, it enables and repairs a large part of code previously commented out and repairs other minor issues.
I mean no disrespect to Ilya's character and never have. This does not change the fact that many have perceived his behavior on this list as rude, which I think has led to things escalating further than they should have. We are both attempting to further the same goal, albeit in vastly different and apparently incompatible ways.
On Sunday 13 November 2011 00:41:33 you wrote:
The only submitted patch
This is not true. I contributed these patches: http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1317502993:5402bbfde73f33c76f17a72bcd6... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1315109543:90c6afc471fdb1a7761a1fab509... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1304806557:e789477ef1d0a99f7795890210b... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1299984139:790391e3a90a709160301953e47... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1298313909:f0023a8307d74fa725424821433... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1297797316:cc0ad49c75d6cf6b4e63eb8c601...
and a fix to this bug: http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=139
Well and also this one:
http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1299175239:2a98648e2c89cbb1265f842903c...
On Sunday 13 November 2011 00:41:33 you wrote:
The only submitted patch
This is not true. I contributed these patches: http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1317502993:5402bbfde73f33c76f17a72bcd6... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1315109543:90c6afc471fdb1a7761a1fab509... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1304806557:e789477ef1d0a99f7795890210b... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1299984139:790391e3a90a709160301953e47... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1298313909:f0023a8307d74fa725424821433... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1297797316:cc0ad49c75d6cf6b4e63eb8c601...
and a fix to this bug: http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=139
Well and also this one:
http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1299175239:2a98648e2c89cbb1265f842903c...
The common theme is that they are relatively trivial, and especially that last one no claim of ownership can really be attached, as the latest versions of GCC will demand that exact fix.
Tim
On Sunday 13 November 2011 00:57:10 Timothy Pearson wrote:
The common theme is that they are relatively trivial, and especially that last one no claim of ownership can really be attached, as the latest versions of GCC will demand that exact fix.
...which even led Arch to use older version of GCC for amarok in their repo https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25712
On Sunday 13 November 2011 00:57:10 Timothy Pearson wrote:
The common theme is that they are relatively trivial, and especially that last one no claim of ownership can really be attached, as the latest versions of GCC will demand that exact fix.
...which even led Arch to use older version of GCC for amarok in their repo https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25712
I should clarify that I am not ungrateful for the patches that you have brought to our attention. In fact I think all of us appreciate those patches that you have submitted, as they brought minor issues to our attention that may have not been noticed otherwise.
Since I cannot find the patch that I was referring to in a reasonable amount of time I will retract my statement regarding HAL. It is possible that another person attempted to submit such a patch and I got it confused over time.
However as far as I can tell we are both taking a different approach to keeping the KDE3 interface alive. Your approach does not work for this project and our approach won't work for you, so the best thing is to keep exchanging small patches between the projects where the underlying code remains similar. I am open to doing this, and even provide the patch list on the Website to make it easier for people such as yourself to cherry-pick specific patches. I hope you will reciprocate in kind.
I think all of us would appreciate it if you do not come on the list with accusatory statements regarding articles you found on the Internet. From what I can tell this is what started this whole mess, and it could have easily been avoided by asking some simple, polite questions about our binary compatibility policy, rather than making it sound like we have a terminal flaw in how we are handling the code and demanding an answer. I realize that English is not your native language, however you do need to be careful with the tone that is set in what you write, as native English speakers pick up on an accusatory tone rather quickly.
Tim
Timothy Pearson wrote:
I think all of us would appreciate it if you do not come on the list with accusatory statements regarding articles you found on the Internet.
Actually, in that initial e-mail, there were definitely no accusations as far as I could see. There was only a polite question for a reply from the Trinity side. Also that's why I replied directly to it.
Ilya, I hope you saw this reply and the URL where we are preparing the response?
On Sunday 13 November 2011 01:47:25 Julius Schwartzenberg wrote:
I think all of us would appreciate it if you do not come on the list with accusatory statements regarding articles you found on the Internet.
Actually, in that initial e-mail, there were definitely no accusations as far as I could see. There was only a polite question for a reply from the Trinity side. Also that's why I replied directly to it.
Ilya, I hope you saw this reply and the URL where we are preparing the response?
Yes. Thank you.
Timothy Pearson wrote:
I think all of us would appreciate it if you do not come on the list with accusatory statements regarding articles you found on the Internet.
Actually, in that initial e-mail, there were definitely no accusations as far as I could see. There was only a polite question for a reply from the Trinity side. Also that's why I replied directly to it.
The accusations start at the third message (well before I joined the conversation): http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/?0::3440
If it weren't for those remarks I would have remained silent and just let the thread continue on its merry way.
Tim
On Sunday 13 November 2011 01:47:25 Julius Schwartzenberg wrote:
I think all of us would appreciate it if you do not come on the list with accusatory statements regarding articles you found on the Internet.
Actually, in that initial e-mail, there were definitely no accusations as far as I could see. There was only a polite question for a reply from the Trinity side.
And what I read from the replies by Robert and Pearson was that all bad things are related to KDE:KDE3 and the criticism does not affect Trinity. KDE:KDE3 is insecure, unmaintained and outdated while Trinity is new, secure, patched etc, let's spit and bite KDE:KDE3, and we will be in all white.
Also that's why I replied directly to it.
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 16:59, Ilya Chernykh anixxsus@gmail.com wrote:
And what I read from the replies by Robert and Pearson was that all bad things are related to KDE:KDE3 and the criticism does not affect Trinity. KDE:KDE3 is insecure, unmaintained and outdated while Trinity is new, secure, patched etc, let's spit and bite KDE:KDE3, and we will be in all white.
Apologies if my reply seemed harsh or attacking; it is definitely not and never will be my honest intention. However, I did want to point out that Trinity is a fork of KDE3, not a continuation.
On Sunday 13 November 2011 01:47:25 Julius Schwartzenberg wrote:
I think all of us would appreciate it if you do not come on the list
with
accusatory statements regarding articles you found on the Internet.
Actually, in that initial e-mail, there were definitely no accusations as far as I could see. There was only a polite question for a reply from the Trinity side.
And what I read from the replies by Robert and Pearson was that all bad things are related to KDE:KDE3 and the criticism does not affect Trinity. KDE:KDE3 is insecure, unmaintained and outdated while Trinity is new, secure, patched etc, let's spit and bite KDE:KDE3, and we will be in all white.
Here are my thoughts on KDE:KDE3: 1.) I am personally gad that it still exists, as we do not have OpenSUSE-specific packages available 2.) It is not a "new upstream" for a KDE3 continuation project, as it is heavily patched for OpenSUSE and does not have a central source repository, or any of the infrastructure required for a FOSS project to grow. For example, one large problem is that there is no clear way to inspect your patched source tree, including all changes made to it, to look for potential issues or to understand what exactly your patches are doing. 3.) Keeping 2) in mind, a clear upstream project such as TDE does make KDE:KDE3 somewhat obsolete from a certain perspective.
I understand where you are coming from because I used to be there myself many years ago, but quickly grew tired of KDE3.5.10's limitations and having to hack around them with patches. This is why I created the infrastructure in use today by the TDE project: to encourage improvements to the KDE3 source code. Providing a central, up-to-date and easily readable/modifiable source tree is crucial for creating a thriving project. No developer will seriously consider a project that keeps old source files in tarballs, then applies hundreds of patches to them every time something is built, as "alive" or as something he or she should like to get involved with. In a similar vein, I have even had people say that they will not develop for TDE because we used SVN and not GIT, as SVN is somewhat more limited for a lone wolf developer.
I am not trying to erase your repository or anything even close to it. I am simply asking that you acknowledge TDE as the upstream source for future development, and possibly work towards getting TDE building on OpenSUSE, instead of maintaining a fleet of patches for a product that was released over 5 years ago.
In the end it is your choice; I hope you read the advice offered above in the kindly spirit that it was given in.
Tim
On Sunday 13 November 2011 02:16:13 Timothy Pearson wrote:
3.) Keeping 2) in mind, a clear upstream project such as TDE does make KDE:KDE3 somewhat obsolete from a certain perspective.
You already said you do not want to be upstream. I asked explicitely.
I am not trying to erase your repository
You just cannot.
or anything even close to it. I am simply asking that you acknowledge TDE as the upstream source
You rejected being upstream when I asked.
for future development, and possibly work towards getting TDE building on OpenSUSE, instead of maintaining a fleet of patches for a product that was released over 5 years ago. In the end it is your choice; I hope you read the advice offered above in the kindly spirit that it was given in.
You already asked for reconciliation, but then just attacked me with doubled strength and false accusations.
I will not help to build Trinity for openSUSE and will advise against its inclusion.
It is pity that such project as KDE3 was cloned by an unstable paranoid psycho.
I will not help to build Trinity for openSUSE and will advise against its inclusion.
It is pity that such project as KDE3 was cloned by an unstable paranoid psycho.
On this note I urge users not to install anything from the KDE:KDE3 repository, as there is no peer review whatsoever of the overall cobbled-together codebase that Ilya is building binaries from. This is not safe, not good practice, and I really have no idea how long KDE:KDE3 will survive cut off from the rest of the FOSS community. You will likely not receive updates or new features from upstream projects such as TDE. I would in fact encourage those who cannot use TDE to use XFCE, KDE4, or Gnome, as these are much safer alternatives with central, publicly viewable source repositories.
This is the exact attitude that prompted me to ban you earlier. Obviously that is not an option, but it appears nothing has changed.
Tim
If Trinity is as bad as you claim (and not just in spite just because your pet project seems to be being neglected lately) why did DistroWatch give Trinity Desktop money?
----------------------- DistroWatch.com News September and October 2011 DistroWatch.com donations: Trinity Desktop Environment, LibreCAD
We are happy to announce that the recipient of the September 2011 DistroWatch.com donation is Trinity Desktop Environment, while the October 2011 DistroWatch.com donation goes to LibreCAD. Each of the two projects receives US$300 in cash.
Trinity desktop environment is a community effort to maintain and develop the KDE 3 series desktop environment: "This project aims to keep the KDE 3.5 computing style alive, as well as polish off any rough edges that were present as of KDE 3.5.10. Along the way, new useful features will be added to keep the environment up-to-date. Toward that end, significant new enhancements have already been made in areas such as display control, network connectivity, user authentication, and much more. This project is not an official continuation of KDE 3.5 by KDE e.V., which will not be creating new releases of the KDE 3 series. This is an independent fork using a largely separate developer community." As it happened, last week saw the release of a new version of Trinity Desktop Environment, version 3.5.13. ---------------------
Has anyone done anything other than complain about you or your project lately?
Keith
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Ilya Chernykh anixxsus@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2011 02:16:13 Timothy Pearson wrote:
3.) Keeping 2) in mind, a clear upstream project such as TDE does make KDE:KDE3 somewhat obsolete from a certain perspective.
You already said you do not want to be upstream. I asked explicitely.
I am not trying to erase your repository
You just cannot.
or anything even close to it. I am simply asking that you acknowledge TDE as the upstream source
You rejected being upstream when I asked.
for future development, and possibly work towards getting TDE building on OpenSUSE, instead of maintaining a fleet of patches for a product that was released over 5 years ago. In the end it is your choice; I hope you read the advice offered above in the kindly spirit that it was given in.
You already asked for reconciliation, but then just attacked me with doubled strength and false accusations.
I will not help to build Trinity for openSUSE and will advise against its inclusion.
It is pity that such project as KDE3 was cloned by an unstable paranoid psycho.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@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
On Sunday 13 November 2011 03:08:26 Keith Daniels wrote:
If Trinity is as bad as you claim (and not just in spite just because your pet project seems to be being neglected lately) why did DistroWatch give Trinity Desktop money?
This may explain why Pearson is so paranoid.
On Sunday 13 November 2011 01:19:36 Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2011 03:08:26 Keith Daniels wrote:
If Trinity is as bad as you claim (and not just in spite just because your pet project seems to be being neglected lately) why did DistroWatch give Trinity Desktop money?
This may explain why Pearson is so paranoid.
Don't be rude, please. Working for an open source project should be fun, not like this.
On Sunday 13 November 2011 03:08:26 Keith Daniels wrote:
If Trinity is as bad as you claim (and not just in spite just because your pet project seems to be being neglected lately) why did DistroWatch give Trinity Desktop money?
This may explain why Pearson is so paranoid.
I did not even want to grace this comment with a reply, but you are insinuating such a high level of unprofessional conduct that I must defend myself in some fashion.
You are completely incorrect. Perhaps you think this is how FOSS projects should be run, I really have no idea. Just be aware that the TDE project has been operating at a *net loss* ever since its inception. It exists purely because I (and many others) believe the KDE3 codebase should not have been thrown aside so carelessly many years ago, and I continue to believe that its interface has relevance today. Any other motives are baseless speculation on your part, and your insinuations amount to a personal attack on my integrity.
You do yourself more harm than I.
Timothy Pearson Trinity Desktop Porject
2011/11/12 Ilya Chernykh anixxsus@gmail.com:
It is pity that such project as KDE3 was cloned by an unstable paranoid psycho.
Until now i was a bystander and I didn't want to participate in this discussion but now I'm getting feeling it's not anymore about which is better/upstream/updated but it's becoming something based on personal feelings and prejudice, which is straight example of unmature and unprofessional behavior.
On Sunday 13 November 2011 03:16:46 L0ner sh4dou wrote:
It is pity that such project as KDE3 was cloned by an unstable paranoid psycho.
Until now i was a bystander and I didn't want to participate in this discussion but now I'm getting feeling it's not anymore about which is better/upstream/updated
It was never about which is better/upstream/updated.
but it's becoming something based on personal feelings and prejudice, which is straight example of unmature and unprofessional behavior.
Hi Ilya,
Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2011 03:16:46 L0ner sh4dou wrote:
It is pity that such project as KDE3 was cloned by an unstable paranoid psycho.
Until now i was a bystander and I didn't want to participate in this discussion but now I'm getting feeling it's not anymore about which is better/upstream/updated
It was never about which is better/upstream/updated.
It seems originally there were mainly miscommunications between you and Robert. He already apologized for this. Timothy is also sensitive to criticism and the discussion continued.
You both felt each other undervalues the work done by the other. In addition the role of Trinity as successor of KDE3 or upstream of KDE3 was apparently not clear for everybody. Many people online saw Trinity as upstream for KDE3 in a complete sense, they expected full binary compatibility or they believed Trinity was the appropriate place to discuss any packaged version of KDE3 that was being kept up to date. At least Timothy, as the project lead, sees this differently however. He sees Trinity as a continuation of KDE3 and sees any promotion of other KDE3 builds as very inappropriate on the Trinity mailing lists. In a similar fashion he would never write about Trinity on the KDE4 mailing lists.
Of course this stance is also very debatable and one could argue that a Trinity user could also very comfortably work with your OpenSUSE packages if he would need to have a desktop on an OpenSUSE system. On the other hand however, Timothy is the project lead and main supporter and there are also multiple arguments that support his stance. Therefore I think it's best to respect it. Unfortunately the Trinity project was not very clear about taking this position. For example, also Trinity's current version numbers also heavily contribute to this confusion and they really need to be changed.
Due to this confusion, there were earlier conflicts when non-Trinity KDE3 build were promoted on the Trinity mailing lists and this already caused tension on both sides.
From now on it should hopefully be clear that Trinity really appreciates cooperation with any KDE3 version, but that promotion of non-Trinity releases is considered inappropriate on the Trinity mailing lists.
I understand that you stayed with patching the KDE3 source yourself, because some of the changes in Trinity did not seem attractive. Two I can come up with are binary incompatibility and maybe the huge TQt overhaul of which the current goals are not so clear yet (at least on the public site). As you maybe saw on the pad as well (it was written before any discussion started), it would be very interesting to hear your technical reasons for staying away from Trinity for your builds.
I'm not fully sure what your plans are regarding your KDE3 packages. You asked whether Trinity could be upstream. Timothy did offer to provide a patch list in one mail. In the end it would depend on the definition of upstream whether you consider such a patch list to be suitable or not.
I hope this mail clears up some things. Thank you very much for your contributions so far and if you have more technical feedback (comments, patches, etc.) on the project, I'm sure it would be very much appreciated.
Julius
On Sunday 13 November 2011 15:46:09 Julius Schwartzenberg wrote:
From now on it should hopefully be clear that Trinity really appreciates cooperation with any KDE3 version, but that promotion of non-Trinity releases is considered inappropriate on the Trinity mailing lists.
This does not mean they should mock in shit any other project.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 06:47:36PM +0400, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2011 15:46:09 Julius Schwartzenberg wrote:
From now on it should hopefully be clear that Trinity really appreciates cooperation with any KDE3 version,
Great!
but that promotion of non-Trinity releases is considered inappropriate on the Trinity mailing lists.
I don't see why, if it's done non-competitively. Tim has said explicitly that it's ok for Ilya to post here. And the details of cooperation between the two projects -- sharing of patches, etc. -- and even discussion of differences in the design philo- sophy of the two projects, are directly relevant to this list.
This does not mean they should mock in shit any other project.
Absolutely! And vice-versa of course.
It is vital that we stop feeling resentment about mistreatment in the past. The past can never be changed, so if we keep reacting to it in the _same_ way we will always be unhappy.
But we _can_ change _now_ our reactions to events in the past, and thus become happy again.
We must use the rational side of our mind to guide the emotional side!
We all must keep in mind that the furtherance of KDE3 is essential to the continuing usage of Linux, which is of major importance to human survival. This fact must motivate us to make ourselves stop having negative emotional reactions to past insults. The success of KDE3/Trinity is _infinitely_ more important than our previous hurt feelings!
When talking about the other project and its people, it's good to put ourselves into an understanding that, "We're on the same side, we're all good people, working together with similar goals, and I'm offering a helpful suggestion in a kind and friendly way."
And then review what you write before sending it to make sure that it will be received as kind, friendly, and helpful in the _recipient's_ context (view of things).
Communications are always interpreted in the context of the recipient, so the sender must formulate the message so that it will have the desired meaning _after_ that interpretation. It helps for the sender to imagine being the recipient and reading the message.
We should be happy that both projects exist. The fact that there are two (or more) ongoing forks of KDE3 makes it clear to the public that KDE4 is seriously flawed, and that KDE3 forks are therefore justified in existing.
Strength in numbers!
Mark
On Sunday 13 November 2011 15:46:09 Julius Schwartzenberg wrote:
It is pity that such project as KDE3 was cloned by an unstable paranoid psycho.
Until now i was a bystander and I didn't want to participate in this discussion but now I'm getting feeling it's not anymore about which is better/upstream/updated
It was never about which is better/upstream/updated.
It seems originally there were mainly miscommunications between you and Robert. He already apologized for this. Timothy is also sensitive to criticism and the discussion continued.
Pearson has ill memory it seems. He quickly forgot all I did for Trinity to the extent to claim I contributed nothing.
I think I did more than just be considered "a source of headache". This strange property of Timothy's memory is impressing. Not long ago he assigned to me a bugreport to make knetworkmanager compatible with new API (after accepting a first patch from openSUSE's KDE:KDE3). The last discussion in that bugreport
http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=521
happened one day ago, after Timothy already banned me. He also could not forget other patches I did such as fixed taskbar, which he commited to the SVN himself. http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/?0::1049
And the latter day he claims I did not submit anything to Trinity: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/?0::3488 http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/?0::1052
This is just hilarious. I wonder whether he is just mentally ill or has amnesia.
And this is not first time Pearson shows this kind of behavior and easily forgets anything done by a developer.
Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2011 15:46:09 Julius Schwartzenberg wrote:
It is pity that such project as KDE3 was cloned by an unstable paranoid psycho.
Until now i was a bystander and I didn't want to participate in this discussion but now I'm getting feeling it's not anymore about which is better/upstream/updated
It was never about which is better/upstream/updated.
It seems originally there were mainly miscommunications between you and Robert. He already apologized for this. Timothy is also sensitive to criticism and the discussion continued.
Pearson has ill memory it seems. He quickly forgot all I did for Trinity to the extent to claim I contributed nothing.
I think I did more than just be considered "a source of headache". This strange property of Timothy's memory is impressing. Not long ago he assigned to me a bugreport to make knetworkmanager compatible with new API (after accepting a first patch from openSUSE's KDE:KDE3). The last discussion in that bugreport
I agree here that Timothy's comment calling KDE:KDE3 obsolete is inappropriate. It seems he felt your response was harsh, but this does not make it appropriate for him to respond in such a way. I would have only expected a response asking for a diff.
I understand it seemed inappropriate to you to be assigned to a bug in Trinity's bugzilla?
On Sunday 13 November 2011 19:59:20 Julius Schwartzenberg wrote:
I agree here that Timothy's comment calling KDE:KDE3 obsolete is inappropriate. It seems he felt your response was harsh, but this does not make it appropriate for him to respond in such a way. I would have only expected a response asking for a diff.
I understand it seemed inappropriate to you to be assigned to a bug in Trinity's bugzilla?
Of course it is strange to be assigned a bug and at the same time be banned, is not it? If you want developers, you do not ban them.
On 13 November 2011 11:05, Ilya Chernykh anixxsus@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2011 19:59:20 Julius Schwartzenberg wrote:
I agree here that Timothy's comment calling KDE:KDE3 obsolete is inappropriate. It seems he felt your response was harsh, but this does not make it appropriate for him to respond in such a way. I would have only expected a response asking for a diff.
I understand it seemed inappropriate to you to be assigned to a bug in Trinity's bugzilla?
Of course it is strange to be assigned a bug and at the same time be banned, is not it? If you want developers, you do not ban them.
You were assigned this bug because (Tim?) thought you were going to fix the API in your KDE:KDE3 repository, so we were hoping to incorporate patches from your tree. You then marked "CLOSED/WON'TFIX" and wrote "I am not a Trinity developer. I will not fix it in Trinity."
That said, can we leave this be? I do not understand why you persist! FOSS is all voluntary. If you don't like Timothy or his method, you're free to leave. If you want to help the project you need to 'play by the rules' so to speak. If you want to tear down the project and condemn us to the fiery depths of Hell, so be it. But then please do not do so on our mailing lists.
Calvin Morrison
On Sunday 13 November 2011 20:19:58 Calvin Morrison wrote:
You were assigned this bug because (Tim?) thought you were going to fix the API in your KDE:KDE3 repository, so we were hoping to incorporate patches from your tree. You then marked "CLOSED/WON'TFIX" and wrote "I am not a Trinity developer. I will not fix it in Trinity."
That said, can we leave this be? I do not understand why you persist! FOSS is all voluntary. If you don't like Timothy or his method, you're free to leave. If you want to help the project you need to 'play by the rules' so to speak. If you want to tear down the project and condemn us to the fiery depths of Hell, so be it. But then please do not do so on our mailing lists.
I was banned then I closed the bugreport or you expect people to contribute even under ban?
Even more, Pearson banned me from all other Trinity mailing lists besides -devel long time ago and still he has courage to assign me bugs and expect my help.
Not to say that he has claimed in his post that I contributed nothing to Trinity despite he himself accepter numerous my patches, including in knetwoirkmanager which made it build with NM 0.9.
Your Trinity just parasitize on other projects and at the same time Pearson does not express gratitude but just mocks us in shit.
I cannot remember a single patch of Trinity that is undoubtfully useful except those patches which were accepted to Trinity from Chakra.
On 13 November 2011 11:30, Ilya Chernykh anixxsus@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2011 20:19:58 Calvin Morrison wrote:
You were assigned this bug because (Tim?) thought you were going to fix
the
API in your KDE:KDE3 repository, so we were hoping to incorporate patches from your tree. You then marked "CLOSED/WON'TFIX" and wrote "I am not a Trinity developer. I will not fix it in Trinity."
That said, can we leave this be? I do not understand why you persist!
FOSS
is all voluntary. If you don't like Timothy or his method, you're free to leave. If you want to help the project you need to 'play by the rules' so to speak. If you want to tear down the project and condemn us to the
fiery
depths of Hell, so be it. But then please do not do so on our mailing lists.
I was banned then I closed the bugreport or you expect people to contribute even under ban?
Even more, Pearson banned me from all other Trinity mailing lists besides -devel long time ago and still he has courage to assign me bugs and expect my help.
Not to say that he has claimed in his post that I contributed nothing to Trinity despite he himself accepter numerous my patches, including in knetwoirkmanager which made it build with NM 0.9.
Your Trinity just parasitize on other projects and at the same time Pearson does not express gratitude but just mocks us in shit.
I cannot remember a single patch of Trinity that is undoubtfully useful except those patches which were accepted to Trinity from Chakra.
I am sorry you feel that way. Can you just leave us alone then?
Respectfully, Calvin Morrison
On Sunday 13 November 2011 20:33:10 Calvin Morrison wrote:
I cannot remember a single patch of Trinity that is undoubtfully useful except those patches which were accepted to Trinity from Chakra.
I am sorry you feel that way. Can you just leave us alone then?
This is my intention. But I want to reserve right to intervene in any discussion that contains slander .
On Sunday 13 November 2011 00:57:10 Timothy Pearson wrote:
and a fix to this bug: http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=139
Well and also this one:
http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1299175239:2a98648e2c89cbb1265f842903c...
The common theme is that they are relatively trivial, and especially that last one no claim of ownership can really be attached, as the latest versions of GCC will demand that exact fix.
The last link is not correct. I was referring to this patch:
On Sunday 13 November 2011 04:47:39 you wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2011 00:57:10 Timothy Pearson wrote:
and a fix to this bug: http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=139
Well and also this one:
http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1299175239:2a98648e2c89cbb1265f842903c...
The common theme is that they are relatively trivial, and especially that last one no claim of ownership can really be attached, as the latest versions of GCC will demand that exact fix.
The last link is not correct. I was referring to this patch:
Again incorrect link.
I was actually referring to this patch:
http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/?0::2560
Possibly Pearson did not include it.
On Sunday 13 November 2011 00:29:39 Timothy Pearson wrote:
The only submitted patch
This is not true. I contributed these patches: http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1317502993:5402bbfde73f33c76f17a72bcd6... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1315109543:90c6afc471fdb1a7761a1fab509... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1304806557:e789477ef1d0a99f7795890210b... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1299984139:790391e3a90a709160301953e47... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1298313909:f0023a8307d74fa725424821433... http://www.trinitydesktop.org/patches/1297797316:cc0ad49c75d6cf6b4e63eb8c601...
and a fix to this bug: http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=139
Good catch--I was looking only at Patchwork which did not show those patches. However, bear in mind that I tend to batch commit, so the patches referenced above *contain* your patches but also may contain TDE-originated patches and are therefore may not be completely yours. ;-)
(http://patchwork.trinitydesktop.org/project/trinity/list/) removed a large chunk of HAL-dependent functionality and was therefore not included.
As can be seen from the patch, it does not remove any functionality, just the opposite, it enables and repairs a large part of code previously commented out and repairs other minor issues.
It forces the usage of a "/media" directory, which could lock TDE to a specific set of distributions. I have not given that patch a closer look because of this potential issue.
There was another HAL "fix" patch that was rejected that did disable a large chunk of the automounter functionality (the popup itself IIRC)--this is what I was referring to earlier.
Are you planning to rewrite knetworkmanager in your repository to work with the new NM 0.9 API? NM 0.8 and below (and the associated APIs) are obsolete now, and a native network manager applet is an often requested feature.
Tim
On Sunday 13 November 2011 00:55:46 Timothy Pearson wrote:
It forces the usage of a "/media" directory, which could lock TDE to a specific set of distributions.
It uses /media only in the block of code that was previously disabled completely.
I have not given that patch a closer look because of this potential issue.
There was another HAL "fix" patch that was rejected that did disable a large chunk of the automounter functionality (the popup itself IIRC)--this is what I was referring to earlier.
I do not know about such patch. Is is not by me for sure.
Are you planning to rewrite knetworkmanager in your repository to work with the new NM 0.9 API? NM 0.8 and below (and the associated APIs) are obsolete now, and a native network manager applet is an often requested feature.
Even if I plan I will not make you know.
On Sunday 13 November 2011 00:55:46 Timothy Pearson wrote:
It forces the usage of a "/media" directory, which could lock TDE to a specific set of distributions. I have not given that patch a closer look because of this potential issue.
...and to add to the previous response, I do not want you to include this patch in trinity. Not inluding this will make other developers possible to write a better HAL replacement once HAL is removed from their distributions (I believe among major distros only Ubuntu still keeps HAL? I may be wrong).
Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2011 00:55:46 Timothy Pearson wrote:
It forces the usage of a "/media" directory, which could lock TDE to a specific set of distributions. I have not given that patch a closer look because of this potential issue.
...and to add to the previous response, I do not want you to include this patch in trinity. Not inluding this will make other developers possible to write a better HAL replacement once HAL is removed from their distributions (I believe among major distros only Ubuntu still keeps HAL? I may be wrong).
No, Ubuntu also removed HAL I understand. I think Trinity for newer Ubuntu's actually includes HAL itself for this reason.
Julius Schwartzenberg wrote:
Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2011 00:55:46 Timothy Pearson wrote:
It forces the usage of a "/media" directory, which could lock TDE to a specific set of distributions. I have not given that patch a closer look because of this potential issue.
...and to add to the previous response, I do not want you to include this patch in trinity. Not inluding this will make other developers possible to write a better HAL replacement once HAL is removed from their distributions (I believe among major distros only Ubuntu still keeps HAL? I may be wrong).
No, Ubuntu also removed HAL I understand. I think Trinity for newer Ubuntu's actually includes HAL itself for this reason.
My mistake. It's still in Ubuntu, just not in the default install. Trinity pulls it in from the Ubuntu repository.
I wonder if shipping HAL along with Trinity/KDE3 could be a temporary fix though.
On Sunday 13 November 2011 01:33:37 Julius Schwartzenberg wrote:
It forces the usage of a "/media" directory, which could lock TDE to a specific set of distributions. I have not given that patch a closer look because of this potential issue.
...and to add to the previous response, I do not want you to include this patch in trinity. Not inluding this will make other developers possible to write a better HAL replacement once HAL is removed from their distributions (I believe among major distros only Ubuntu still keeps HAL? I may be wrong).
No, Ubuntu also removed HAL I understand. I think Trinity for newer Ubuntu's actually includes HAL itself for this reason.
My mistake. It's still in Ubuntu, just not in the default install. Trinity pulls it in from the Ubuntu repository.
This just confirms that Trinity remains Ubuntu-oriented.
On Sunday 13 November 2011 01:33:37 Julius Schwartzenberg wrote:
It forces the usage of a "/media" directory, which could lock TDE to
a
specific set of distributions. I have not given that patch a closer
look
because of this potential issue.
...and to add to the previous response, I do not want you to include
this
patch in trinity. Not inluding this will make other developers
possible to
write a better HAL replacement once HAL is removed from their
distributions
(I believe among major distros only Ubuntu still keeps HAL? I may be
wrong).
No, Ubuntu also removed HAL I understand. I think Trinity for newer Ubuntu's actually includes HAL itself for this reason.
My mistake. It's still in Ubuntu, just not in the default install. Trinity pulls it in from the Ubuntu repository.
This just confirms that Trinity remains Ubuntu-oriented.
Accusatory statement with no basis in fact. If you do not wish to use the Trinity project then don't post inflammatory statements here.
Tim
To conclude, I will spread the word about Trinity and its unbalanced leader.
Ilya,
I am a bystander in this conversation. Please forgive me if I misperceive anything transpiring.
If I understand correctly, you want to maintain KDE 3.5.10 for your distro. If I understand correctly, you want to know whether the Trinity developers will maintain the Trinity Desktop as an upstream source for patches that can be applied to KDE 3.5.10.
I understand the desire to keep KDE 3.5.10 alive. I am using 3.5.10 on Slackware 13.1, rebuilt and heavily patched by my own effort, but I am chomping at the bit to move to Trinity.
There are two reasons I want to move to Trinity.
One, finding patches for 3.5.10 has become challenging and discouraging. I'm not a C++ developer. I get lost fast when I try to play the patching game. Every time GCC or libpng changes seems there a bunch of patches that need to be made to KDE 3.5.10.
The same patches need to be made to Trinity, but there are more people supporting the effort.
From what I gather there are some other people trying to maintain 3.5.10. I admire anyone who can keep 3.5.10 patched to run on more recent releases of any distro. But trying to do that on my own is exasperating.
The second reason I want to move to Trinity is overall improvements. I am one of those people who thought KDE 3.5.10 was almost "just right." I think if the original KDE developers had pushed hard for a significant bug quashing effort and released a 3.5.11 that many people would have perceived the KDE 4 initial release with much more forgiveness. But that is neither here or now. The Trinity developers had done all of that and more. I believe there is plenty of room for KDE 4 and Trinity. I want very much to see the two communities live in peace.
Concurrently patching Trinity and KDE 3.5.10 is a major task, especially now that Trinity uses the tqtinterface. I have tried many times to apply Trinity patches to 3.5.10. I get lost very fast and give up. I presume a person skilled in C++ can convert Trinity patches to merge into KDE 3.5.10, but only each person can decide whether the effort is worth the time.
The Trinity developers have said they won't provide upstream support for KDE 3.5.10. For good reasons --- primarily the work involved. Yet there is nothing stopping anybody from doing what I just described and converting Trinity patches to 3.5.10. There won't be any official support, of course. Second, the Trinity team is focused on developing Trinity as a stand alone project. One that keeps the old 3.5.10 style of desktops alive, but nonetheless moves forward to improve that environment. The Trinity goals do not include maintaining 3.5.10. I don't see why anybody who wants to maintain 3.5.10 can or should find fault with the Trinity developers.
I don't have the skills or knowledge to know what you need to maintain 3.5.10. If you prefer 3.5.10 over Trinity, then like any free/libre software project, you are free to continue that code and find contributors. You are free to modify Trinity patches to fit 3.5.10.
Some people in the KDE 4 community complain that the effort provided to develop and maintain Trinity is wasted effort and such efforts should be contributed to KDE 4. I disagree but that is not important to this conversation. You probably are feeling the same way about 3.5.10 with respect to Trinity. Yet Trinity is a much improved 3.5.10 and then some. Whereas I can see the usability and design differences between KDE 4 and Trinity, I don't see any between 3.5.10 and Trinity. I see Trinity as the better option.
I admit there are about a half dozen bugs I need quashed before I will move from 3.5.10 to Trinity. I am expecting those bugs to receive attention in the upcoming months before 3.5.14 is released. Certainly I will be making sufficient noise for those bugs to be resolved. :) Yet I still support the project and even as I write this text, I am building Trinity packages for Slackware. I will make them available to the Slackware community and will use the packages to help test.
I'm wondering whether than expend energy maintaining 3.5.10 and spreading false information about the Trinity project, why not focus on maintaining Trinity for your distro? That is what I am doing with Slackware. There are not many known Trinity or 3.5.10 users in the Slackware community, but there probably are enough that if Trinity gains good publicity and traction that picture might change.
A public threat to spread false information does little for your own credibility. People who attempt that typically suffer more than those they accuse. Please reconsider your position and actions. :)
Darrell
On Sunday 13 November 2011 01:06:36 Darrell Anderson wrote:
Concurrently patching Trinity and KDE 3.5.10 is a major task, especially now that Trinity uses the tqtinterface. I have tried many times to apply Trinity patches to 3.5.10. I get lost very fast and give up. I presume a person skilled in C++ can convert Trinity patches to merge into KDE 3.5.10, but only each person can decide whether the effort is worth the time.
There is very little native Trinity patches so far. Most of them can be found eslewhere (Alt, Chakra etc)
I'm wondering whether than expend energy maintaining 3.5.10 and spreading false information about the Trinity project
Which false information I was spreading?
-
Calvin Morrison -
Darrell Anderson -
Ilya Chernykh -
Julius Schwartzenberg -
Kate Draven -
Keith Daniels -
L0ner sh4dou -
Mark S Bilk -
Robert Xu -
Serghei Amelian -
Timothy Pearson