On Jul 5, 2011 8:51 PM, "Darrell Anderson" <humanreadable(a)yahoo.com
<mailto:humanreadable@yahoo.com>> wrote:
Rebranding: To what extent? I don't think renaming all files is
necessary. I
think most of the branding issues are resolved. If the
user is addressing app names, I am content with the old "K" naming
scheme. I also like the idea that with the "K" naming convention
people can see and remember the KDE3 roots, which I think is a selling
point.
KOffice: I never piped in on that debate, but I see no reason to
maintain most of
KOffice. LibreOffice is more than acceptable as a
replacement. I do think the wiki needs to be updated with instructions
how to build LibreOffice to ensure native KDE3/Trinity file picker
support (using the --enable-kde build option). I think a handful of
apps from KOffice should be maintained, such as Kivio, Krita, etc. I
don't see a need to maintain the main apps.
Digikam: Are all the new features provided in the QT4 version
necessary? I am no
camera junkie, but I depend upon Digikam in KDE3 to
interface with my digital camera. I'd hate to see that app disappear
in Trinity. I'm happy with the older version of Digikam. The appeal of
Trinity is that of being light weight compared to KDE4 and GNOME 3. I
see no reason not to maintain light weight versions of various apps.
Browser: I don't see a viable solution to providing a built-in web
browser
for Trinity. Konqueror in KDE3 never was as extensible or
usable as Firefox. That is not going to change soon in KDE4. I think
web browsers should not be a concern or component of Trinity. I still
think Konqueror in KDE3/Trinity is the best file manager available. I
hope that does not change.
Light weight desktop: I don't use KDE 4 enough to add to the
perception of
being bloated. I agree that KDE4 from upstream is
configured for bleeding edge hardware with all the various desktop
effects enabled by default. Likewise with GNOME 3, which works only on
hardware with 3D video accelerators. I have noticed that since the
advent of GNOME 3 and Unity, many people are now offering "light
weight" distros. The new Porteus portable system, a successor
replacement for Slax, uses Trinity 3.5.12. Other distros are now
offering Xfce and LXDE as choices over KDE4 and GNOME 3. Many people
are unhappy with the direction of KDE4, GNOME 3, Unity. I foresee no
reconciliation because the people controlling those environments are
on a different plane of existence than people who want light weight
but flexible desktops.
In other words, there is a healthy market for Trinity. Stay focused
on the
desktop and existing apps in the source tree.
Will users compare Trinity to KDE4? I think that is inevitable and
unavoidable.
Reviewers are likely to notice what "features" are
available in KDE4 and unavailable in Trinity. With that said, the same
can be done with comparing Xfce and LXDE to KDE4. There is a
significant difference and always will be --- and should be. Any
reviewer who argues otherwise is missing the point.
I vote for not worrying about trying to maintain Trinity as feature
rich as KDE4
or backporting features. There is too much a price to
pay. The user who is attracted to Xfce, LXDE, and Trinity are not
looking for every single feature imaginable. They want a flexible but
stable desktop. They want a sense of continuity and cohesiveness with
apps. Trinity provides that.
The competition for Trinity is Xfce and LXDE, not KDE4.
Complete the cmake conversion. Resolve a few dozen critical and
paper cut bugs.
Update the wiki and web sites to emphasize the light
weight appeal. I expect to read many positive reviews when Trinity
3.5.13 is announced.
Darrell
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
trinity-devel-unsubscribe(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
<mailto:trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net>
For additional commands, e-mail:
trinity-devel-help(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
<mailto: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
Darrell,
Well said.
I fully agree with you Darrell there is no need to try and replicate kde
4 in doing so you would just be heading in the same direction as them
trinity should be finding its own path those who want all the kde4
features are still free to chose kde4 there is no need to turn trinity
into another kde4 and doing so would be a mistake in my opinion.