3 ms·

> People who like KDE 3 being able to use KDE 3 with fixes and stuff. Fair enough. >This doesn't really fragment the desktop since any desktop application tha

> People who like KDE 3 being able to use KDE 3 with fixes and stuff. Fair enough. >This doesn't really fragment the desktop since any desktop application that works under X11 will work on it. Of course if said application makes assumptions about what is underneath then it might face trouble if said assumptions are not met, but that is really a problem with the application (and in practice usually workaround-able). I meant fragmentation of unnecessary DE/Distro's which keeps reinventing the wheel instead of working with another project doing the same thing but very well. In the case of Trinity DE, I agree there was a need initially when the KDE moved on leaving a huge number of users dry, but this should've been a temporary project. Or maybe evolve like the MATE project has (which still could've been avoided if they collaborated with XFCE instead of creating the MATE spinoff). This doesn't seems to be the case here. But yeah, I haven't test driven this RC of Trinity DE yet and my last test drive or Trinity DE was an year old, maybe things are better. Still not sure if this benefits Linux as a whole but I guess that is not my call.

badsectoracula 6y ago
> I meant fragmentation of unnecessary DE/Distro's which keeps reinventing the wheel instead of working with another project doing the same thing but very well. I'm willing to bet that the people who want/use/develop this do not believe that there is another project doing the same thing - even if it might not appear like that to everyone (i mean, you read comments about people wondering why there are so many distributions and why not everyone works on a single one to make it the best :-P). > In the case of Trinity DE, I agree there was a need initially when the KDE moved on leaving a huge number of users dry, but this should've been a temporary project. Why temporary? The developers and users of TDE may prefer the way KDE3 does things or Qt3 or whatever that wouldn't work with anything that came after. MATE is an interesting case - IMO MATE should have forked Gtk+ 2 instead of switching to Gtk+ 3 because Gtk+ 3 has a different "feel" to it that -again, IMO- is much worse (and feels a bit sluggier) than Gtk+ 2. This would also help the ton of other projects that at the time were still stuck in Gtk+ 2 and would waste a lot of time down the road to converting their code to Gtk+ 3 while also preserving Gtk+ 2 as a stable API for GUI applications that was still in widespread availability. Of course it is too late now.
- unsungNovelty 6y ago
  > I'm willing to bet that the people who want/use/develop this do not believe that there is another project doing the same thing - even if it might not appear like that to everyone (i mean, you read comments about people wondering why there are so many distributions and why not everyone works on a single one to make it the best :-P). Haha. People are harder to deal with. It's just easier to fork! ;) > Why temporary? The developers and users of TDE may prefer the way KDE3 does things or Qt3 or whatever that wouldn't work with anything that came after. I agree. While I wouldn't be a fan of it, I can understand changes are harder to accept for people (including me sometimes.) > MATE is an interesting case - IMO MATE should have forked Gtk+ 2 instead of switching to Gtk+ 3 because Gtk+ 3 has a different "feel" to it that -again, IMO- is much worse (and feels a bit sluggier) than Gtk+ 2. This would also help the ton of other projects that at the time were still stuck in Gtk+ 2 and would waste a lot of time down the road to converting their code to Gtk+ 3 while also preserving Gtk+ 2 as a stable API for GUI applications that was still in widespread availability. > Of course it is too late now. Never thought about it this way. I totally agree with you. It was GTK2 which should've been forked and maintained.

badsectoracula 6y ago

> I meant fragmentation of unnecessary DE/Distro's which keeps reinventing the wheel instead of working with another project doing the same thing but very well. I'm willing to bet that the people who want/use/develop this do not believe that there is another project doing the same thing - even if it might not appear like that to everyone (i mean, you read comments about people wondering why there are so many distributions and why not everyone works on a single one to make it the best :-P). > In the case of Trinity DE, I agree there was a need initially when the KDE moved on leaving a huge number of users dry, but this should've been a temporary project. Why temporary? The developers and users of TDE may prefer the way KDE3 does things or Qt3 or whatever that wouldn't work with anything that came after. MATE is an interesting case - IMO MATE should have forked Gtk+ 2 instead of switching to Gtk+ 3 because Gtk+ 3 has a different "feel" to it that -again, IMO- is much worse (and feels a bit sluggier) than Gtk+ 2. This would also help the ton of other projects that at the time were still stuck in Gtk+ 2 and would waste a lot of time down the road to converting their code to Gtk+ 3 while also preserving Gtk+ 2 as a stable API for GUI applications that was still in widespread availability. Of course it is too late now.

unsungNovelty 6y ago
> I'm willing to bet that the people who want/use/develop this do not believe that there is another project doing the same thing - even if it might not appear like that to everyone (i mean, you read comments about people wondering why there are so many distributions and why not everyone works on a single one to make it the best :-P). Haha. People are harder to deal with. It's just easier to fork! ;) > Why temporary? The developers and users of TDE may prefer the way KDE3 does things or Qt3 or whatever that wouldn't work with anything that came after. I agree. While I wouldn't be a fan of it, I can understand changes are harder to accept for people (including me sometimes.) > MATE is an interesting case - IMO MATE should have forked Gtk+ 2 instead of switching to Gtk+ 3 because Gtk+ 3 has a different "feel" to it that -again, IMO- is much worse (and feels a bit sluggier) than Gtk+ 2. This would also help the ton of other projects that at the time were still stuck in Gtk+ 2 and would waste a lot of time down the road to converting their code to Gtk+ 3 while also preserving Gtk+ 2 as a stable API for GUI applications that was still in widespread availability. > Of course it is too late now. Never thought about it this way. I totally agree with you. It was GTK2 which should've been forked and maintained.