[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Fork of KDE4/Qt3?
From:       "Mark A. Taff" <marktaff () comcast ! net>
Date:       2008-06-10 1:27:21
Message-ID: 200806091827.22073.marktaff () comcast ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday 09 June 2008 17:18:09 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:

> Here's my counter suggestion: learn how software development works.

I do develop software Aaron.  Admittedly, I am a novice compared to you, and 
am likely near the very bottom of the heap of KDE developers.  And I know 
enough to know that you are't being intellectually honest when you say:

> here's the challenge: before we could put the "existing working desktop"
> code into place we had to everything else underneath it as well and *then*
> develop all the other bits from scratch again. not a small amount of  work,
> and not possible in the order you suggest.

Really Aaron? It wasn't possible to port kdesktop to Qt 4.x without writing 
Plasma?  It wasn't possible to ensure that the first thing implemented in 
Plasma was the KDE3 desktop functionality?  It wasn't possible to set a 
standard that KDE 4.0 should have a working desktop analogy prior to release?

Isn't it more likely, that since you think the whole desktop analogy is 
broken, that you find writing a whole new system more interesting? More 
challenging?  That you find porting/reimplementing the traditional desktop 
analogy a low priority?

> in fact, in the order you suggest, we'd completely screw over any possible
> improvements of *any* sort down the line. your myopia is dangerous, and
> your means of expressing it highly depressing.
>
> (and i'd note that "working" is really, highly subjective)

I agree it is subjective, but by this point, I would hope you will just stip 
that many of us think that lack of basic features constitutes "not working", 
in a general sense, and that it is more convenient to just say "not working" 
rather than always having to objectively list every problem/bug/missing 
feature when we want to refer to the state of the desktop.

> > The Plasma devs need to realize that the Plasma desktop is problematic!
>
> what part of "you can have your traditional icon desktop" is hard to
> understand?

You keep saying that Aaron, and we have repeatedly pointed out to you that 
while that may be possible eventually, it isn't that way now, and won't be 
that way until at least KDE 4.2 (or at some point in trunk).

As of right now, I cannot, in fact, have a KDE4 desktop with all the 
traditional features we expect.  If we could, we wouldn't even be having this 
discussion!  Isn't that obvious?  We aren't making this up just to irritate 
you.  We see this as a serious problem.

> get past your emotional state and use your head. that should not be too
> much to expect from people on a development mailing list.

I have been emphatic, but I wouldn't say I've been emotional.

I'm not the one who talks about how others don't know things, or aren't smart 
enough to understand, or are spiteful, or have arguments that are 'wind-bags 
of foul air', or are being pissed off.  From where I sit, you appear to be 
the emotional one in this exchange.

--Mark
 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]