Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trinity Desktop Environment R14.0.9 Release Notes

wiki.trinitydesktop.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: Trinity Desktop Environment R14.0.9 Release Notes

#41

Post by badsectoracula »

unsungNovelty wrote: post #38

I think I remember looking at the project page a while ago and thinking, huh! What is the relevance of this project? While it is always great to see Linux DE's/projects living on, this is just another project which sadly fragments the Linux desktop ecosystem even further. I agree, we need more Linux apps (Before electron apps take over the entire Linux DE), not distro's or DE's (checkout https://makealinux.app/ ). An…

> What is the relevance of this project?

People who like KDE 3 being able to use KDE 3 with fixes and stuff.

> this is just another project which sadly fragments the Linux desktop ecosystem even further

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).

Re: Trinity Desktop Environment R14.0.9 Release Notes

#42

Post by unsungNovelty »

badsectoracula wrote: post #41
unsungNovelty wrote: post #38

I think I remember looking at the project page a while ago and thinking, huh! What is the relevance of this project? While it is always great to see Linux DE's/projects living on, this is just another project which sadly fragments the Linux desktop ecosystem even further. I agree, we need more Linux apps (Before electron apps take over the entire Linux DE), not distro's or DE's (checkout https://makealinux.app/ ). An…

> What is the relevance of this project? People who like KDE 3 being able to use KDE 3 with fixes and stuff. > this is just another project which sadly fragments the Linux desktop ecosystem even further 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…

> 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.

Re: Trinity Desktop Environment R14.0.9 Release Notes

#43

Post by Fnoord »

badsectoracula wrote: post #36
qwerty456127 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree for Gnome, but how is KDE 5 worse than KDE 3?

Note that i was never a big fan of KDE in general, i just happen to like KDE 3 more than the other versions (though TBH i haven't used KDE 2 at all and while i do like how KDE 1 looked and behaved - it was the first Linux environment i ever used - it was a bit too rough, though that was also because of Qt1 too) and i used it as a second environment in some computers. But the two main reasons i think KDE 5 is worse th…

I would say if you like KDE 3, you liked KDE 2 as well. KDE 2 was the tick of the tick-tock of KDE 2/3. KDE 5 is the tock of the tick-tock of KDE 4/5. At least that is how I'd describe it (Intel been tock-tock-tock'ing the past years notwithstanding).

I have fond memories of KDE 2/3 and GNOME 2. I also ran KDE 1 and GNOME 1 back in the days (initially GNOME cause of RedHat Linux and the license issues with KDE). If you compare them to Windows 9x and early NT they were quite good.

Re: Trinity Desktop Environment R14.0.9 Release Notes

#44

Post by Fnoord »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #25
rayrag wrote: post #10

That's the ugliest GUI I have seen in a while. 1995 was 25 years ago. https://wiki.trinitydesktop.org/images/4/44/TDE-screen1.png

It has nothing to do with 1995. Windows 95 was aesthetically conservative but not ugly, unlike KDE3 (which is ugly and NOT conservative).

Except the screenshot is nothing like a KDE 2 default installation looked back in the days. Different colours in taskbar? Nope, was homogeneous in KDE 1/2/3/x (the way it is now is unnecessarily distracting). Taskbar on left and bottom? Nope. There was one the bottom, still is. Dock like macOS? Nope, wasn't there by default.

Also, back in the early days of KDE and GNOME you had applications using all kind of toolkits. A DE providing applications with one sole toolkit (be it Qt or Gtk) was a novel direction in the Linux world.

Re: Trinity Desktop Environment R14.0.9 Release Notes

#45

Post by badsectoracula »

unsungNovelty wrote: post #42
badsectoracula wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is the relevance of this project? People who like KDE 3 being able to use KDE 3 with fixes and stuff. > this is just another project which sadly fragments the Linux desktop ecosystem even further 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…

> 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…

> 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.

Re: Trinity Desktop Environment R14.0.9 Release Notes

#46

Post by badsectoracula »

Fnoord wrote: post #43
badsectoracula wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that i was never a big fan of KDE in general, i just happen to like KDE 3 more than the other versions (though TBH i haven't used KDE 2 at all and while i do like how KDE 1 looked and behaved - it was the first Linux environment i ever used - it was a bit too rough, though that was also because of Qt1 too) and i used it as a second environment in some computers. But the two main reasons i think KDE 5 is worse th…

I would say if you like KDE 3, you liked KDE 2 as well. KDE 2 was the tick of the tick-tock of KDE 2/3. KDE 5 is the tock of the tick-tock of KDE 4/5. At least that is how I'd describe it (Intel been tock-tock-tock'ing the past years notwithstanding). I have fond memories of KDE 2/3 and GNOME 2. I also ran KDE 1 and GNOME 1 back in the days (initially GNOME cause of RedHat Linux and the license issues with KDE). If y…

I think that with the exception of the kernel being a layer on top of MS-DOS (but that would be comparing with Linux not with KDE), Win9x was better technically than KDE1.

For example I do not think to this day there is anything tech-wise like COM with all of its related tech like OLE (which allows documents to embed objects exposed by other applications which themselves can run in 'embedded mode' to edit said embedded objects), ActiveX (which in a similar way allows applications to make use of reusable controls that can describe themselves), Automation (which allows applications to expose scriptable interfaces that can be called by any other application), Active Scripting (which allows applications to embed scripting languages which themselves are registered with the system so that, e.g., you can install a scripting engine for Python which then can be used to script any application that uses Active Scripting even if that application has no idea about Python) and a bunch of other things.

(note that DBus does provide the 'expose interfaces' part, but it is only about that whereas COM is a more generic technology that was used for all of the above)

Re: Trinity Desktop Environment R14.0.9 Release Notes

#47

Post by emilsedgh »

badsectoracula wrote: post #46
Fnoord wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say if you like KDE 3, you liked KDE 2 as well. KDE 2 was the tick of the tick-tock of KDE 2/3. KDE 5 is the tock of the tick-tock of KDE 4/5. At least that is how I'd describe it (Intel been tock-tock-tock'ing the past years notwithstanding). I have fond memories of KDE 2/3 and GNOME 2. I also ran KDE 1 and GNOME 1 back in the days (initially GNOME cause of RedHat Linux and the license issues with KDE). If y…

I think that with the exception of the kernel being a layer on top of MS-DOS (but that would be comparing with Linux not with KDE), Win9x was better technically than KDE1. For example I do not think to this day there is anything tech-wise like COM with all of its related tech like OLE (which allows documents to embed objects exposed by other applications which themselves can run in 'embedded mode' to edit said embedd…

What you're describing for a "dbus but for ui" is one of the core KDE technologies still in use today named KPart [0][1].

[0] https://techbase.kde.org/Development/Tutorials/Using_KParts

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDE_Platform_4#KParts

Re: Trinity Desktop Environment R14.0.9 Release Notes

#48

Post by pantalaimon »

pabs3 wrote: post #26

I wonder why this doesn't ship on many mainstream distros.

There seems to be an irrational fear of shipping old toolkits (Qt3)

Heck Ubuntu even removed Qt4 from their repos, when I wanted to run an older third party app that hadn't been updated to Qt5 yet, I had to install a PPA with Qt4.

Re: Trinity Desktop Environment R14.0.9 Release Notes

#49

Post by Fnoord »

badsectoracula wrote: post #46
Fnoord wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say if you like KDE 3, you liked KDE 2 as well. KDE 2 was the tick of the tick-tock of KDE 2/3. KDE 5 is the tock of the tick-tock of KDE 4/5. At least that is how I'd describe it (Intel been tock-tock-tock'ing the past years notwithstanding). I have fond memories of KDE 2/3 and GNOME 2. I also ran KDE 1 and GNOME 1 back in the days (initially GNOME cause of RedHat Linux and the license issues with KDE). If y…

I think that with the exception of the kernel being a layer on top of MS-DOS (but that would be comparing with Linux not with KDE), Win9x was better technically than KDE1. For example I do not think to this day there is anything tech-wise like COM with all of its related tech like OLE (which allows documents to embed objects exposed by other applications which themselves can run in 'embedded mode' to edit said embedd…

Windows 9x was a single user operating system; Linux and KDE/GNOME were and are not. Windows 9x is an absolute security nightmare, including ActiveX. Therefore, the comparison is moot (though ironically enough, X is also a security nightmare).

Re: Trinity Desktop Environment R14.0.9 Release Notes

#50

Post by unsungNovelty »

badsectoracula wrote: post #45
unsungNovelty wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 distribu…

> 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.

Post reply on HN