<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.10.1"> </HEAD> <BODY> On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 15:38 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 14:26 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > I think moving KDE to Extras is not a bad idea because: I think it is. > 1. Extras really should not be regarded as a "second class citizen" to > Core in the first place, and I wouldn't be sure. Though I on one hand agree that RH's work on KDE has not been a "proof of excellence", on the other hand, I think, a couple of overly ambitious KDE hackers in Extras could be harmful. > 2. It would be maintained in Extras by the same people that brought you > the kde-redhat project, so you'd probably get better-packaged, more up > to date releases than is currently possible in Core. C.f. my comment to 1) above. 3. It would close out RH from a technology, other Linux distributors consider to be essential. - If RH's management thinks they can afford discoupling from KDE, ... future will tell who's right and who's wrong. 4. It would close out KDE apps from Core. So, I'd recommend somebody to write a central, essential application in based on KDE, and RH will be in trouble. In short, I don't think, moving KDE to Extras is helpful. </BLOCKQUOTE> Well, the history of Red Hat/Gnome goes back aways when Red Hat hired Michael Istanza (sp?) and brought him into the inner sanctum. RH is a stickler for adherence to the Open Source rules and the KDE / Troll-Tech license was not as liberal then as it is now. Huge flame warz popped up all over the Linuxsphere over that license and the possible satanic verses and heresies contained therein. After the study of philosophy began in Greece, and the philosophers, disagreeing amongst themselves, had started many questions . . . because every man took what opinion he pleased, each several opinion was called a heresy; which signified no more than a private opinion, without reference to truth or falsehood. --Hobbes. Redhat put some of it's IPO money where it's mouth was and funded a bunch of the Gnome devel. What you see today is largely a result of that investment and I doubt RedHat will throw in the towel readily in favor of promoting KDE... which I happen to like more than Gnome. It's a personal thing, my feelings and not my programming savvy lean towards KDE. I just think it's easier for -me- to use. Back when I didn't like the name calling flaming controversy, as the "Right Thing" would win out. People will use what works best for them. That turned me off to Gnome and the Stallmans of the world, full of 'shoulds', more than anything. With this decision, during install, gnome -WILL- be installed. Like it or not. I personally do not like it, but there are probably elements of the post-installation process that are geared for Gnome being there and it really wouldn't make sense to develop procedures across two platform lines. So, I can see a glimpse of logic there and, not being a coder, I really am not prepared to mess up anything, re: post install setups. So, I am 'in Acceptance', especially since I'm in Gift-Debt to Fedora already. I would like to see just a tad of compromise in the form of an explanation for the move in an announce to Fedora-Users list. Just to keep us in the pipeline, respectfully, as rational thoughtful beings. <chuckles> Ric <PRE> <TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%"> <TR> <TD> </TD> </TR> </TABLE> </PRE> </BODY> </HTML>