[Digikam-users] Digikam and the KDE

Martin (KDE) kde at fahrendorf.de
Sun Oct 9 10:48:08 BST 2011

Am Sonntag, 9. Oktober 2011 schrieb sleepless:
> Op 09-10-11 09:42, todd rme schreef:
> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:09 PM, 
sleepless<sleeplessregulus at hetnet.nl>  wrote:
> >> I thought there was an effort a while ago to port digikam to
> >> quicktime to make it independent from kde, which makes it
> >> dependent of quicktime.
> > 
> > I think you mean Qt.  Qt is a widget toolkit, quicktime is a
> > (mostly obsolete) multimedia codec and container.
> thanks, and where is Qt standing for?

It is the name of the toolkit. Same as GTK is the name of the toolkit 
gnome is based on.

> >> I think it would be great if there came  a fork of digikam that
> >> takes the grandiose, excellent, wonderful, splendid,
> >> magnificent, special, unique, exquisite, exclusive,
> >> unparalleled digikam architecture  as a fundament and build it
> >> up from the ground without all the needless complexities that
> >> makes it so prone to trouble.
> > 
> > And how many years are you willing to wait for that?
> I think 20 enthousiasts can do it in 2 years, that would be 1 from
> each 300.000.000.

In theory yes, in praxis no. Why should 20 enthusiasts take two years 
of their time to port a running and working program to a different 
toolkit? Wouldn't it be better to take the same time to improve the 
already available program (and the underlying tools)?

> > That is ignoring the fact that digikam would become far more
> > complex.
> > 
> >   Add to that the fact that with far fewer people using it than
> >   are
> > 
> > using the more general KDE-provided functionality bugs will be
> > more common and harder to track down, and with far fewer
> > developers bugs will take longer to fix.
> Bugs should not be there! Imagine the airplane industry worked this
> way, sending the planes in the air and fix bugs after every crash
> and then with every fix introducing three new ones.

These are different beasts. Take the NASA as an example. They use more 
than 20 years old software and hardware to send rockets into the 
orbit. They use different programming systems and because of the risk 
different methods. And in the end the machines are way more expensive 
than a simple computer including the programs. And believe it or not, 
there are bugs in the airplane software which causes many dead 

> I have been programming assembly and later on C++. The hardware was
> the only limitation. But after that the higher level languages
> took over, and every next level adds severe limitations. 

To my point it is the other way around. I have more flexibility to do 
what I want and have to do instead of working around the limitations 
of the programming language.

> I think
> kde is in this respect the top level programming language.

May be or not. It is easy said, not that easy proven and if so hard to 


> Just thoughts, I admit to be ignorent!
> Rinus
> > -Todd
> > _______________________________________________
> > Digikam-users mailing list
> > Digikam-users at kde.org
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> Digikam-users at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

More information about the Digikam-users mailing list