ANNOUNCE: HEAD is open for development again
steleman at nyc.rr.com
Sat Aug 14 19:40:22 BST 2004
Just my 0.02, for what they are worth:
I don't believe that, realistically speaking, any of the commercial
UN*X vendors (Sun, IBM, HP, to name the ones with the largest market
share) will ever agree to redesign their kernels. I believe that
relying on a kernel dependent implementation will essentially shut
KDE out of any kernel, but those which support such facilities. This
would probably mean Linux exclusively.
Would this type of requirement be beneficial to KDE in the long run ?
IMHO, it wouldn't.
I am not trying to start an ideological flamewar. But i am afraid that
enforcing such a requirement will inevitably degenerate into an
ideological flamewar, and will open KDE to criticism. And it will
become extremely difficult to defend KDE against such criticism.
Yes, one could summarily dismiss these commercial implementations as
being "insanely retarded", or some other moniker. However, i would
humbly suggest that claming "KDE doesn't support <XYZ> because <XYZ>
is insanely retarded" doesn't really achieve anything useful,
short-term, or long-term.
On Saturday 14 August 2004 13:57, George Staikos wrote:
> Is KDE going to require Linux from now on?
Stefan Teleman 'Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition'
steleman at nyc.rr.com -Monty Python
More information about the kde-core-devel