[PATCH] Multi-Protocol IO-Slave

[Sven Burmeister]

On Montag, 14. Januar 2008, Kevin Krammer wrote:
> On Sunday 13 January 2008, nf2 wrote:
> > Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > > On Sunday 13 January 2008, nf2 wrote:
> > >> Oh well - unfortunately there is a really unlucky tradition on both
> > >> sides not to touch, nor even look at the other projects code. Feels a
> > >> bit like cold-war: Xdg standards were the maximum to get for
> > >> interoperability. Arms control agreements ;-). Common code? - no way.
> > >
> > > this is complete and utter, excuse my language here, bullshit.
> >
> > No - it's not. How come that i'm the only person who at least tries to
> > dive into VFS code of both desktops?
>
> I guess the root of this disagreement between Aaron and yourself is based
> on different definitions.
> Aaron and many other KDE developers including myself are quite sick hearing
> that we do not particpate in or adopt things developed elsewhere while we
> definitely are.

Since it seems that this does not happen the first time, why is there no 
website on techbase you point to, that states what KDE does/did and how 
others can use or contribute to it? Either because there is no such site or 
because it is not advertised enough to be known.

I know that people who want to still will ignore these things and try to claim 
that they invented the wheel, but such a site would definitely make it harder 
for them to argue that KDE did not offer those capabilities to application 
developers not familiar with KDE('s architecture).

If one markets KIO as desktop independent tool on a site that lists KDE's 
contributions to interoperability, anything that is created afterwards comes 
second.

If your assumptions about this issue going down the same path as dcop/dbus are 
true, then KDE has not learned from what happened and did not do enough 
marketing/advertising of its capabilities in order to get rid of those false 
accuses. So either one stops caring or engages in more aggressive marketing 
of KDE.

There will always be people claiming "de facto" standards, simply because they 
are more aggresive on marketing their own solution.

Sven