[PATCH] Multi-Protocol IO-Slave

[Jos Poortvliet]

On 1/14/08, Sven Burmeister <sven.burmeister at gmx.net> wrote:
> 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.

Amen. Haven't we been complaining that 'just throwing your code on
freedesktop.org doesn't make it a standard' for a long time now? Still
ppl think it does... We should probably start do to the same :-(

> Sven
>