KDE architecture diagram

[Mario Fux]

Am Freitag 08 Juni 2012, 12.35:46 schrieb Martin Klapetek:

Morning

> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Sebastian Kügler <sebas at kde.org> wrote:
> > Food for thought: How many Linux kernel developers do you know that try
> > to divide the Linux kernel in subprojects for servers, desktops,
> > embedded systems? Here, just like in Plasma, there are a few codepathes
> > that differ per
> > device, but the majority of the code is shared. The differences come from
> > how
> > you configure it for a given target device. That is conceptually the same
> > as
> > with Plasma we're building a system that you can configure for a wide
> > range of
> > target devices.
> 
> While I share your idea of Plasma Workspaces, I would imagine that
> different parts of the kernel are maintained/developed by different people.
> Sure, the core is the same, but the platform-specific stuff needs to be
> different (if only a little). So one needs to see the difference between
> core and the "workspace" in our Plasma case. In other words - if you add
> method to the core and make use of it in Active, it doesn't magically
> happen on desktop too. Which I think might be on of the problems - seeing
> the Plasma team focusing on Active, bringing new features there while the
> desktop is...well, it's the same for the past 3 years. And just look at

That's simply not true. The Plasma Desktop is not the same as three years ago. 
There is steady development (even if it my be slower than at the beginning but 
that can change). Beneath the usual optimization and fixing stuff (which may 
come mostly from the Active side atm but helps the desktop nonetheless), there 
are things which are completely different then 3 years ago. Take the 
Activities vs. ZUI thing as just one example.

> Facebook - they change stuff every 2 years or so. Now I'm not saying let's
> forget what we have and start over. Not at all. But we're quite stagnating.
> 
> And that's in my opinion, where we need the vision. Aaron's vision is
> great, but to me it sounds more like a general textbook "workspace vision".
> I personally think we need a more precise vision (we already do have
> organic uis, don't we?).

Maybe but that's no reason to scratch this item from a vision list. But atm 
the same time there is of course the possibility to widen or enhance the 
vision. So I'm still curious what Spain meeting and after this the Randa 
Meeting/Tokamak 6 brings:

Hint hint: http://sprints.kde.org/sprint/98 <- add yourself here.

> For example - what's our vision for integrating
> social media in the shell/Plasma? What's our vision for integrating IM? And
> so on. Sure, there are teams doing these tasks, but we should imho have a
> common vision, or goal if you wish, clearly defined by the Workspace
> leaders. Those teams then lookup to that vision and build stuff to reach
> it. To reach one great Workspace. Just like for Active - you have a vision
> of creating a touch-based interfaces (very simply speaking), so basically
> there's a vision of how you'd like Okular to behave in such environment.
> And I would like to have this precise vision for the rest of the Workspace,
> not just "to have scalable interfaces".

Makes sense for me what your write here.

> Each and every team can do their own vision. But then there will be
> inconsistencies, different functionality etc. Just look at System Settings
> - common place for so many apps and yet each module looks different. And it
> looks bad in the final result. So I think there should be some well
> understood "lead", a way the Workspace should go. Which currently there's
> not. Or it's not well known.
> 
> My 2c on this.

Just my 2 Rappen
Mario