Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 15th Oct 2012 23:22 UTC, submitted by OSGuy
Window Managers "The Trinity Desktop Environment (TDE) development team is pleased to announce the immediate availability of version 3.5.13.1 of the Trinity Desktop Environment. The Trinity Desktop Environment is a complete software desktop environment designed for Unix-like operating systems, intended for computer users preferring a traditional desktop model, and is free/libre software." Not the first time we mention TDE, but it's basically the continuation of KDE 3.x. There's a market for this.
Thread beginning with comment 538651
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why?
by diegoviola on Tue 16th Oct 2012 11:54 UTC
diegoviola
Member since:
2006-08-15

Not to dismiss the great work of these people, but if you want a traditional desktop in KDE.

Why not just set folderview as your desktop and switch to the classic menu style in KDE4?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Why?
by jessesmith on Tue 16th Oct 2012 12:10 in reply to "Why?"
jessesmith Member since:
2010-03-11

I think that really hits on why Trinity hasn't gained more adoption. When KDE4 first came out it was buggy, but the overall design was good. By the time the conservative distributions had adopted KDE4 most of the bugs were worked out. Running KDE4 with "low fat" settings and the classic desktop look is close enough to KDE3 in style that people can transition fairly easily. the only folks who are likely to use Trinity are those who are very stuck in their ways and who don't mind dealing with dependency issues that arise from trying to run older software on a modern distro.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Why?
by dnebdal on Tue 16th Oct 2012 12:34 in reply to "RE: Why?"
dnebdal Member since:
2008-08-27

I think that really hits on why Trinity hasn't gained more adoption. When KDE4 first came out it was buggy, but the overall design was good. By the time the conservative distributions had adopted KDE4 most of the bugs were worked out. Running KDE4 with "low fat" settings and the classic desktop look is close enough to KDE3 in style that people can transition fairly easily. the only folks who are likely to use Trinity are those who are very stuck in their ways and who don't mind dealing with dependency issues that arise from trying to run older software on a modern distro.


Agreed. KDE 4 feels like an attempt to make a better KDE 3, while neither gnome 3 nor unity were attempts to make a better gnome 2. Sure, they're aiming to make a better desktop environment than gnome 2- but that's not quite the same thing.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Why?
by latreides on Tue 16th Oct 2012 13:33 in reply to "Why?"
latreides Member since:
2011-03-20

That is not even remotely the same thing. That's the equivalent of saying "If you don't like Vista just put an XP skin on it and call it XP"

That being said, a fork of KDE4 as Cinnamon did to Gnome 3 would be a better path. You could fix what is fundamentally broken by design in KDE4 and still benefit by what they did right.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Why?
by Hiev on Tue 16th Oct 2012 14:04 in reply to "Why?"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

I would say that is not only the looks, it is also the architecture, KDE4 comes with Activities, Nepomuk and other crap people don't use and get in their way, KDE3 is better in this area.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Why?
by diegoviola on Tue 16th Oct 2012 14:34 in reply to "RE: Why?"
diegoviola Member since:
2006-08-15

I would say that is not only the looks, it is also the architecture, KDE4 comes with Activities, Nepomuk and other crap people don't use and get in their way, KDE3 is better in this area.


I use KDE 4.9.2 currently, and I disable all that stuff, I disable Activities, Nepomuk, etc.

I also set folderview as my desktop layout and enable the classic menu style.

I couldn't be happier with it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Why?
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 16th Oct 2012 16:42 in reply to "RE: Why?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I agree... in fact, I recall garbage like Nepomuk and Akonadi being the primary things that pissed me off and tarnished my view of KDE4's stability since the early days. And I still occasionally see them crash, giving me bad memories of the original KDE 4.0.x, 4.1.x, and even 4.2.x (hint: everything about those series of releases sucked, though 4.2 sucked noticeably less--they were horrible; just the thought of them is a bad one). And even worse, neither service seems to be worth a damn or useful at all; we got by for years without them. And pretty much every other desktop to this day gets by without them and their crashes.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Why?
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 16th Oct 2012 16:30 in reply to "Why?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Because then you still have the additional overhead of CPU usage as well as much higher memory usage... KDE4 is still going to be KDE4, no matter how you have your desktop and icons set to behave.

You can much more comfortably run KDE3 on hardware with a less powerful processor and much less memory, and if you have more resources to spare, the desktop will breeze by while leaving much more memory for what really matters: your programs. All of this leads to a much better experience, with the desktop staying out of the way.

The main system I'm using has only 1GB memory and 64-bit AMD Athlon 3800+ dual-core processor from around 2006, so I'm not sure how well it behaves on more modern processors, but in my experience with what I have access to, KDE4--while tolerable--often irritates me with its performance. Sad, because KDE3 was pretty much the same minus all the additional eye candy, and made working on the computer quite pleasant.

openSUSE 12.2 managed to persuade me to give KDE4 another try (which I really do like, it's just too... bloated), and I will most likely be switching to another desktop soon... probably back to either Xfce or Openbox. Currently considering which distros have the best implementations of each while having an underlying foundation that I don't mind using.

Reply Parent Score: 2