1 |
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:53:04 +0100, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> |
2 |
wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:19:43 +0100, Zeerak Waseem wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
>> But I do find it silly, that the various applications that aren't |
7 |
>> dependent of the DE, to require a dependency of the DE. It just seems |
8 |
>> a bit backwards to me :-) I simply don't understand. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> That just shows that they are still partially dependent on the DE, KMail |
11 |
> also needs various KDE libraries. KDE was designed as a cohesive DE, not |
12 |
> just a bunch of applications with a common look and feel. KDE apps are |
13 |
> intended to be run on a KDE desktop, anything else is a nice bonus. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> |
16 |
|
17 |
Indeed, and it is a noble pursuit. |
18 |
But from a marketing aspect, it would make more sense to have things that |
19 |
aren't -vital- for the app, unlike kde-libs in this case, to be soft (is |
20 |
this the correct term?) dependencies. |
21 |
Both aspects could be satisfied by having symantic-desktop as an optional |
22 |
dep. It's not a vital function for kmail to be able to tag and index all |
23 |
the files on the computer (which is what the symantic-desktop does if I |
24 |
understand correctly), it's a nifty thing for KDE users, and soon probably |
25 |
Gnome users as well, but for anyone else, it's a nifty thing -if- they |
26 |
feel the need for it. Much like most other bits of software :-) |
27 |
|
28 |
In the end there isn't a right or wrong, but just a standpoint. Some don't |
29 |
mind the bloat (we can agree that it's bloat if you're just going to |
30 |
disable the function as soon as it's been installed, right?) and don't |
31 |
consider it to be the slightest bit akin to bloat, whilst to others it's |
32 |
an unnecessary feature forced on them (mainly thinking of the people not |
33 |
using kde, but also those kde-users that just disable it) and thus becomes |
34 |
bloat. |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Zeerak |