trinity on maverick
 

hi,
For all interested in running kde 3 on slackware: now I am testing trinity installed on kubuntu maverick. I installed maverick using LiveDVD prepared by Timothy Pearsons. I must say that trinity really deserve its code name kde 3.5.12. Of course the main point is that it is running under newest ubuntu release with Linux 2.6.35.x kernel. Each kde 3 user will find here some new cool staffs. For example there are different system menus - classical k-menu, kbfx menu and... yes, kick-off menu - working in the same way as in kde 4.

Honestly I don't understand why trinity can run on ubuntu but cannot run on slackware. Both are Linuxes, are they not?

Finally a word about distribution prepared by Timohty: cool. Full suit of kde 3 applications. Full kde development suite (not that pathetic remains shipped with kde 4), Wine server on stock and .... yes, yes Erlang console! Hm, really cool.

What do you not understand? Did you read all of the information in the (long) threads that you have created already? Trinity can probably be made to run on Slackware 13.1, but no one has done it. If there is a truly interested party, maybe it shall be done. You could be that party if you want. I have no more interest in KDE and even less interest in KDE3.5, so I have no desire to spend a substantial amount of my time trying to compile and test it in Slackware 13.1 (or older). Woodsman has created some SlackBuilds that you can use as a launching point. It is only tested on Slackware 12.2 as far as I know, so there are probably going to be issues that must be sorted. The reason it works on recent Ubuntu is because members of the Trinity team actually use Ubuntu. They don't use Slackware...so a third party would have to figure out how to compile it properly. That could be you, or another person interested in Trinity. Continually creating new threads worded differently but with similar or identical content to express your distaste with Pat and/or the Slackware community isn't going to get Trinity built. Take the initiative! Setup a Slackware 13.1 VM and try compiling it (build scripts for 12.2, which can be perfected and adapted for 13.1, are mentioned in this thread). If you are not technically capable of modifying build scripts, learn bash! There are tons of tutorials out there. Or you can try to continually find a poor sap that will do all the work for you...

Once again. There is no fundamental flaw in Slackware that prevents Trinity from being built. However, Trinity/KDE is a non-trivial build and requires knowledge and time, and at this point no one has produced a build of Trinity (or scripts to produce a build) that will work without modification on Slackware 13.1. And, since we, unlike Ubuntu, do *not* have official support from the Trinity project, you're on your own.

Trinity is aimed at all Linux's users. Not only ubuntu ones. The completely unofficial trinity maverick release is a proof that trinity maybe an alternative for gnome or kde 4. It has advantages: low requirements, many useful features. All out of stock. Before doing anything for slackware I want to know what I should expect. Woodsman packages don't work well so all work has to be done from the beginning. Clean, minimal install of slack 13.1 to avoid any dependencies conflicts, try to compile trinity, and add step by step other slackware components. At each stage one has to refer to working system to understand why its own doesn't work.

I really wonder why some are convinced that KDE-4x is a resource hog. I simply don't see it that way. Maybe I'm just lucky, or maybe even really stupid, and don't know that its eating up resources. Since top reports nothing unusual, and I can run a bunch of apps all at once without problem, why in Bob's name are people still claiming that 4x eats resources?

That kde 4 can be resource hungry comes from my experience. I have two computers:
notebook with intel centrino 1.6 Ghz, 512 RAM, intel onboard graphic (shared memory),
pentium 4, 2.9 Ghz, 1 GB RAM, AGP graphic card. On all these computers kde 4 was slow. If it worked at all, of course.

Official, NOT unofficial. The Trinity Project Administrator and Primary Developer is the Debian/Ubuntu packaging maintainer. Debian and Ubuntu have help directly from the Trinity project -- those who actually know something about Trinity compilation. Slackware does not. If you'll note, on this page, the *only* distros with *any* working packages (at least according to the Trinity project) are Debian, Ubuntu, and Slackware. And the project maintainer does two of the three. I never said that there was something inherently wrong with KDE3.5 or Trinity, so I don't know why you're spewing 'proof that trinity maybe an alternative...' nonsense...as it stands the only working packages for recent distributions are packaged by the project's lead. Again, I say -- the onus is on you to create working packages if you so desire. But please, don't remove official Slackware packages to try to get it to work -- if you do, your work will be useless. At the absolute most you could remove KDE4 packages to avoid the cross-contamination issue (though at best you would find a way around it). Anything more than that, and you've just created a new distribution.

Have you tried KDE 4.5? The improvement in performance was astonishing. Even KDE 4.4 was a big jump. In fact I can attest, no questions asked, that on an Acer laptop with 4GB RAM and a 2.0GHZ Intel dual-core Slackware 13.1 with KDE 4.4 runs at least as fast, and I think faster, than Debian Lenny did with KDE 3.5. There were real resource-consumption issues in the older version of KDE 4.x, but they really have been fixed.

It is not that debian or ubuntu have direct help from 'trinity project'. It is obvious that Pearson prepared at first trinity for a system he knows best. If he would be gentoo developer the first packages were prepared for gentoo and so on. About help for slackware the question is: anybody asked him for help? Where did you find that I want to remove official slackware packages? And even so if I will have change eg. some libraries it is main idea of slackware: easily customize your system for your needs. In contrary ubuntu is hard to do this: instead of they offer huge repositories. But in fact I hope that multilib 32/64 bit solution may help in case of libraries conflict: patched versus non patched or different versions of the same library. Never forget: unix was never made for PC computers.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Every post he makes has me saying that - so far only to myself.

Took the words right outa my mouth...

It is the way of thinking which may help to solve problems we encounter today using Linux.
There are points in each Linux based system which are difficult to understand without referring
to its predecestor. The crucial role of network facilities. Even if I want to attach a printer to my PC to print I have to run printer server. I want to browse network - I have to run graphical server. The graphical frontend to Maxima communicates using a port. The core system is multiuser - and the system management of users and groups - again it is difficult to explain without referring to unix. Using that nice word 'hell': for what the hell is /usr/local/bin if by default each binary is installed in /usr/bin (that directory is a pain). I can imagine that some problems we meet today were common for unix administrators - like running several different kernel, managing different versions of the same library, So I expect that there is a chance to find ready to use solutions in unix documentation. Out of main subject: there is 3 vol. unix tutorial written by Kernighan. It covers many topics: starting from basic system commands up to guides for troff or awk and many other things: but I have only look at it. So I can only repeat: you want to understand Linux? Learn about unix and try to imagine the past when there were no PC computers.

I don't know where this tangent came from or what relevance it maintains to the thread...but you seem to be forgetting that GNU/Linux is *not* UNIX. It isn't POSIX-compliant and when the community thinks something should be done differently it doesn't refrain from departing from traditional UNIX values. It is a *nix system but GNU/Linux is neither UNIX-derived nor 100% adherent to UNIX standardization. Mac OS X is POSIX-compliant and yet there are fewer problems that can be associated with 'traditional' UNIX problems (though there are, of course, other problems). The problems of maintaining two disparate KDE installations has more to do with the KDE developers than traditional UNIX-derived dependency and packaging issues.

The relevance is that I hope I will find ready for use solution or at least some hints in unix documentations. I can imagine that for some purposes it maybe important to make Linux as POSIX-compliant as it possible. But for common PC user it doesn't matter. KDE developers abandoned kde 3 - so it rather not their problem. My personal impression is that they are displeased that someone is trying to further develop kde 3.

Linux is not unix - well known acronym. But maybe also Linus unix? It is a word game. Important thing is that Linux grown up and can plays a role of unix.

Why must we keep rehashing this? You've discussed KDE3 on these forums nearly continuously for weeks now. You know what options are available; just pick one.

Adam