Re: Konqueror questions.
Op wo 3 okt 2007 22:53 schreef u: > At Monday 01 October 2007 1:16 pm, you wrote: > > That said, we will try to free up some time to help get KMail usable in > > trunk > > in time for 4.0, but overall we are driven by customer schedules and > > priorities more than KDE schedules, I'm afraid, at least in our paid time. > > Till, thanks for taking the time to clarify this. > > Seeing the mail from Till and other threads we have here, I propose to remove > KMail as a goal for the beta cycle. Removed. Toma___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Konqueror questions.
At Monday 01 October 2007 1:16 pm, you wrote: > That said, we will try to free up some time to help get KMail usable in trunk > in time for 4.0, but overall we are driven by customer schedules and > priorities more than KDE schedules, I'm afraid, at least in our paid time. Till, thanks for taking the time to clarify this. Seeing the mail from Till and other threads we have here, I propose to remove KMail as a goal for the beta cycle. Toma -- http://www.mailody.net___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Konqueror questions.
On Monday 01 October 2007 17:52:05 Allen Winter wrote: > On Monday 01 October 2007 1:06:38 am Dirk Mueller wrote: > > On Tuesday, 25. September 2007, Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > > And if that's still not clear, that can well be because doing complex > > > sentences in english is not my strong point, i'll rephrase it. > > > > > > I have "hope" we can have them "working" for KDE 4.0 > > > > I still don't get it. KDEPim 4. was not declared a show stopper for 4.0 > > before. I agree that bugs in the libraries that are possibly exposed by > > kmail, but maybe also by other applications have to be fixed. but that is > > not the same level as saying "kmail is a ship stopper". > > > > There is nobody working on KDE Pim for 4.0, and with nobody working on > > it, the amount of time needed for getting it ready is definitely > > unpredictable. > > > > BTW: last time I tried to use kmail from KDE 4.0, it deleted all my > > folders. I was not too happy about that. (but I've learned meanwhile that > > for kmail, its always good to have backups). > > Yes, we may have to remove KMail as a 4.0 showstopper. > We may have to remove kdepim entirely from the 4.0 release. > > I don't know yet. > > I was told several months ago that kdepim was going to receive > a large increase in manpower by now... not sure what happened. I guess you are refering to the KDAB/Kolab Konsortium team here, so let me try to give you a bit of background on this. There is in fact a sizeable team at KDAB working on kdepim, atm, has been, for months, but currently not (yet) focused on stabilizing trunk overall. Namely Marc, Frank, Laurent, Volker, Andreas, Thomas, Pradeepto and myself, with help from David. We're working in several areas, atm: 1) Maintaining the ultra stable proko2 branch, the Kolab client still used by many Kolab users. 2) Implementing contracted features and bugfixes on top of the 3.5 code base, namely the enterprise branch, those were forward ported to trunk, until that froze, and are now forward ported into a temporary work branch of trunk, to be merged when trunk unfreezes. Bugfixes also go into 3.5 as applicable. The reason for the branch is the feature and docs freeze on 3.5, of course. 3) Fixing and extending the crypto infrastructure in trunk and making it work on all of KDE's target platforms, specifically Windows. This also happens in a branch, atm, and will of course also be merged into trunk at the earliest opportunity. This includes a merge of kpgp and kleopatra, among other things. 4) Based on trunk and the work from 2) and 3), building the next generation Kolab client. The timelines for these activities are: 1) is to go on for as long as we have customer interest in it. 2) will continue until the end of November, at which point all contracted bugfixes and features will be done. This then goes into maintainance mode. 3) will be done by the middle of November. 4) is ongoing, albeit overshadowed by the others, and will pick up steam once 2) and 3) are complete. This means that we will start focusing on kdepim trunk in general towards the end of November and keep at it until we have a stable Kolab client (Kontact, in other words) based on KDE4. That said, we will try to free up some time to help get KMail usable in trunk in time for 4.0, but overall we are driven by customer schedules and priorities more than KDE schedules, I'm afraid, at least in our paid time. Many of us also spend spare time on KDE, in various areas, but of course that time is not subject to KDAB scheduling. Hope that clarifies things a bit, Till -- Till Adam -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] KDAB, Platform-independent software solutions signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Konqueror questions.
On Monday 01 October 2007 1:06:38 am Dirk Mueller wrote: > On Tuesday, 25. September 2007, Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > > And if that's still not clear, that can well be because doing complex > > sentences in english is not my strong point, i'll rephrase it. > > > > I have "hope" we can have them "working" for KDE 4.0 > > I still don't get it. KDEPim 4. was not declared a show stopper for 4.0 > before. I agree that bugs in the libraries that are possibly exposed by > kmail, but maybe also by other applications have to be fixed. but that is not > the same level as saying "kmail is a ship stopper". > > There is nobody working on KDE Pim for 4.0, and with nobody working on it, > the > amount of time needed for getting it ready is definitely unpredictable. > > BTW: last time I tried to use kmail from KDE 4.0, it deleted all my folders. > I > was not too happy about that. (but I've learned meanwhile that for kmail, its > always good to have backups). > Yes, we may have to remove KMail as a 4.0 showstopper. We may have to remove kdepim entirely from the 4.0 release. I don't know yet. I was told several months ago that kdepim was going to receive a large increase in manpower by now... not sure what happened. Probably better to have people to use a reliable kmail3 under the kde4 desktop than having people lose data with a buggy kmail4. other non-kmail apps in kdepim are looking pretty good, however. -Allen ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Konqueror questions.
On Tuesday, 25. September 2007, Albert Astals Cid wrote: > And if that's still not clear, that can well be because doing complex > sentences in english is not my strong point, i'll rephrase it. > > I have "hope" we can have them "working" for KDE 4.0 I still don't get it. KDEPim 4. was not declared a show stopper for 4.0 before. I agree that bugs in the libraries that are possibly exposed by kmail, but maybe also by other applications have to be fixed. but that is not the same level as saying "kmail is a ship stopper". There is nobody working on KDE Pim for 4.0, and with nobody working on it, the amount of time needed for getting it ready is definitely unpredictable. BTW: last time I tried to use kmail from KDE 4.0, it deleted all my folders. I was not too happy about that. (but I've learned meanwhile that for kmail, its always good to have backups). Greetings, Dirk ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Konqueror questions.
On Thursday 27 September 2007, Allen Winter wrote: > On Tuesday 25 September 2007 11:50:04 am Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > and as i said in my first email, i thought we'd already achieved > > consensus that said "running kde3 kdepim apps is fine for 4.0, with the > > goal of having kde4 pim apps ready for prime time in 4.1"? so i'm seeing > > a slippage here in our consensus that seems to be endangering our ability > > to release in a suitable time frame. > > We did. > I'm only arguing for a tweak to that plan: whereby we decide on a few of > our more famous, critical apps (eg. konq, dolphin, kmail, kate) that we > ensure are functional before we release 4.0.0. And when I say "functional" > I don't mean 100% bug-free. But the app can be used on a daily basis > without pulling out all your hair. i agree with this; where we perhaps differ is that i don't think kmail is one of the apps we should put into this list for 4.0. in fact, kmail is the only one on the list above (given current state and the people working on them) that i think is not likely to be realistic. > kmail is useless right now, but I'm hoping the KDAB army comes to the > rescue soon. yes, that would be awesome. however, i don't think this should hold up 4.0. we knew that it not making 4.0 was a likeliehood for more than a year now, so ... =) of course, if KDAB or $SOMEONE steps up and gets kmail rockin' for 4.0, huzzah! but marking it as a "showstopper" is what was concerning to me. -- Aaron J. Seigo humru othro a kohnu se GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 KDE core developer sponsored by Trolltech pgpGL0amnzu7q.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Konqueror questions.
On Tuesday 25 September 2007 11:50:04 am Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > On Tuesday 25 September 2007, Allen Winter wrote: > > On Tuesday 25 September 2007 11:28:06 am Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > > On Tuesday 25 September 2007, Tom Albers wrote: > > > > At Tuesday 25 September 2007 15:17, you wrote: > > > marking things all over the place as "showstoppers" may seem responsible > > > from a release perspective, > > > > we are the "release team" after all. > > so it seems reasonable to look at things from a "release perspective". > > indeed; however, it is not the only perspective and i'm trying to help > provide > some other perspectives as well. combined, we may make better decisions. > > > > but .. yeah. kmail and kate as "showstoppers", given > > > the purpose and scope of 4.0 as a release along with our goals (e.g. > > > releasing in a reasonable time frame versus allowing ourselves to > > > endlessly delay things), seem a bit odd to me. > > > > You also need to balance having a release that is somewhat useful > > to somebody. If all we want is a pretty desktop without any useful > > apps then we have the KDE Development Platform out by 30Oct > > and we are done. > > are you seriously suggesting that KDE without kmail and kate constitutes a > desktop "without any useful apps"? No, of course not. > there's a balance point somewhere in here. Sure. Not so easy to figure out. > and as i said in my first email, i thought we'd already achieved consensus > that said "running kde3 kdepim apps is fine for 4.0, with the goal of having > kde4 pim apps ready for prime time in 4.1"? so i'm seeing a slippage here in > our consensus that seems to be endangering our ability to release in a > suitable time frame. > We did. I'm only arguing for a tweak to that plan: whereby we decide on a few of our more famous, critical apps (eg. konq, dolphin, kmail, kate) that we ensure are functional before we release 4.0.0. And when I say "functional" I don't mean 100% bug-free. But the app can be used on a daily basis without pulling out all your hair. > (though i was just using kate this morning to see how good it is and it seems > to not be seriously broken atm? =) > kate is looking pretty darn good. kmail is useless right now, but I'm hoping the KDAB army comes to the rescue soon. -Allen ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Konqueror questions.
Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > - cert handling => khtml? As I understand it (and I might well understand wrong), KHTML Cert handling is currently still happening via KSSL which is private to KIO, while KMail needs a se- cure socket API, which, due to KSSL being private, is currently not available. A Konversation port to the current KDE 4.0 kdelibs would have to scrap SSL sup- port for the same reason. There's a thread about this on k-c-d, though. -- Regards, Eike Hein, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Konqueror questions.
A Dimarts 25 Setembre 2007, Tom Albers va escriure: > Op di 25 sep 2007 18:56 schreef u: > > They don't seem to be in too bad shape > > they can't be fixed to somewhat behave in 2 months. > > Can not parse this sentence. One of those 'n't' has to go, right? > > Toma Let's try again: They don't seem to be in so bad shape they can't be fixed to somewhat behave in 2 months. And if that's still not clear, that can well be because doing complex sentences in english is not my strong point, i'll rephrase it. I have "hope" we can have them "working" for KDE 4.0 Albert ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Konqueror questions.
Op di 25 sep 2007 18:56 schreef u: > They don't seem to be in too bad shape > they can't be fixed to somewhat behave in 2 months. Can not parse this sentence. One of those 'n't' has to go, right? Toma___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Konqueror questions.
A Dimarts 25 Setembre 2007, Aaron J. Seigo va escriure: > On Tuesday 25 September 2007, Allen Winter wrote: > > On Tuesday 25 September 2007 11:28:06 am Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > > On Tuesday 25 September 2007, Tom Albers wrote: > > > > At Tuesday 25 September 2007 15:17, you wrote: > > > > > > marking things all over the place as "showstoppers" may seem > > > responsible from a release perspective, > > > > we are the "release team" after all. > > so it seems reasonable to look at things from a "release perspective". > > indeed; however, it is not the only perspective and i'm trying to help > provide some other perspectives as well. combined, we may make better > decisions. Just my perspective too. I'd vote for having kate and kmail in. They don't seem to be in too bad shape they can't be fixed to somewhat behave in 2 months. Albert > > > > but .. yeah. kmail and kate as "showstoppers", given > > > the purpose and scope of 4.0 as a release along with our goals (e.g. > > > releasing in a reasonable time frame versus allowing ourselves to > > > endlessly delay things), seem a bit odd to me. > > > > You also need to balance having a release that is somewhat useful > > to somebody. If all we want is a pretty desktop without any useful > > apps then we have the KDE Development Platform out by 30Oct > > and we are done. > > are you seriously suggesting that KDE without kmail and kate constitutes a > desktop "without any useful apps"? there's a balance point somewhere in > here. and as i said in my first email, i thought we'd already achieved > consensus that said "running kde3 kdepim apps is fine for 4.0, with the > goal of having kde4 pim apps ready for prime time in 4.1"? so i'm seeing a > slippage here in our consensus that seems to be endangering our ability to > release in a suitable time frame.z > > (though i was just using kate this morning to see how good it is and it > seems to not be seriously broken atm? =) > > p.s. i'm on this mailing list, no need to cc me =) ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Konqueror questions.
Op di 25 sep 2007 17:50 schreef u: > (though i was just using kate this morning to see how good it is and it seems > to not be seriously broken atm? =) Right, the same goes for kmail as far as I understood. But it's not possible to send mail > 15k at the moment (not a kmail issue). We want that fixed for the release. On the other hand, we should wait until we receive the info from my questionaire to them and see which parts are real showstoppers. KMail only bugs should not block the release of course, but its general state reflects the overall state of some libs. Toma___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Konqueror questions.
On Tuesday 25 September 2007, Allen Winter wrote: > On Tuesday 25 September 2007 11:28:06 am Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > On Tuesday 25 September 2007, Tom Albers wrote: > > > At Tuesday 25 September 2007 15:17, you wrote: > > marking things all over the place as "showstoppers" may seem responsible > > from a release perspective, > > we are the "release team" after all. > so it seems reasonable to look at things from a "release perspective". indeed; however, it is not the only perspective and i'm trying to help provide some other perspectives as well. combined, we may make better decisions. > > but .. yeah. kmail and kate as "showstoppers", given > > the purpose and scope of 4.0 as a release along with our goals (e.g. > > releasing in a reasonable time frame versus allowing ourselves to > > endlessly delay things), seem a bit odd to me. > > You also need to balance having a release that is somewhat useful > to somebody. If all we want is a pretty desktop without any useful > apps then we have the KDE Development Platform out by 30Oct > and we are done. are you seriously suggesting that KDE without kmail and kate constitutes a desktop "without any useful apps"? there's a balance point somewhere in here. and as i said in my first email, i thought we'd already achieved consensus that said "running kde3 kdepim apps is fine for 4.0, with the goal of having kde4 pim apps ready for prime time in 4.1"? so i'm seeing a slippage here in our consensus that seems to be endangering our ability to release in a suitable time frame. (though i was just using kate this morning to see how good it is and it seems to not be seriously broken atm? =) p.s. i'm on this mailing list, no need to cc me =) -- Aaron J. Seigo humru othro a kohnu se GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 KDE core developer sponsored by Trolltech pgpghETaX7RsN.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Konqueror questions.
On Tuesday 25 September 2007 11:28:06 am Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > On Tuesday 25 September 2007, Tom Albers wrote: > > At Tuesday 25 September 2007 15:17, you wrote: > > > as for Konqueror ... we have a file manager that is in good shape, we > > > need a power user browser and a web browser (konqi currently fills both > > > of those). should we hold up 4.0 for it? i don't know. > > > > Yep. It has been defined as a goal which needs to be completed in the beta > > period. > > > > > on a related note i finally got a chance to look through the page on > > > techbase and saw that kmail was noted as a showstopper. i wonder what > > > happened to the "people can run kde3's kdepim apps in kde4" consensus of > > > just a few months ago to result in kmail becoming a *showstopper* for > > > 4.0? > > > > Kmail is added to the list as it makes sure a basic set of libraries is > > correctly functioning. We can not release with broken kio, or broken > > certificate handling, identities broken, mailtransport lib not working and > > everything else kmail makes use of. > > and the only way we have of testing those things is an entire application for > which there may not be the develper resources for? > > let's see: > > - kio => how about just about every kde app out there? > - cert handling => khtml? > - identities => i assume you mean the address book? that one might be a bit > more difficult, yes > - mailtransport => does this really matter if we don't have kde4 mail apps? > > really it seems a bit back asswards to say "we need to ship this app to prove > that the libs that it uses are ok" ;) > > there are also tests in some of these libs; mailtransport has a little gui > app > for testing as well. obviously automatically run unit tests would be great, > but obviously we probably don't have the resources to whip up as many as we'd > need. still ... it seems that we have other options than kmail here. > > marking things all over the place as "showstoppers" may seem responsible from > a release perspective, we are the "release team" after all. so it seems reasonable to look at things from a "release perspective". > but .. yeah. kmail and kate as "showstoppers", given > the purpose and scope of 4.0 as a release along with our goals (e.g. > releasing in a reasonable time frame versus allowing ourselves to endlessly > delay things), seem a bit odd to me. > You also need to balance having a release that is somewhat useful to somebody. If all we want is a pretty desktop without any useful apps then we have the KDE Development Platform out by 30Oct and we are done. ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Konqueror questions.
On Tuesday 25 September 2007, Tom Albers wrote: > At Tuesday 25 September 2007 15:17, you wrote: > > as for Konqueror ... we have a file manager that is in good shape, we > > need a power user browser and a web browser (konqi currently fills both > > of those). should we hold up 4.0 for it? i don't know. > > Yep. It has been defined as a goal which needs to be completed in the beta > period. > > > on a related note i finally got a chance to look through the page on > > techbase and saw that kmail was noted as a showstopper. i wonder what > > happened to the "people can run kde3's kdepim apps in kde4" consensus of > > just a few months ago to result in kmail becoming a *showstopper* for > > 4.0? > > Kmail is added to the list as it makes sure a basic set of libraries is > correctly functioning. We can not release with broken kio, or broken > certificate handling, identities broken, mailtransport lib not working and > everything else kmail makes use of. and the only way we have of testing those things is an entire application for which there may not be the develper resources for? let's see: - kio => how about just about every kde app out there? - cert handling => khtml? - identities => i assume you mean the address book? that one might be a bit more difficult, yes - mailtransport => does this really matter if we don't have kde4 mail apps? really it seems a bit back asswards to say "we need to ship this app to prove that the libs that it uses are ok" ;) there are also tests in some of these libs; mailtransport has a little gui app for testing as well. obviously automatically run unit tests would be great, but obviously we probably don't have the resources to whip up as many as we'd need. still ... it seems that we have other options than kmail here. marking things all over the place as "showstoppers" may seem responsible from a release perspective, but .. yeah. kmail and kate as "showstoppers", given the purpose and scope of 4.0 as a release along with our goals (e.g. releasing in a reasonable time frame versus allowing ourselves to endlessly delay things), seem a bit odd to me. -- Aaron J. Seigo humru othro a kohnu se GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 KDE core developer sponsored by Trolltech pgps7XbaToFg5.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Konqueror questions.
At Tuesday 25 September 2007 15:17, you wrote: > as for Konqueror ... we have a file manager that is in good shape, we need a > power user browser and a web browser (konqi currently fills both of those). > should we hold up 4.0 for it? i don't know. Yep. It has been defined as a goal which needs to be completed in the beta period. > on a related note i finally got a chance to look through the page on techbase > and saw that kmail was noted as a showstopper. i wonder what happened to > the "people can run kde3's kdepim apps in kde4" consensus of just a few > months ago to result in kmail becoming a *showstopper* for 4.0? Kmail is added to the list as it makes sure a basic set of libraries is correctly functioning. We can not release with broken kio, or broken certificate handling, identities broken, mailtransport lib not working and everything else kmail makes use of. Toma ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Konqueror questions.
On Tuesday 25 September 2007, Sebastian Kügler wrote: > On Monday 24 September 2007 18:50:31 Tom Albers wrote: > > > What I really wonder, though, is whether we can release KDE-4.0 without > > > desktop icons. But I haven't talked to Aaron about that. > > > I'm happy to drop the whole development issue of desktop icons (it's > > > nothing but trouble and I don't use them myself...), but I wonder > > > how users are going to react to that. > > > > Konqueror is a beta goal, so we should answer this question soon. I've > > never thought about this issue, but I think it's pretty important. I've > > seen desktops where I advised to buy a bigger monitor to fit all the > > icons. > > As far as I know there are plasmoid which act as desktop icons, so that bit > should fall into place. yes; in fact, my work from last week just before i left for tenerife was done in part to make this more easily achievable. we can also, of course, do a hell of a lot better for users than providing the icon ghetto. as for Konqueror ... we have a file manager that is in good shape, we need a power user browser and a web browser (konqi currently fills both of those). should we hold up 4.0 for it? i don't know. on a related note i finally got a chance to look through the page on techbase and saw that kmail was noted as a showstopper. i wonder what happened to the "people can run kde3's kdepim apps in kde4" consensus of just a few months ago to result in kmail becoming a *showstopper* for 4.0? -- Aaron J. Seigo humru othro a kohnu se GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 KDE core developer sponsored by Trolltech pgpi4oOqKVy8Y.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Konqueror questions.
On Monday 24 September 2007 18:50:31 Tom Albers wrote: > > What I really wonder, though, is whether we can release KDE-4.0 without > > desktop icons. But I haven't talked to Aaron about that. > > I'm happy to drop the whole development issue of desktop icons (it's > > nothing but trouble and I don't use them myself...), but I wonder > > how users are going to react to that. > > Konqueror is a beta goal, so we should answer this question soon. I've > never thought about this issue, but I think it's pretty important. I've > seen desktops where I advised to buy a bigger monitor to fit all the icons. As far as I know there are plasmoid which act as desktop icons, so that bit should fall into place. -- sebas http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org | GPG Key ID: 9119 0EF9 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Konqueror questions.
Hi, While David Faure filled in the questionaire for the beta goals overview for konqueror, he raised some points that should be discussed here or at kde-core-devel. Let me quote him: > I'm mostly aiming for "no regressions compared to KDE3", but I'm also open to > usability suggestions > while reworking things. For instance the kuick-plugin (Copy To, Move To in the > popup) was deleted > in kde-4.0, by the author who said "surely we'll have something more useable > in > 4.0, there were > usability suggestions about this". But I don't know which, so right now we > don't have anything :-) Is someone able and willing to track this down? > What I really wonder, though, is whether we can release KDE-4.0 without > desktop > icons. But I haven't talked to Aaron about that. > I'm happy to drop the whole development issue of desktop icons (it's nothing > but trouble and I don't use them myself...), but I wonder > how users are going to react to that. Konqueror is a beta goal, so we should answer this question soon. I've never thought about this issue, but I think it's pretty important. I've seen desktops where I advised to buy a bigger monitor to fit all the icons. Toma ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
