Hacker News Reader

The whole project is a fork of KDE 3, including the documentation. The FAQ is based on the KDE 3 FAQ (https://web.archive.org/web/20080212212628/http://docs.kde.o...), which is why you see the wording you do. AFAIK there's no bad blood between KDE and Trinity, and the KDE developers let the Trinity developers use their infrastructure when the project was getting started.

From the About page:

> The TDE project began as a continuation of the K Desktop Environment (KDE) version 3. The name Trinity was chosen partly because the word means "three" and TDE was a continuation of KDE 3. TDE now is its own computer desktop environment project.

> The TDE project was founded by Timothy Pearson. Timothy is an experienced and skilled software developer and was the KDE 3.x coordinator of previous Kubuntu releases.

> It's like the FAQ is trying to hint that TDE is the "real" KDE, a continuation of the same project initiated by Matthias Ettrich (who, afaict, has no connection to TDE), and that the KDE Foundation's project is an impostor.

Certainly that's one interpretation. The other interpretation is exactly what is said and no more. Where did this "imposter" accusation come from?

The wording as-read certainly makes it sound like that: A fork of a thing is not that thing. Thus this is not KDE, it's a fork of KDE. Thus this wasn't originally called the K Desktop Environment, it's a fork of something that was originally called the K Desktop Environment.

Viewed in this context, the second point sounds weird: it was never rebranded, the fork was called TDE from the beginning, and the reason it can't (shouldn't) call itself KDE is because it isn't. What the KDE leadership calls KDE is KDE.

They claim that they are the same project that was initiated by Matthias Ettrich in 1996.

They also kinda imply that they would use the KDE name, if they were allowed to, but someone else owns the rights for it. ("Why don't you do this very natural thing?" "I am not allowed to.")

They indeed don't claim or imply that the KDE Foundation is an "imposter". They also don't say anything about whether the KDE Foundation is also a continuation of the same project.

KDE up until version 3 was very configurable and robust. KDE 4 was neither. Basically it seemed just like a (bad) copy of GNOME and other recent DE efforts. That's why there's this fork.