OSNews

Concur.
While ensuring interoperability in the middle and back end of the system is certainly desriable, declaring anyone the winner at the front end is specious.
The strength of FOSS is that the user isn't getting flocked.
If some sheep prefer a flock, we must gently educate them out of this.

I completely agree.

There is not really a "war" and neither side has "won."

The article seems to imply that KDE will cease to exist, and only Gnome will matter. What a load of cr@p.

BTW: I use IceWM.

"The article seems to imply that KDE will cease to exist, and only Gnome will matter."

I think the article implies that KDE will remain vastly popular with the GNU/Linux power user due to its "technical superiorities", while GNOME will remain popular with the general masses (well, as long as GNU/Linux adoption increases).

Still with the new LSB 3.1, it is a bit too early to make such a definitive statement (such as "GNOME wins"). Then there is KDE 4.0, which looks to really change the desktop experience (or so we are lead to believe). Regardless if a "winner" does emerge, KDE will not be going anywhere.

Although I prefer Gnome at the moment I must say that they overact with their "Just Works" mentality.

For example you cannot set text any more in Gnome screensaver GLText which makes this screensaver useless for me. I had to install XScreensaver to adjust these settings.

They cut to many features. Why is there no option to leave the file save dialogs unfolded!? Or why can't you unmount devices with a right click in the places sidebar in Nautilus?

It would be OK if they remove these features in application dialogs if they INCLUDE them in GConf! But I can't see this approach - there are nearly the same options in GConf available as in application dialogs...

It would be great if Gnome developers include more "advanced" features in GConf. Otherwise this whole approach makes no sense to me.

They cut to many features. Why is there no option to leave the file save dialogs unfolded!? Or why can't you unmount devices with a right click in the places sidebar in Nautilus?

I second that !

The gnome-screensaver dialog most definitely did cut an important feature (configuring an individual screensaver).

However, the file dialog and not being able to unmount drive from the place sidebar in nautilus are not "cutting features." The GTKFileChooser API included in GTK2.4 (or was it 2.6?) allows people to develop any number of different file choosers that suit different needs. The fact that no one is really doing that is a little odd, but nonetheless the ability is there.
Also, the nautilus places sidebar is most definitely not that way to follow any "just works" ideology. It just hasn't been done. I haven't hear anybody turning down such a patch, and in fact a patch was _accepted_ to 2.14 to allow editing of the bookmarks in the places sidebar.
There is a big difference between "haven't had time/resources/thought to implement it" and "we cut that feature because it's bunk."

>"However, the file dialog and not being able to unmount drive from the place sidebar in nautilus are not "cutting features." "

It is being worked upon, so be patient. Nobody "designed" it to be a "feature", and soon it will disappear (Gnome ver.2.16?).

For example you cannot set text any more in Gnome screensaver GLText which makes this screensaver useless for me. I had to install XScreensaver to adjust these settings.

I agree with you.

Why is there no option to leave the file save dialogs unfolded!?

This shows something really interesting that the GNOME project realized (Havoc P. actually). GNOME's behaviour is broken and instead of asking the developers to fix it, users ask them for an option to have the correct behaviour.

The right design in this case is to remember the state of when the dialog was last used. I believe there's a bug against GTK+ for this, but if you don't find it please file another one.

Or why can't you unmount devices with a right click in the places sidebar in Nautilus?

This is a bug. In fact it will be fixed in the next release, as a patch has been written already.
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=316184

It would be OK if they remove these features in application dialogs if they INCLUDE them in GConf! But I can't see this approach - there are nearly the same options in GConf available as in application dialogs...

Like I said before, notice that only one of the issues you mentioned is actually a design decision. When you run into them don't assume it's one, but file a bug.

Gnome has more corporate backers simply because gtk and the whole platform is LGPL. That allows companies such as vmware, adobe, etc to use gtk in their applications without worrying if they have to open source it or not.
Maybe VMware chose GTK but for example Parallels is QT-based and so is Skype. I think there are many other companies that use QT and don't have to share their sources in any way

Yes, because they pay Trolltech lots of money for a proprietary license to QT. If you dont believe me, here is a website for you:
http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/pricing.html?cid=18

Please note that would all be free with GTK

'free with GTK' as in no upfront cost, but Qt is very nice set of libraries for developers to work with and saves time over the length of a project, so the 'cost' of GTK is measured in person hours, but is not 0. And if the app is run on multiple OS then Qt is even more of a money saver.

In the end, it all comes down to horses for courses. There are areas in which both are appropriate and other areas where they both don't represent such a good value proposition.

On a different note, why do people imply that writing a KDE app has overheads (in system services etc) that a GNOME app doesnt? A GTK app might not require all the GNOME infrastrucure to run, but the same is true that Qt apps don't require the KDE infrastrucutre.

"Gnome offers sensible defaults and the "Just Works TM" mentality."

just my 2cents worth, but I have to disagree on the sensible defaults. I know the gnome people have a working set of ideals to implement, but when I do set up gnome for myself I spend a_Long_Time changing its behavior to do what I want it to, most of it just finding the switches. It's really not worth it to me personally whenkde is bright and shiny out of the box and the defaults I do wish to change are right in front of me.
That said, I prefer fluxbox over all of 'em in the end

"when I do set up gnome for myself I spend a_Long_Time changing its behavior to do what I want it to..." -- Well, you're doing better than I am:
I'm a PowerUser environmental modeler (having written over 200,000 lines of LGPL and GPL environmental modeling code), and I still can't make Gnome behave to my notions, even when I've spent hours at it. Life is too short!
(For KDE, it takes me about 2 minutes.)

I'm a PowerUser environmental modeler (having written over 200,000 lines of LGPL and GPL environmental modeling code), and I still can't make Gnome behave to my notions, even when I've spent hours at it. Life is too short!
(For KDE, it takes me about 2 minutes.)

Ok, this comment was amusing:) What actualy is a PowerUser in desktop concept?

If you were meaning to say you do things like remote administration, coding, heavy art drawing... I would be in the same group too.

And it takes me exactly 3 options for desktop to behave exactly as I need (rollup instead of maximize, allways group and disable screensaver)

While KDE poses too many distracting and unusable options everywhere by default, and disabling them is a pain in the ass.

btw. I like SimpleKDE concept very much on the other hand. And is as easy to set up as Gnome

Edited 2006-04-28 18:43

How is KDE not flexible as compared to Gnome?

KDE and Gnome are not the only WM/DEs available. "Ultimate" does not mean "better than one (or a few) of the others."

KDE offers ultimate control and flexibility

Whenever I see something like this, I just crack up in laughter. KDE flexible? Puh-lease. Even IceWM offers better configurability, not to mention FVWM or a host of other WMs.

Are you using your own version of KDE thats different from everybody elses? Its a well known fact that KDE is highly flexible and can be customised to levels that don't exist in other DEs.

Before anyone else replies to this I'll point out that the parent said

Are you using your own version of KDE thats different from everybody elses? Its a well known fact that KDE is highly flexible and can be customised to levels that don't exist in other DEs.

WM need not apply.

In fact, AFAIK there are only 4 DEs on linux: KDE, GNOME, XFCE, and e17.

Oh and how about my prediction for the future:

NO DE will win since usability standards are converging and that cross-platform nature of apps will mean that which DE will matter a lot less.

Afger all, I switched my family from IE to Firefox and NOBODY NOTICED!!!.

Articles aren't human. The author of the article is the troll. This article is flamebait depending on how someone's views the Linux DE.

"It's true that KDE suffers because of licensing issues..."

KDE does NOT suffer from ANY licensing issues. KDE and QT is GPLed software.

Edited 2006-04-28 18:18

Well, it suffers because of popular misconceptions, then. And because non-GPL development requires a paid Qt license. (I'm a KDE user; definitely not trying to slight the big K here.)

KDE does Not suffer from ANY licensing issues...

Well, not exactly. Free applications written using QT widgets don't require a license but commercial applications do require one.

I could also make one suggestion to the poster: if you are going to put things in caps indicating you are yelling correct information you might want to actually *read* the license first.

Directly from KDE's site:
...the use of the KDE libraries is free of charge for development of commercial applications. However, the KDE libraries rely on the Qt library. Thus you will probably need to obtain a license of Qt from Trolltech.

Please, be aware of the advantage that an investment in Qt licenses brings, as it won't be limited to commercial KDE development, but it will also allow general commercial Qt development and will eventually enable multi-platform software development.

However, developing free software applications for KDE does not require a commercial Qt license.


Edited 2006-04-28 18:28

And why should I care as a KDE user and free (as in freedom) software supporter if commercial applications using QT require a license?

You don't have to, but you must understand that many do care this issue, and they are more of what you think.

Edited 2006-04-28 19:09

The fact that it is GPL is the issue. While the GPL is a great licence, it is rather restrictive. Very few people, corporations, or whoever likes to feel chained by a licence.

This isn't to say that the GPL doesn't have it's place or that I disagree with QT using the GPL (it is their choice, after all) but that because QT uses a relatively restrictive licence versus a rather relaxed one (such as the LGPL or BSD licences) it does suffer from licencing issues that will disqualify it for use from a larger potential developer base.

Edited 2006-04-29 16:53

So, if you hate Windows you hate KDE too? non sense since most of the Linux users hate Windows as well.

The reason why someone should use Linux is becaue they like it better, not because they dislike Microsoft.

The reason why someone should use Linux is becaue they like it better, not because they dislike Microsoft.

The reason I use Linux over MS is precisely because I have an intense dislike for windows, a hatred you might call it. Why? Not sure, but it's there stronger now then ever. Maybe it's the way they oprerate monopolistic practices and all. Or maybe they brainwashed people in to think they havea great product.

The reason I use Linux over MS is precisely because I have an intense dislike for windows, a hatred you might call it. Why? Not sure, but it's there stronger now then ever. Maybe it's the way they oprerate monopolistic practices and all. Or maybe they brainwashed people in to think they havea great product.

Agreed ! Except that my dislike for Microsoft came after I really started enjoying Linux. Before, well I was a brainwashed person also.

I use Non-MS software at work because the entire company is Non-MS (and no, we aren't a tech company). However, through that experience, I've found that if worse came to worst, I would be able to tolerate not using Windows at all.

But for now, I still use XP at home.

So, if you hate Windows you hate KDE too? non sense since most of the Linux users hate Windows as well.

You are great at taking comments out of context, I'll grant you that. I never said that what I said was that "if you used Windows you'll like KDE" not if you liked windows. I personnaly hate Windows and like KDE

Yep, for reasons that havent been true since windows 9x. Most people only say they hate windows and like linux to get attention at this point.

Edited 2006-04-28 15:56

Yep, for reasons that havent been true since windows 9x. Most people only say they hate windows and like linux to get attention at this point.

Believe me I don't say I hate windows to get attention, if I wanted attention I'd make sure to put in a $ when I spell it or call it winblows.

I most genuinely have a hatered for windows, so much so that I changed university because of thier total reliance on windows and not admit to better products.

If you genuinely hate (hate is avery strong word) Windows, you'll be able to list of a number of reasons...

Proceed.

BSD for unix lovers..
Linux for the Windows haters..

Blaah...

I'd like Gnome if they'd dump that thing they call a window manager...

KDE is a far nicer environment, and gnome apps work great under it .

KDE also has a hard time getting 3rd party apps because your app has to depend on a huge library, and its startup depends on kde services. With Gnome apps you just depend on the libraries you select (often you can just make it a gtk app). This makes your program available to a lot more people!

No one has anything on kmail yet though .

>The war isn't over, nor has gnome won.

The war has never started! The war is just something which is used from some trolls and users who have nothing better to do than wrangle with other about senseless topics.

There was no war, there is no war and there will never be a war between KDE and GNOME. We have two great Free Software Desktop Environments and many great Free Software Window Manager and everyone can pick whatever he wants.

I had Windows hose my hard drive on account of bad graphics drivers (I am not shitting you on this, hand to God), so I went with Linux.

Originally, I installed SuSE 8.1, which ran with KDE. I adored it. It was such a great time! Using the computer was fun (and a little challenging) again!

Over time, I installed the GNOME desktop on SuSE and found that I really preferred a lot of its features. After SuSE 9.2, I moved to Ubuntu's Hoary or Warty or whatever-the-hell was their first release, GNOME based, obviously, and it was great.

I don't like KDE because I came from Windows. In fact, quite the opposite happened: I came from Windows, and found I liked GNOME.

A lifelong Mac-using friend of mine, on the other hand, insisted right-out that we install Kubuntu on his non-Mac box, rather than the GNOME default Ubuntu. He liked KDE because it was prettier.

I've also dabbled in fvwm (yay CS computer labs) and e17 and XFCE. They're all very functional and have their place (even the non-DE fvwm). To each, his own, though, I say.

where did you get that number? Seems pretty high to me.

Lol you still managed to troll. It isn't 70%, it's less.

The 70% figure I think was around 2-3 years ago, its around 50-60% today, with a rise in the more minimalist window managers - XFCE has really taken off, as those disappointed with the direction of KDE and GNOME have looked for a plce where a desktop environment is just that, rather than (in their words) a 'bloated desktop'.

What GNOME 3.0 however, requires is a feature complete framework - HAL/DBUS/Cairo and the likes fully feature complete and integrated into GNOME, from top to bottom - - get to a stage that all the infrastructure is setup, and its just a matter on each release, tweaking things, bug fixing, and maybe adding some new features/applications.

A far cry from the holy grail it may be but default option on the distros of choice is not a bad distinction to have.

I'm not sure I'd even call them the distros of choice, just a couple of the larger commercial distros. Gentoo is a dsitro of choice for lots of people and is DE neutral for example. Linspire is a commercial distro wich has a KDE DE and has had some success, kubuntu shares equal billing with ubuntu with reguards to commercial support also.

Windows have not won either, its just the default one..

second that, but i really doubt its ability to gain much in the way of corporate support- it's just way too cool

E17 is unstable, but I don't care. I love it and using it. But it's not going to have corporate support like Gnome/KDE does. Because it's not a complete DE rather WM!

How does fiddling with Window manager features teach you to use Linux? In GNOME the terminal is just a few clicks away. It's no less Linux than KDE. It offers enough configuration without going overboard. I like it, it gets out of the way just like a usable desktop environment should. To say it's a barrier to getting to know Linux is silly. I'm no less able to compile source code or run any application than I am under KDE. And taking a recent example, how is adding things like Deskbar "trying hard to create less and less features"?

Knowing you way around kcontrol no more makes you an expert at Linux than knowing how to launch the control panel in Windows. A Linux distribution is a layered operating system (kernel/gnu tools/X/WM/etc.), not just a desktop environment. And neither GNOME or KDE get in the way of you learning about those different layers if you want to.

So arguments about GNOME being less Linux seem just plain silly to me. I've been using Linux since about 1997 and have gone through lots of Window Managers, from FVWM to WindowMaker, blackbox, fluxbox and then GNOME. None of those environments will stop you learning about Linux, and usability doesn't automatically make something less Linux.