Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 13th Mar 2003 17:43 UTC
Editorial A KDE developer tipped me off to a recent thread discussed in the kde-core-devel mailing list regarding interoperability between KDE and Gnome. OSNews featured an interview with the usability experts from Gnome and KDE a few days ago and we expected that the spirit of co-operation would continue to get stronger every day. Luckily this is true regarding most of these developers, but not for all of them are sharing it. Here is a commentary on the issue followed by a summary of the long thread.
Order by: Score:
Bullshit
by Adam on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:07 UTC

You have lost a lot of credibility in my eyes for disparaging those of us who do not work for commercial companies. Just because we do not wish to see the gradual erosion of our work into some lowest common denominator does not mean we only have 'political motivations'.

For all of you who are clamoring for so much interoperability ... you are missing the point. GNOME, KDE, MacOSX, Java/Swing, Motif, Windows are all different platforms with different reasons and motivations. The Free platforms *should* strive to interoperate where appropriate and where there are trivial differences. Shared specs as long as the design fundamentals of both groups are respected should be developed.

That does not mean that they should be merged or 'nullified'. People who advocate this are secretly wish that Linux only had one desktop and bemoan the fact that several different applications with surface similarities exist such as KOffice/OpenOffice and Konqui/Mozilla. This wealth of applications and choices are a good thing and the same can be said of desktop/software platforms. While I am a KDE fan and only really use KDE apps, I recognize and respect that others prefer GNOME and it necessarily follows that GNOME is a good thing because it satisfies some segment that KDE does not! Choice is good!

Don't be fooled by all of these who call for the gradual merging of everything. They are either corporations or employees of corporations that are to scared to make a choice OR they wish to control/have a hand in, all of these projects and hence don't have enough time, money to get there hands in on everything ... so they try and 'nullify' it all.

KDE has strengths and I don't want to see them go away just so that it can agree with GNOME on a lowest common denominator.

GNOME has strengths and I don't want to see them go away just so that it can agree with KDE on a lowest common denominator.

All of those who are of like mind ... both KDE developers and GNOME developers have good reasons and you shouldn't try and play them down just because you like RedHat and what they are doing. It is an insult to the community.

KDE/Gnome
by JCooper on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:09 UTC

I think both have benefits / disadvantages. However the main disadvantage, and what I feel is holding back linux on the desktop, is the differences in implementation and general "My x is better than your y".

What I would ideally like to see is something like UnitedLinux with the desktops. But rather than just the standards (like freedesktop), instead implement a new UnitedDE based on contributions from Gnome, KDE, xfce etc. The dominant coding hackers who aren't elitist about their DE can contribute to this environment as well as their DE of choice.

This is the only way we are ever going to see a truly unified Linux Desktop for the masses IMO.

Back in the real world......
by Cheezewog on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:12 UTC

Could anyone name two PC audio workstation programs that look the same?

Logic has a totally different gui and widgets to Cubase, which is nothing like Sonar, which is nothing like Pro tools. They all have different key bindings, different menus etc etc.

If four programs that do the same basic task can have completely different widget sets and guis, but be totally acceptable to their users, why is there so much emphasis on apps all looking the same?

Sometimes, the best interface for a program is the one works best for that task, not just the one provided by the OS you use.

RE: Bullshit
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:15 UTC

> You have lost a lot of credibility in my eyes for disparaging those of us who do not work for commercial companies.

First of all, only SOME of you are getting the hot cake from my article. There are plenty of individual hackers who are very cooperative and they "get it". But others don't.
Linux has become commercial a lot, it is naive to think otherwise. Some rules have changed over the years. And personally, I find that positive for the Linux platform adoption.

>just because you like RedHat

Knee jerk (non)thinking. Sorry.
I don't "like" Red Hat, neither I "like" Mandrake or SuSE. None of them is paying for my monthly rent. Heck, I don't even use Linux as much as I use XP or OSX (which I prefer for desktop operations).

But what I wrote is SIMPLY what I believe it should be done if you want to see Linux as a desktop platform having more than 0,40% of the market. If you want to leave things as is, that's fine for me. But IF Linux platform wants to get more users and PROVE all that hype it's got, then you better co-operate.

RE: Back in the real world......
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:18 UTC

>why is there so much emphasis on apps all looking the same

It is not just about that. "looking" the same, is just one of the 20-30 more things they have to be done in addition.

As for the audio apps, traditionally these apps have "cool" non-standard interface. It is mostly a tradition kind of thing, while other times they just emulate devices, so they try to make their GUI look like these devices. However, a desktop environment does not bent on that rule.

.
by Rich on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:19 UTC

Sigh..

- Why don't they create a general HTML library out of KHTML that could be used by KDE (std widgets), Gnome (std widgets) and Apple (Safari)?
- Why don't they (KDE/Gnome) use one big library for STL-like stuff? (lists, queues, hash tables, string support, etc)
- Why am I replying to this article while I know the previous stuff will never happen?
(altough I would really like that, just take the good stuff of both environments and create _general_ desktop libraries out of them)

Wishful thinking..

What an insult!
by Adam on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:20 UTC

"I believe that the real problem in co-operation between Gnome and KDE (as I see it in the mailing list discussion) are the people who don't work for these companies. These people (thankfully not all of them ;) don't view the world with the eyes of someone who wants to make a better product."

Ok, so all of us who care for and develop these projects in our own time should just go away so the corporations can turn our stuff into something that is 'usable for the masses'. How can you state that non-commercial developers don't wish to make the software better? Why don't you keep a list of non-commercial VS commercial developers whenever you use a piece of Free Software and see which is column is longer.

You should reread those lists and you'll find that many have *no problem* with shared specs and standards when no major disagreements exist in the implementation. Many disagree because so many view these common specs as one step towards holding integration across platforms above all else!

Usual spectator's mistake
by Roberto on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:22 UTC

Quote from the article:

> But what I don't like is allowing these independent hackers get in the > way of evolution because of their own political/religious agendas

While I also am for integration, I also know this:

What you like or don't like is worthless in principle. The hacker's political/religious agendas, on the other hand, are important by default.

Why, because they are the ones spending effort on creating the thing in the first place. Sure, you are "grateful" for their work. But you also say you don't like that they spend their effort furthering their own goals!

Appreciation the means while condemning the ends is, of course, stupid, because the ends are the final cause of the means. If the hackers decided that their ends (their "political/religious agendas") could not be efficiently advanced by their work (the means), the work would stop in a jiffie.

And what would you be left with? Whatever commercial companies could afford to develop. Which, in the current situation, is very little.

My guess is that path leads to dead OSs, like OS/2 and BeOS, if history is any guide.

So, stop pretending that the current free software is somehow an unexpectedly good side effect of the hackers, it is provided to you ONLY by them, and if they didn't have those "political/religious agendas", they wouldn't have provided it to you.

If you want to influence what they are giving you, the smart course of action is embracing them and convincing them, kindly and politely. And the sentence I quoted above is definitely a stupid course of action.

Here some user feedback
by Pelvete on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:23 UTC
RE: What an insult!
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:23 UTC

No, it was not an insult. The wording is "better product" as in "commercial product" not "better software". Of course and you DO want your project to be better, but not necessarily in the same ways a commercial PRODUCT would want to be.
Sorry for the wording mix up there.

> You should reread those lists and you'll find that many have *no problem* with shared specs and standards when no major disagreements exist in the implementation.

Of course!!! This is why the title says SOME people. NOT all. Don't generalize more than I did, please. ;)

RE: Usual spectator's mistake
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:26 UTC

>What you like or don't like is worthless in principle.

Sure. But this was an editorial, so I speak for MYSELF.

@Eugenia
by Adam on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:27 UTC

[First of all, only SOME of you are getting the hot cake from my article. There are plenty of individual hackers who are very cooperative and they "get it". But others don't.
Linux has become commercial a lot, it is naive to think otherwise. Some rules have changed over the years. And personally, I find that positive for the Linux platform adoption.]

And all those who don't fall in line with what the corporations want some how 'don't get it'. No, I think I understand you just fine.

[Knee jerk (non)thinking. Sorry.
I don't "like" Red Hat, neither I "like" Mandrake or SuSE. None of them is paying for my monthly rent. Heck, I don't even use Linux as much as I use XP or OSX (which I prefer for desktop operations).]

"...RedHat and what they are doing." If you are going to quote then at least do it in context. So, you don't like what RedHat is doing? You don't identify them as the champion of this 'integrate above all else' philosophy? Ok, Eugenia, if you don't use Linux on the desktop then you should write Apple and tell them how they shoudl integrate Aqua with KDE and GNOME because all of these different desktops is only hurting the Unix desktop.

[But what I wrote is SIMPLY what I believe it should be done if you want to see Linux as a desktop platform having more than 0,40% of the market. If you want to leave things as is, that's fine for me. But IF Linux platform wants to get more users and PROVE all that hype it's got, then you better co-operate.]

Oh yah, back to the 'it's just my opinion' thing again. Ok, well I SIMPLY believe that you are full of crap, insulting, and have no appreciation for what the non-commercial developers have done. Sorry. That's just my opinion ;)

RE: Usual spectator's mistake
by Roberto on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:29 UTC

> >What you like or don't like is worthless in principle.

> Sure. But this was an editorial, so I speak for MYSELF.

Ok, if you enjoy spend ing your time expressing useless opinions instead of performing useful action, who am I to argue.

It's just that the article gave me the impression that you thought it was worth something.

RE: @Eugenia
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:32 UTC

>So, you don't like what RedHat is doing?

Depends about what you are talking about. I like BlueCurve's aims and I like interoperability that RH is pushing. I like these qualities.
However, Red Hat is a corporation, so not everything is fine... ;-)

>you are full of crap,

Hardly.

> insulting,

Maybe. Maybe not.

> have no appreciation for what the non-commercial developers have done

Quote from the article: "These hackers are doing a lot of work for free, and the community is grateful for it, and I am too." But that won't mean that I will AGREE with you on each and every topic. Because I don't.

OSX -quality
by pthree on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:35 UTC

Instead of quibbling over the mechanics of 2 seperate DE's couldn't some of that energy be funneled into a OSX clone? I would love OSX/QE on x86 hardware but i cannot get by with KDE's kludgy UI, nor gnome's appearance. With all the freshmeat projects and talent you would think someone would be willing to waste time on replication of OSX. i use deb for servers, 2k/xp for desktop.

I though Linux could be customized...
by RonG on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:37 UTC

.. for every style.

The religious Gnome and KDE types can have their own peculiar systems, and those that want a unified look can have that too.
And the cli people don't have to install either.
There seems to be a distro available for every taste.

So what is everyone getting all huffy about?

If you don't like what someone else is doing, do it yourself or don't install it.

RE: Usual spectator's mistake
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:37 UTC

> Ok, if you enjoy spend ing your time expressing useless opinions instead of performing useful action

My job over here is to write articles, not hacking KDE's or Gnome's code.

>It's just that the article gave me the impression that you thought it was worth something.

It is an editorial. It worths as much as every other editorial. I expect no less and no more.

v Eugenia
by Adam on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:38 UTC
Why don't you push Apple to nullify Aqua?
by Adam on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:41 UTC

Eugenia, since Aqua is your favorite desktop then why aren't you pushing KDE and GNOME to integrate with MacOSX and pushing apple in the other? Don't you see it as critical if Unix desktops are ever going to break 0.4%? And don't say no because KDE and GNOME are linux desktops ... they are not. They work on many if not all the major Unix like systems including MacOSX/Darwin.

Nullify QT
by Jon Smirl on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:41 UTC

If Redhat has such a problem with the QT licenses, why don't they just clone QT, release it LGPL then join KDE? That would be a lot less work than building a parallel environment.

I do agree that it is not in Linux's best interest to have a core GUI kit require licenses($$) when writing non-GPL code.

RE: Why don't you push Apple to nullify Aqua?
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:45 UTC

>since Aqua is your favorite desktop

It is not!
My favorite desktop is something between XP and BeOS (with some OSX touches here and there). In other words, it doesn't exist. ;)

>why aren't you pushing KDE and GNOME to integrate with MacOSX and pushing apple in the other?

I hope you are just being sarcastic here, because that comment is simply idiotic and non-logical. Aqua is not part of the Linux platform, neither is open, neither Apple wants it to be. It's theirs. But KDE and Gnome are open and everyone's. There is a difference.

>why don't they just clone QT, release it LGPL then join KDE?

Because it took Trolltech 10 years to bring Qt in the state there is today. Do you think that RH or anyone else has 10 years to spend and sit around and wait?

Nullify QT
by Jon Smirl on Thu 13th Mar 2003 18:58 UTC

>Because it took Trolltech 10 years to bring Qt in the state there is today. Do you think that RH or anyone else has 10 years to spend and sit around and wait?

Redhat could simply buy Trolltech and change the license.

RE: Nullify QT
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:03 UTC

>Redhat could simply buy Trolltech

Trolltech's main business are not Red Hat's business and we should not forget that Trolltech is also an embedded systems company, a sector of technology that had better results than others these days after the dot com boom. In other words, Trolltech can prove more expensive that Red Hat can handle. And buying them, wouldn't change much anyway for RH, so there is no good business reason to try and buy them.

readme
by Unknown on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:04 UTC

See, the biggest problem that GNOME has is their time is running away, the powerusers are running away (those that could be GNOME developers are developing KDE apps nowadays), GNOME's own people are not necessarily happy, Miguel de Icaza and Havoc Pennington have both admit that KDE is far better. Comparing the GNOME newspages you read all sorts of things like 'KDE and GNOME finally agreed on unifying the HIG', 'KDE and GNOME finally agreed to work together' and 'KDE and GNOME finally agreed on unity'. And beliving in this the same people announce this happy cooperation on various news pages only to suggest the readers that there are big things going on. While on the other hand reading the KDE pages shows the exact opposite. Even the unified HIG page is stagnating and places such as freedesktop.org are only a nice breakfast discussion forum. Knowing the fact that GNOME has all these issues there are some poor attempts from Seth Nickel and Havoc Pennington getting the KDE developers into cooperation. But you are missing some points here. The KDE people are in no need to create standards because they already made a working consistent Desktop while GNOME still suffers from simple things such as Filechoosers. This kind of cooperation will only throw the serious development process of KDE significant back and re-implementing all the things the way GNOME developers like to see it will put the Desktop back for another 2-3 years on Linux. See, KDE are the first one with a working Desktop and KDE today are the leading forces on bringing the Desktop on Linux and KDE is 5 years ahead of what's on GNOME today. They are not in the need and not in the mood (from reading the kde-core-devel Mailinglist) to re-invent all sort of libraries or adapt poorly designed GNOME components in KDE. Havoc Pennington is arguing on named List that people should not care wether they use OpenOffice, Evolution, Mozilla and other components on whatever Desktop but the real point is that we on KDE have no real need to run these applications because we already have powerful counterparts for them. We use KDE because we want unified integrated applications, regardless the fact that they are better or worse than other apps. We understand that GNOME lacks serious Office suites and really nice integrated Webbrowsers but that's not our problem. See, they came to us (KDE) and we not to them. You have and must understand that KDE has a wide acceptance even in the german government and most major Distributions offer KDE as default Desktop. We deliver the Desktop and the Tools for a wide area of people including real business and corporations. What does GNOME have to offer that we couldn't offer on KDE ? What business applications (that don't crash) can GNOME offer for business ? See, we are not in the bad position after all. KDE since the version of 3.0 has a stable, documented and working framework and we offer a lot of applications for business today. Application development is a rapid process these days. People need half (if not a quarter) the time than GNOME need to develop applications. Not to mention the poor documentation of the libraries and the lack of poor programming manuals will make it take 5-6 times longer than normal because GNOME developers need to spent more time finding out how things has to be done before they can do it for their own programs. Why should GNOME and KDE cooperate to work together what reasons are there? GNOME is comming to us all the time so if they don't like fragmentation then simply join KDE and develop on one desktop. This will stop fragmentation, this will offer good documentations for development, this will offer a far better framework and offers more applications than existing on GNOME. It's after all as simple as this.


>>why don't they just clone QT, release it LGPL then join KDE?

>Because it took Trolltech 10 years to bring Qt in the state
>there is today. Do you think that RH or anyone else has 10
>years to spend and sit around and wait?

Perhaps the real question we should be asking is why didn't Redhat, a company that claims to be interested in desktop market, take some of the $700,000,000+ they spent on a compiler company and some questionable dot coms and use it to buy out Trolltech an standardize on Qt (thus settling this issue once and for all)? It would have given them an extremely integrated, high-quality API that is written in an object-oriented language, is very cross-platform, and has decent embedded prospects.

Linux Corporation vs. Linux Volunteer Developer is a silly battle; both sides are equally stupid and inept.


Adam
by Captain Chris on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:06 UTC

You need to learn to read the articles before you open your yap and spew out some knee-jerk reactions. The editorial AND the thread summation that followed were basically about interoperability, not about "merging" and "nullifying," as you put it. In fact, there was at least one point where it was mentioned that this was NOT about "merging." The editorial also made it clear that Linux really is still a great OS for the individual/private hacker, and there's nothing wrong with that. Go do what you want--I truly wish you all the best. But ignoring the big picture--that Linux is headed straight for the consumer and business desktops--is absurd. And your last post just shows that you've run out of ammo and are just grasping at rhetorical straws.

RE: Why don't you push Apple to nullify Aqua?
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:07 UTC

> why didn't Redhat, a company that claims to be interested in desktop market, take some of the $700,000,000+ they spent on a compiler company

When they did that, Red Hat had all the money they needed from their IPO. It is not 1999 anymore, remember?
Additionally, Red Hat only became interested in the corporate desktop market only last year, especially after their contracts with Sun.
So as you can see, you have to think a bit with "timing" in order to answer this question.

RE: Captain Chris
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:08 UTC

Thank you Captain Chris! ;)

Ok, that is your job, but what is your goal?
by Roberto on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:10 UTC

Eugenia said: "My job over here is to write articles"

OK, but what is your goal. Is writing articles what you want to achieve? I doubt it. I mean, it would be shallow. Just out of curiosity, if you would like to share, what is the bigger goal, what is the final purpose of the article-writing?

Is there such a purpose? Or are the articles just random expressions without an objective?

Wrong, wrong, wrong!
by stopdabombing on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:11 UTC

I simply disagree with the idea that Linux will die due to Unix-like splintering.

If we have a choice of compromising KDE or GNOME in order to achieve "unity", then I'd rather not have such inferior unity. To me, what makes Linux fun is not "taking over the world", but OPTIMAL PERFORMANCE - and the moment I see "unity" as lowering OPTIMAL performance, I say screw "unity".

That brings us to: what happens if KDE and GNOME continue as they are? Will they die like UNIX? NO. This I think is the main mistake of the editorial. I happen to think that IN FACT, Linux can have success with KDE and GNOME as completely separate. Like OSX and XP - those are separate, but together they are 98% of the desktop. Why can't one day KDE be (for example) 60% of the desktop, GNOME 30%, Win 5% and Mac 5%?

Who says Linux cannot "take over the world" with KDE-centric distros and GNOME-centric distros co-existing?

Finally, have you heard of Darwin? That may make this whole discussion pointless. By evolution either KDE or GNOME may pull ahead and the other simply die a natural death. By the looks of today, GNOME is the slower ship. Let them drift... and one day, KDE will be 90% of the Linux desktop, and THERE YOU HAVE YOUR ONE ENVIRONMENT, which is after all your goal with "unity", right? Not "unity" for its own sake! Maybe GNOME will be the dominant species, maybe KDE, but it can happen naturally. After all, didn't Windows take over quite on its own, without Apple having to "unify" with Windows? And Windows ended up with 95% of the market. Same can happen to either GNOME or KDE. No need to "unify".

You underestimate Linux if you think it'll die or NOT EXPAND TO CHALLENGE WINDOWS, just because KDE and GNOME remain ununified - Linux is much stronger than Unix because it has the enthusiasm of developers all over the world, so it won't die a splintered death like Unix. Linux can AFFORD to have both KDE and GNOME and thrive. Remember crucially, in the end it is the hackers who are key - if they work best by having two separate desktops, LET THEM DO IT, because they are the ones doing the work, and the reason they do it, is because they love OPTIMAL performance - take that away and put them into some kind of Stalinist "unity" and lower standards, and they walk away. So it will NOT happen, and I'm glad it won't.

License is the root problem
by Jon Smirl on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:11 UTC

Redhat is forced into creating Gnome. RH can't go into a commerical account and make a sale of their big $$$ products and then say: "Oh by the way, you need to go buy licenses from Trolltech for all of your internal developers". This is politically impossible. Sun and IBM won't do it either.

QT has to go LGPL or RH will keep build Gnome.

I doubt that Trolltech is worth more than $200M, probably less. RH could easily acquire them. What are Trolltech's revenues?

@Captain Chris
by Unknown on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:12 UTC

That Adam dude is one of the core authors and developers of KDE. Treaten him like shit won't help and backup your arguments either. It's sad from Eugenia forcing her opinions on others just because she runs a news site.

RE: Wrong, wrong, wrong!
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:17 UTC

>I simply disagree with the idea that Linux will die due to Unix-like splintering.

NOBODY said it will "die". But it will have much SLOWER market adoption!

>To me, what makes Linux fun is not "taking over the world", but OPTIMAL PERFORMANCE

Why are you not using Solaris or IRIX then?

>That Adam dude is one of the core authors and developers of KDE. Treaten him like shit...

Nobody is treating him like shit. He brings that upon himself by generalizing and talking non-logical statements (aqua) and by not understanding the bigger picture that I try to present. He is exactly the type of guy I mention in the article about religions, so he doesn't like to hear about it. And he naturally gets pissed. I am grateful for all his work, but that doesn't mean we agree on everything about strategy.

> It's sad from Eugenia forcing her opinions ..

That's funny.

yes ?
by Unknown on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:19 UTC

> QT has to go LGPL or RH will keep build Gnome.

Why do you think QT has to go LGPL ? The creators of QT did a big gift to the public already by GPL'ing the code and I personally have no issues with it. Let RH contibue working on GNOME the natural darwinism selection will let the strong and fast one survive in this case KDE because GNOME will need a bunch of years to keep up at least with 5% of the functionality that KDE offers today.

IMPORTANT REQUEST
I would welcome everyone to change the objective of this conversation and that we start looking behind GNOME and KDE, let's compare both systems from developers view of things, this will clear up all sorts of understanding problems. Let's compare both desctops for their documentation, clean implementation, code, speed of application creation and other things.



>When they did that, Red Hat had all the money they needed
>from their IPO. It is not 1999 anymore, remember?
>Additionally, Red Hat only became interested in the corporate
>desktop market only last year, especially after their
>contracts with Sun.
>So as you can see, you have to think a bit with "timing" in
>order to answer this question.

My point is that if a company has for years been unwilling to spend the time and resources to make a quality desktop product and has constantly devauled usability issues, they should stay in the server closet where they belong.

"Time" or "we've suddenly discovered the linux desktop" is simply no excuse for these people.

The problem.
by minkwe on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:22 UTC

Interoperability is the key!.

The problem only obstacle is 'religion' with a pinch of ego. You know the 'my religion is better than yours' kind of thing or 'if we use their technology then it means we acknowledge its worth which is true but we really don't want to say that'.

Those complaining about the effort should answer this:

How would you feel if every app has its own unique clipboard and file selector, and the coder decided to set the app font to his favorite font 'Courier'? Before answering this, remember he has the right to do it and according to some posters, since MacOSX and WinXP are different why shouldn't apps be allowed to look and behave differently also.

If you are honest with yourself, then you would answer that, because they have to follow guidelines? But why do they have to follow guidelines? According to some posters, why should all apps be forced to the same common denominator, when the coder may want to do his own things?

The answer is obviously so the the apps interoperate with each other. If interoperability is permitted within one DE, why should it not be permitted accross DEs then?

The answer then boils down to 'religion' and egos. You start hearing things like:


I don't think it's fair to expect the KDE community to link to the core libraries of the Gnome project while saying that the Gnome project is not willing to link to the core libraries of the KDE project. I know, I know, "tainted by the GPL" or whatever, but that just doesn't seem like the way that things are supposed to work.


How are things supposed to work then Scott? Do you look at the value of the library and the benefits, or at the fact that it is a GNOME library? This is pure religion and will not take us anywhere. Statements like these just feed the trolls.

Please GNOME and KDE developers, stop this bullshit and start thinking out of the Box.

RE: The problem.
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:23 UTC

Minkwe, THAT's the spirit!! ;) ;)

Re: License is the root problem
by Kendall Bennett on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:30 UTC

I think your point is very, very important to any Linux company expecting to make inroads into the commercial desktop operating system market. Developers of commercial desktop applications won't be too thrilled to have to shell out significant sums of money to TrollTech in order to develop and sell commercial KDE based applications on the Linux platform. GNOME is LGPL so it allows this particular use so is more 'commercial software friendly'.

Naturally none of the free software developers or hacker community really give a shit about this issue, because they only care about free software or open source software so commercial software for Linux is of no consequence for them (and hence a common later between KDE and GNOME also). And theirin lies the problem. Linux is at a cross roads right now with the tug of commercial developers pulling it one way and the tug of the original free software and open source developers tugging it the other way. The two ways are simply not compatible, and IMHO is the primary reason why Linux cannot succeed in the desktop space.

Why not let one pull ahead of the other? Would you advocate that MSFT drop everything they're doing, so they can "unify" with Amiga? And saying that having KDE and GNOME separate will slow down the adoption of Linux is bull. What will slow things down is for KDE to try to "unify" with GNOME. Gnome is falling behind - let them die, it is faster this way. Or let KDE die. Just because RH can't bring themselves to deal with KDE doesn't mean the whole Linux community needs to drop everything and "unify" so that RH can be happy. Sorry, let RH learn to deal with KDE - buy Trolltech if they have to, whatever. But don't cripple KDE (or GNOME) in the name of "unity". How would this sound: "hey windows users, here, we have ONE desktop, that won't confuse you, sure it is mediocre as a result of "unity", but hey, it is only ONE". No thanks.

'Null'
by Adam on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:32 UTC

[>since Aqua is your favorite desktop

It is not!
My favorite desktop is something between XP and BeOS (with some OSX touches here and there). In other words, it doesn't exist. ;) ]

"... I use XP or OSX (which I prefer for desktop operations)."

Ok, so XP or Aqua is your favorite desktop that *actually exists* (See: not in fairy tale Eugenia land). Excuse me for failing to read your mind and see the wonderful desktop you dream of at night ;P

[I hope you are just being sarcastic here, because that comment is simply idiotic and non-logical. Aqua is not part of the Linux platform, neither is open, neither Apple wants it to be. It's theirs. But KDE and Gnome are open and everyone's. There is a difference.]

I am not and it is not. Differences ... that's my point! Yes, Aqua is different *and* so are GNOME and KDE. They have different technologies different goals different people different motivations/histories and different applications. You and RedHat wish to make them into the same thing for all intensive purposes. That is the point RedHat wishes to nullify the differences and that is the root motivation behind this push by Havoc.

[The editorial AND the thread summation that followed were basically about interoperability, not about "merging" and "nullifying," as you put it.]

No, the threads and arguments that Eugenia's article are referencing make quite clear that 'nullifying' is the goal. That is what RedHat has attempted. Some do not want to see any cooperation or shared specs between the desktops. I am not one of them. However, others are hoping to merge the two desktops. They view interoperability and integration to be king. I am not one of them either. RedHat and Eugenia are. They wish that all of the differences between KDE and GNOME that are visible to the end user to just go away.

@Unknown ... my contributions to KDE are piddly and I don't deserve any special consideration whatsoever. But as one who has contributed a tiny bit and one who wishes to contribute more to my favorite desktop ... thanks for the sentiment ;)

RE: Why not let KDE or GNOME WIN naturally???
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:33 UTC

>Why not let one pull ahead of the other?

Because that will take YEARS and the Linux distros don't have the time for these kind of silly races. They need to do work and they need to satisfy their customers. And TODAY, their customers want both Qt and GTK+ apps. They don't have the luxury to wait.

> Would you advocate that MSFT drop everything they're doing, so they can "unify" with Amiga?

That's silly now, please.

@Kendall Bennett
by Unknown on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:36 UTC

Developers of commercial desktop applications won't be too thrilled to have to shell out significant sums of money to TrollTech in order to develop and sell commercial KDE based applications on the Linux platform.

Now think again about this stupid sentence of yours. You take the rights of one to make money but allow the other to do so ? Or said differently the Developer of commercial applications shouldn't pay to Trolltech for one shitty license but still like to make money from his product ? Your comment is so what disqualified.

RE: 'Null'
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:37 UTC

>Some do not want to see any cooperation or shared specs between the desktops.

This is exactly what I want.

> I am not one of them. However, others are hoping to merge the two desktops.

This is NOT what I want. NEITHER Red Hat wants that. Read Havoc's article again please the one he speaks about Choice and Fragmentation. He outlines it fine there.

> They view interoperability and integration to be king. I am not one of them either. RedHat and Eugenia are.

No, this is not nullifying. This is what you just said: "interoperability and integration". This is NOT merging.

I think this is where all your understanding problems lie Adam. You don't understand the levels of changes that need to be done. You *think* that KDE won't be KDE anymore and Gnome won't be Gnome anymore. This is wrong. You are overreacting I guess.

@Eugenia
by Adam on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:40 UTC

[Nobody is treating him like shit. He brings that upon himself by generalizing and talking non-logical statements (aqua) and by not understanding the bigger picture that I try to present. He is exactly the type of guy I mention in the article about religions, so he doesn't like to hear about it. And he naturally gets pissed. I am grateful for all his work, but that doesn't mean we agree on everything about strategy.]

Ok, two things:

1. You can not say 'no one is treating him like shit' and then say 'he brings it upon himself' and then expect anyone to take you seriously when you claim that *I* am illogical. For the record, the first part is true: no one is treating _me_ like shit, but Eugenia is insulting to Free Software developers in general ;)

2. I don't have religion about this and I disagree with you. Claiming that I am religious just because I disagree is stupid. We disagree about the future of the Unix desktop. You feel it won't go anywhere unless all the choice and cool differences are eliminated and I feel otherwise.

Luckily, I am helping to make my version of the future happen while you just write stupid articles and hope others will listen to your 'big picture'. Another notable difference between you and I ... I use a Free Desktop every day and you are still stuck using your closed system.

@unknown (re: @Captain Chris)
by Captain Chris on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:41 UTC

I point out the fact that he's misread/misunderstood the article and I'm treating him like shit? Grow up.

And how the hell is it physically possible to force one's own opinioins on others? Did Eugenia somehow magically make you believe what she was saying? If so, you're an idiot and shouldn't be allowed to operate motorized vehicles or handle money.

You want me to back up what I say more fully? Ok, Big Boy:

In her editorial, Eugenia mentions "interoperability" no fewer than four times. She mentions that companies can and should "support both" (or words very much to that effect) no fewer than seven times. Not one time does she espouse "merging," "unifying," or anything to that effect. In fact, the following quote should clear things up:

And make no mistake: "the common standards that were defined up to now didn't make KDE nor Gnome lose their individuality". Choice is good and choice will remain. Nobody is saying to make Gnome and KDE the same project! What is needed are just some common standards that will make the life easier for the user and the application developer. Each project will retain its individuality, but instead of having, for example, a Gnome item working via the notification area in the gnome taskbar just fine and
then you run the same app under KDE and you get the notification little app as a real window and not on KDE's notification area, that is very bothersome for the user.


Did you get that? "Choice is good and choice will remain"? "just some common standards"? "Each project will retain its individuality"?

I didn't bother going over the thread summary, because I have a life. But everything I said in my earlier post about what the devs said is true, too. Read it.

That backup enough for you, Sport?

usability experts from Gnome and KDE ??
by looncraz on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:42 UTC

Usability experts from Gnome and KDE!?!?

WTF!?!?

HAHA!!

That is hilarious!!

I have never particularly found either to be intuitive, consistent, or really anywhere near as usable as even Windows 3.1!!!

OMG!!

Yikes..

BTW, eugenia:

http://looncraz.tripod.com/

I will soon be posting some shots of some Zeta decors that have been previously allowed to be shown.

I have done some repairs that you didn't even bring up, but was by others.

And one that was astonishly inconsistent with what should be. hehe.. such as rounding ONE inside corner..hmm.. oops ;-). Though when y'all finally see the type of coding that goes into this, it will be understandable by the masses..

--The loon

@Eugenia
by Unknown on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:47 UTC

Because that will take YEARS and the Linux distros don't have the time for these kind of silly races. They need to do work and they need to satisfy their customers. And TODAY, their customers want both Qt and GTK+ apps. They don't have the luxury to wait.

Exactly that's why this cooperation sucks this will throw both desktop significant back for YEARS if they need to merge stuff or work on unified standards. They are too different from programming, from framework, from code and from implementation. KIOslaves are not GNOME-VFS, DCOP is not CORBA and so on. Please see it from a programmers perspective for a moment, this kind of cooperating is simply not possible anymore.

This is NOT what I want. NEITHER Red Hat wants that. Read Havoc's article again please the one he speaks about Choice and Fragmentation. He outlines it fine there.

And here is the problem Havoc speaks for himself not for the whole community and not for KDE itself. While his idea has some points the core problems are differently. The way Havoc likes to see things means that KDE or GNOME has to change sigificant code. Say they both agree that gnome-vfs and kioslaves have to go, they now create knome-vfslaves, the code may be new a core component shared by both, now can you imagine how much work this requires for both to change ? GNOME is in a nowhere position because they don't offer something productive at all to say their Desktop suxx while the one from KDE is really usable and productive. Now the question:

a) why should KDE agree with GNOME to do something new
b) can you imagine what work is required to change all this just because Havoc thinks it's right ?
c) What purpose or what reason is there for KDE to unify with GNOME while GNOME has to offer nothing. It's their project, their shit and their code not the ones from KDE.

Some guesses
by Mike Hearn on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:50 UTC

Adam = Adam Treat, or manyoso on Slashdot. I had a fun thread with him and a few others the other day on the subject of glib/gobject.

Unknown = oGALAXYo.

Re: License is the root problem
by Jon Smirl on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:53 UTC

Trolltech's GPL does more than stop commercial developers. It also stops the BSD/MPL class of license too - ie. the ones that say open source/commerical, I don't care.

The kernel's GPL is fine because it has the linking exception which more or less turns it into the LGPL. Trolltech on the other hand does not allow the linking exception and thus will become an equivalent to a "Microsoft tax" on every non-GPL Linux developer.

Non-GPL developers are a fact of life, banks are never going to GPL their internal applications. People with GPL blinders on always seem to forget about internal apps. In the overall market 90% or more of developers write internal apps. (No one is going to buy the GPL it and don't distribute it arguement either).

For Linux to have broad acceptance we can't have a tax on a majority of the potential development community. Having the tax just turns Trolltech into another form of monopoly. So either QT has to change it's license or we get an alternative like Gnome.

Bottom line it is the Qt GPL that is the splitting desktop.

@Eugenia, come back when you know something
by Adam on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:53 UTC

[No, this is not nullifying. This is what you just said: "interoperability and integration". This is NOT merging.

I think this is where all your understanding problems lie Adam. You don't understand the levels of changes that need to be done. You *think* that KDE won't be KDE anymore and Gnome won't be Gnome anymore. This is wrong. You are overreacting I guess.]

Hey Eugenia, I understand things quite well thank you very much. I was involved in those conversations and I've stated many times that shared specs and so on are fine with me. You are wrong when you say that RedHat is not interested in nullifying the desktop because they are. They view any differences that are not superficial to the user as being bad and lead to fragmentation. They are different platforms and they have different goals and design ideals. They can not be completely integrated without the merging and this is what they are looking for.

Havoc has called for KDE and GNOME to adopt an underlying 'Star Trek' layer that would sit underneath all of the object platforms between the two desktops and Qt/Gtk+ would wrap this 'Star Trek' layer. He has said that he wants a common component framework, object model, messaging system, multimedia system, configuration system, ... all of it merged! Others have said that we should stop calling ourselves KDE developers and GNOME developers rather KDE/GNOME developers and have spoken of all these shared specs only as the 'first step' into eventual merging of the two. Go read *and* understand the lists and then start talking...

In his world the two desktops would be the same and applications would integrate equally well with each other. Gtk+ components embedded into KOffice and so on. Others have called for the same. Never mind the huge *hack* this would be and the sheer ugliness of all of it and the fact that it is not going to happen ... It doesn't change the fact that this is precisely what Havoc is saying.

So please, don't lie in these little posts and articles and claim that this is not what is going on and what is being said. The lists are open and everyone is free to go see this for themselves.

Re: License is the root problem
by Jon Smirl on Thu 13th Mar 2003 19:59 UTC

Another way to look at it: If Redhat bought Trolltech, LGPL'd QT, and stopped funding gnome - how long would it be before gnome collaped?

@Adam
by Unknown on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:02 UTC

Havoc has called for KDE and GNOME to adopt an underlying 'Star Trek' layer that would sit underneath all of the object platforms between the two desktops and Qt/Gtk+ would wrap this 'Star Trek' layer. He has said that he wants a common component framework, object model, messaging system, multimedia system, configuration system, ... all of it merged! Others have said that we should stop calling ourselves KDE developers and GNOME developers rather KDE/GNOME developers and have spoken of all these shared specs only as the 'first step' into eventual merging of the two. Go read *and* understand the lists and then start talking...

Exactly that is what Havoc is trying. I read exactly the same out of all the writings on kde-core-devel. That's an insane task and I don't see the points why KDE should throw all their stuff and their workign desktop in the trash only to follow an insane vision from a visionaire. He should have thought about this years ago and joined KDE development. Years ago this may have been possible but today both Desktops are simply to different and one of them needs to throw components for their System away only to support some new standards. This throws the whole Desktop back some years.

@Jon Smirl
by Adam on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:03 UTC

[So either QT has to change it's license or we get an alternative like Gnome.]

Oh, the irony is a killer!

Jon, are you aware of the history of the these two projects? Do you understand how absolutely hilarious/tragic your statement is?

@Adam
by Mike Hearn on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:05 UTC

That's partly correct. Having two different desktop platforms is brain damage, and pisses off virtually all 3rd party developers who aren't tied to any one desktop.

3rd party developers, who just want to write software and for all Linux/FreeBSD users to be able to use it, hate the current situation. It's a mess. You either write things twice, or you write it once and it doesn't integrate as well as it should.

It's even worse if you want to share code. I want to write an object once, and have it usable by all developers, regardless of whether they use Qt, standard C++, C, Python, Ruby or their own personal dialect of lisp.

We can't do that currently, and it's annoying. A solution would be most welcome.

So when people talk about merging the VFS systems, yeah, rock on. That doesn't mean KDE has to use an implementation written in C, it can have its own in Qt/C++ if it likes. No problems by me, as long as we can write plugins for it in whatever environment we want.

The point is that pretending KDE and GNOME are separate is dumb. People don't want to target KDE or GNOME, they want to target Linux, or even free operating systems in general. Havoc has the right idea here.

To be honest, you're just coming off as sounding paranoid, and worse, it sounds like you think the current status quo is OK. It's not. It needs to change. These flamewars seen on the lists are the winds of change.

@Mike Hearn
by Unknown on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:11 UTC

Having two different desktop platforms is brain damage, and pisses off virtually all 3rd party developers who aren't tied to any one desktop.

Exactly, why is GNOME being created then ? They should have thought 6 years ago about this issue and we wouldn't have all these flamages these days. They made the mistake in splitting up the community by creating another Desktop for Linux and today exactly these people who created GNOME 6 years ago whine on other peoples irc channel about KDE being far ahead over GNOME.

... What a sad reality eh ?

@Unknown
by Mike Hearn on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:23 UTC

No, that's the wrong way around.

KDE split the desktop IMHO. Fact is, they ignored the reality of the political situation. By using Qt, they caused horrible flamewars which split the community clean down the middle.

Because really, the shared licensing of the code is what we all have in common. It's the ideological glue that keeps this whole ship sailing. By ignoring that, by pretending using non-free code was OK and ignoring those who pleaded with them to switch to a free toolkit, or write their own they made the creation of GNOME inevitable, because the freedom of the code is what started the creation of the movement and is the whole reason for its existance.

If Ettrich had his head screwed on back then, he'd have realised that no matter how much he liked Qt, the cost of using it was too high. In fact, we're still counting the cost of that bad decision years later, we're still picking up the pieces.

So really, you have it totally the wrong way around. If KDE had used a free toolkit from day one, GNOME probably wouldn't exist. Now, there would still be other desktops, and standards would still be needed (rox, enlightenment etc). But to say, "this situation would be solved if GNOME hadn't been started" is extremely stupid, because its creation was an inevitable consequence of bad decisions on the part of the early KDE team.

Re: @Adam
by krong on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:25 UTC

The point is that pretending KDE and GNOME are separate is dumb. People don't want to target KDE or GNOME, they want to target Linux, or even free operating systems in general. Havoc has the right idea here.

No. This is what you (and other freeloaders) want free DE developers to do. All KDE system developers (and GNOMEers too) have the right to spend the time in their lives they donate to the free software world developing any code they wish, to any language, library or spec they choose.

Hopefully, the recent spate of outside whining will not change that. It's great you like Havoc's ideas - many do not. I encourage you to join that project and try to make it better.

Also, diversity is a GOOD thing. Too many years with your throat under the Microsoft boot have apparently taught you (and Eugenia) to fear having more than one choice.

@mike hearn, @adam & Red Hat
by stopdabombing on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:27 UTC

mike, why are you focusing on who Adam is and who Galaxy? Why don't you deal with arguments, instead of "personal" - your comment brought ZERO to the discussion. Focus on what the person has to say, not who they are.

Adam, while I agree with you in many ways, please try to be more civil toward Eugenia. I don't always agree with her (in fact here I DON'T), but she is not the "enemy". So don't say: "lies", "shit" etc. Disagreement - I can disagree with friends, it is only fanatics who see disagreement as enmity.

Re: RHAT. This whole "unity" thing has a stench of RHAT about it. I have nothing against RHAT, but I don't like when they try to destroy KDE just because they were slow in getting into the desktop market. Seems to me, KDE and GNOME have been at it for awhile. RHAT was asleep at the switch when it came to the desktop (or simply had different priorities, or couldn't do server and dk simultaneously) - and now, they woke up, and glommed on to GNOME because of the Trolltech issue. Sadly, GNOME was a bit behind. So, now what they'd like to do, is slow down KDE and "absorb" them into some kind of frankenstein with GNOME just so they can go to their corporate clients and say: here, this is THE linux desktop... they can't really do it, with a crippled KDE, and with KDE racing ahead at great speed - KDE is making their GNOMish desktop look silly and behind the times. So, they'd like to slow down KDE... which is NOT IN THE INTEREST OF LINUX AT LARGE, it is only in the interest of RHAT. I say, screw them. If they want to dominate the linux market, let them do it honestly - make GNOME the greatest and the bestest, not by crippling KDE. Bottom line, KDE has nothing to gain from this, and the linux community can afford to support both GNOME and KDE - this "unity" thing seems mostly in the narrow interest of RHAT.

Nobody owns KDE - and if *some* developers try to push this "unity" thing, well, others will just take KDE and fork it. So there. I don't think that would be in the interest of THE ONE AND ONLY. Let linux alone - it is doing quite all right with both KDE and GNOME separate.

FUD, the last resorce argument
by Elton on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:27 UTC

Could you please _stop the FUD_ about GPL? You _can_ use QT GPL code to develop your in house app, I repeat, you _can_ use QT GPL code to develop your in house app. You don't have to share the code with Trolltech.
Read the GPL. You only have to share your code if you distribute it. And only to whom you distribute. (For example, your parent company).
So the GPL only affect companies that want to SELL software.

This almost make me puke. After years saying that KDE was not free enought (with good and bad arguments), people now are saying KDE is too free (with terrible arguments).

It is possible and safe to develop in house apps with QT. Know better before you start creating myths about a project so important as KDE is.

Give me a real life exaple why not.

Eugenia, what do you think?

KDE vs. Gnome
by jbolden1517 on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:27 UTC

To quote the KDE people:
But it is for the user benefit. Right now, KDE is pleasing its users. Some people wish us to throw away things that are working and pleasing people in order to court people who by definition aren't using KDE so much.

I ask you: What does replacing KDE tech with plain C tech do to benefit
people who use KDE? Not users of GNOME apps, but users who actually use
the apps we ship?


I think he is absolutely right. Gnome has very little to offer KDE, it is the inferior product by most reasonable measures. Unix has had window managers that allowed applications to communicate with each other for many years before KDE came along. But a GUI is more than a window manager and KDE was the first full featured Unix gui. Introducing more than just surface support for Gnome into KDE would render KDE as little more than a window manager for KDE apps.

Lets assume "the worst case" and that the GUIs continue to develop along a natural path to the point that Gnome apps are virtually unusable in the KDE gui and that KDE apps are virtually unusable outside the KDE gui. OK what is so horrible with that? Some distributions become KDE based (like Mandrake was in the early days) and others are more flexible. "Linux" is a kernel not a product and it doesn't need to worry about branding. Distributions like RedHat, Suse and Mandrake should be branded. I would hope that in the future that IBM relases an AIX-Linux and IBM's AIX-Linux looks and acts just like AIX, which means all sorts of "Linux standards" are violeted but all sorts of AIX standards are maintained.


I'm going to respond Rich's example to show how destructive this unity push is:


- Why don't they create a general HTML library out of KHTML that could be used by KDE (std widgets), Gnome (std widgets) and Apple (Safari)?


Good reason. KHTML uses QT which is a GPL app which means KHTML must be GPL. Gnome as a matter of philosophy does not bundle libraries under the GPL because they want to leave the floor open to commercial development (something KDE is opposed to). If you think the HTML library in kdelibs is better than the one in Mozilla then you are KDE user.

- Why don't they (KDE/Gnome) use one big library for STL-like stuff? (lists, queues, hash tables, string support, etc)

Many of the data structures for KDE are provided by their standard widget set, QT. Gnome was designed to not use QT; Gnome has no permission to take Trolltech's code and relicense it under the LGPL.


- Why am I replying to this article while I know the previous stuff will never happen?
(altough I would really like that, just take the good stuff of both environments and create _general_ desktop libraries out of them)


Because you didn't know why they wouldn't happen. You probably thought it was people being stubborn not that it would be essentially illegal.

____________

Finally on the issue of commercial developers.

1) Companies should have no problem GPLing their internal code. Banks were given as an example. Banks should be trilled to work together on designing better internal systems. I think it would be great if Bank of America, Wells Fargo, First Union, Chemical Bank... could work together on their internal systems. Writing the same system 200 times over doesn't benefit any of them.

2) If you want to write for KDE and don't want to pay the trolltech tax then write a pure X app. There are still tons of good libraries that just bind at the X level and would work fine with either KDE or Gnome. By picking GTK or QT you are and should be selecting a GUI.

@Mike Hearn
by Adam on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:29 UTC

Ok, so everyone look ... here is someone who wishes to see the two projects merge for all intensive purposes. Ok, Mike I understand and respect your opinion. I also disagree ;)

IMO, KDE and GNOME are capable of producing whole complete desktops with significant differences while living side by side. Not everyone wishes to eliminate choice. Some people value choice.

It is also true that third party developers hate the current situation with the different distros. They would like to see RedHat join UnitedLinux and decrease fragmentation. I'm sure some would rather that the other distros just go away and only RedHat remain. Still others (like me) wish that RedHat and other distros would agree where appropriate/reasonable and disagree when sound technical/practical reasons exist and where the differences lead to better software and enable us to see the large and appealing range of choices. RedHat is all about nullifying the desktop... while some third party developers would likely wish to nullify RedHat.

[The point is that pretending KDE and GNOME are separate is dumb.]

No, claiming that they are the same is dumb. They are not and they shouldn't be. Many prefer KDE and many prefer GNOME. Merge the two and many will suffer.

[To be honest, you're just coming off as sounding paranoid, and worse, it sounds like you think the current status quo is OK. It's not. It needs to change. These flamewars seen on the lists are the winds of change.]

To be honest, you're coming off as arrogant and sounding egotistical, and worse, it sounds like you think KDE and GNOME are the same. They are not. The debates seen on the lists are an ill wind being whipped up by some arrogant people, some missguided people and some commercial people. Move along.

re: @Adam
by Captain Chris on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:31 UTC

"3rd party developers, who just want to write software and for all Linux/FreeBSD users to be able to use it, hate the current situation. It's a mess. You either write things twice, or you write it once and it doesn't integrate as well as it should.[...]To be honest, you're just coming off as sounding paranoid, and worse, it sounds like you think the current status quo is OK. It's not. It needs to change. These flamewars seen on the lists are the winds of change."

Extremely well said, Mike. Unfortunately, so many hackers don't look at the end result from two very important points of few: that of the third-party developer and that of the end user. Why are hackers going to all the trouble of creating a product, investing thousands of hours, if they don't care if it gets used or not? Learn from BeOS, NeXTStep, and whatever other cool OS's didn't pan out as planned: LOTS of apps need to be developed, and LOTS of users need to want to use the entire system. If not, Linux eventually goes the way of OS/2: around, but off in the shadows (no offense to you OS/2 users out there!).

@Mike
by Adam on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:34 UTC

[KDE split the desktop IMHO. Fact is, they ignored the reality of the political situation. By using Qt, they caused horrible flamewars which split the community clean down the middle.]

All history anyway, but ...

GNOME split the desktop, IMO. Fact is, they chose to develop a new desktop when they could have worked on making a free Qt replacement like Harmony. By focusing on Qt and making a new incompatible desktop, they caused horrible flamewars which split the community clean down the middle.

Reply to Mike Hearn on history
by jbolden1517 on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:38 UTC

Because really, the shared licensing of the code is what we all have in common. It's the ideological glue that keeps this whole ship sailing. By ignoring that, by pretending using non-free code was OK and ignoring those who pleaded with them to switch to a free toolkit, or write their own they made the creation of GNOME inevitable, because the freedom of the code is what started the creation of the movement and is the whole reason for its existance

Listen to the commercial developers today. QT is free and they still aren't happy because they want BSD style free. Well they had that with X 10 years ago, before X broke into 20 different incompatable implementations as a result of the MIT license.

I didn't disagree with RMS's Jihad against KDE at the time, and I believe he made the right choice. But now that the problem in licensing is fixed; but the problem with Gnome being really truly inferior is not. I don't see any reason to consider Gnome a coequal desktop to KDE. I personally use Windowmaker I don't expect every app designer to target my choice of windowmanager or to integrate well.

KDE is the Linux standard GUI (especially outside the United States). If commercial developers want to create hooks in GTK so that they can use an LGPL library and at the same time share information with other apps I don't see that as primarily KDE's responsibility. That strikes me as as much more of a Gnome issue. Much worse is for Gnome to claim that KDE should self cripple because Gnome can't use GPLed code while KDE can use LGPL code.

reply to Adam defending Gnome
by jbolden1517 on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:42 UTC

GNOME split the desktop, IMO. Fact is, they chose to develop a new desktop when they could have worked on making a free Qt replacement like Harmony.

Harmony were started at the same time for the same reason. Either project could fail and if the other was succesful the situation could be salvaged. In actually history Harmony did fail and Gnome was succesful. I don't think RMS made the wrong choice in starting two projects at the time, I just don't see much point in Gnome today.

@Mike Hearn
by Unknown on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:43 UTC

KDE split the desktop IMHO. Fact is, they ignored the reality of the political situation. By using Qt, they caused horrible flamewars which split the community clean down the middle.

Sorry, I don't share your opinion here (and I mean the whole reply of yours not just the quote above). If the community is really so much flaming KDE and QT then why is it used by most people today ? 5 times more developers, 5 times more users, acceptance in german government, acceptance on most majory distributions.

Am I missing something here ? Oh and for the nonargument of yours related to QT. Instead creating a new Desktop these people could have helped creating a Free-QT clone. Instead writing GTK+. GTK+ could be the Free-QT today.

@eugenia
by Lars on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:50 UTC

i can't stand the notion that you are the one here with political intentions.

the kde people want to make the best desktop.
you want to rise some ominous market share.

@Adam
by Unknown on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:51 UTC

I like to let you know that I'm standing fully behind you. Your arguments and replies are making much sense to me and I'm happy that many others have the same opinion.

Freedom
by jbolden1517 on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:51 UTC

Extremely well said, Mike. Unfortunately, so many hackers don't look at the end result from two very important points of few: that of the third-party developer and that of the end user. Why are hackers going to all the trouble of creating a product, investing thousands of hours, if they don't care if it gets used or not? Learn from BeOS, NeXTStep, and whatever other cool OS's didn't pan out as planned: LOTS of apps need to be developed, and LOTS of users need to want to use the entire system. If not, Linux eventually goes the way of OS/2: around, but off in the shadows (no offense to you OS/2 users out there!).

They are doing it for the same reason that 10 years ago they started creating free server applications. To permanently end the artificial ecoomy created by intellectual property law in software. Linux is not a product it is a social revolution. It is no victory for Linux is everyone were to use the Linux kernel with a commercial gui to run commercial apps.

By creating an alternate sociology of software construction you allow agencies with similar goals to cooperate with one another and thus drastically reduce the cost of software construction while at the same time making all software available to all people who want it.

Servers came first; desktops didn't come until years later. The battle on the server side is a long way from being won (except perhaps on webservers). The battle on the desktop side has barely begun.

So they do want people to use their desktop; but they aren't going to win the war by just being a product.

@jbolden
by Adam on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:53 UTC

[Harmony were started at the same time for the same reason. Either project could fail and if the other was succesful the situation could be salvaged. In actually history Harmony did fail and Gnome was succesful. I don't think RMS made the wrong choice in starting two projects at the time, I just don't see much point in Gnome today.]

I also would agree with RMS and others starting the Harmony project. It is important to note that RMS has no problem with KDE/Qt today and views Qt and Trolltech as a success story for Free Software.

If the current crop of Mergers, Integrators, Nullifiers, and Embracers -- (MINE developers/cheerleaders) really have a problem with Qt's licensing (incredible to me, but whatever) then they can start work on Harmony again and have all the merging they want.

@Adam
by Mike Hearn on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:54 UTC

IMO, KDE and GNOME are capable of producing whole complete desktops with significant differences while living side by side. Not everyone wishes to eliminate choice. Some people value choice.

Yes, me too. You have to distinguish between desktop and platform. My beef is with platforms. I don't mind what desktop people use, and as a developer, I don't want to have to mind. I just want to write code, that'll seamlessly integrate with whatever desktop the user is using, whether that be KDE, GNOME, E17, ROX, OpenBox, whatever.

It is also true that third party developers hate the current situation with the different distros.

You're distorting my words. That's not what I said. I didn't mention distros, I was talking about desktop platforms, which both KDE and GNOME (and e17) provide.

RedHat is all about nullifying the desktop... while some third party developers would likely wish to nullify RedHat.

Here we go again with the FUD and paranoia. Red Hat are trying to ensure the user doesn't have to care about the existance of KDE and GNOME. And why should they? Why should they know of, or care about, these little "wars". They just want to get on with their work. If KDE/Qt apps use Keramik and GTK2 apps use Mist and GTK1 apps use the default, that is strange and confuses people, so you have Red Hat specific themes and artwork.

You'll note I never mentioned Red Hat once in my post, so I'm not sure how you ended up flaming them.

Worst article (editorial) yet.
by David DeTinne on Thu 13th Mar 2003 20:56 UTC

Has anyone actually purchased a software package that requires the use of KDE or GNOME? Every commercial software program I have bought in the last few years seem to be more concerned about which version of Glibc rather than what window manager you were running. TCL/TK anyone?

Your comment about a large fork forcing the original developers into merging the source trees down the road? Has this occured to samba or wine?

After reading the article, it is obvious that you really do not have a high opinion of the open source effort as it relates to a "polished commercial product".

Microsoft did not take over the desktop by "unifying" its products with it's competitors, they did so by making their products similar yet cheaper and more accessible then their competitor's products.

RE: Worst article (editorial) yet.
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:03 UTC

> is obvious that you really do not have a high opinion of the open source effort as it relates to a "polished commercial product".

As a user (not as a geek) and when taking the seat of any Windows user who would like to try out Linux as an alternative, the fact that something is open or not, makes little or no difference.
I have high respect on the OSS movement, but when it comes to user experience and the market share, it doesn't matter one bit. These potential users need a BETTER environment than Windows and you currently don't offer them that.
This is why I will ALWAYS compare the OSS efforts to their commercial counterparts. Always! Because I use computers to do my job, not because of some religious GPL thingie. What matters to me is to do the job well, not badly (but hey "it's Free").
We see things from different eyes, I see it from my brother's non-computer literate user and you see it is as a geek. Too bad my friend, but the 99% of the people on the planet are not computer literates. And these are the people who buy and the people who can put Linux "up there". Their sheer numbers. Geeks (that 1%) don't matter in this business, because, Linux is now a business. It has become corporate, you like it or not. Money talks. Ask IBM.

@Mike
by Adam on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:09 UTC

[Yes, me too. You have to distinguish between desktop and platform. My beef is with platforms. I don't mind what desktop people use, and as a developer, I don't want to have to mind. I just want to write code, that'll seamlessly integrate with whatever desktop the user is using, whether that be KDE, GNOME, E17, ROX, OpenBox, whatever.]

KDE is a desktop *and* a platform. As a developer the platform part of KDE is important for me to rapidly create an application that seemlessly works with other applications on the same platform. As a user the desktop part of KDE allows me to use my applications in a seemless way that is very powerful and very nice.

Try as hard as you like, you will not be able to merge all the platforms you mentioned and the result if you did would be so horrible as to be beyond sufficient words. Those platforms are *different* and for many reasons, some which are good and some which are bad. Fine, we agree let's get rid of the dumb/bad differences, but do not suffer any illusion that these platforms will merge! Luckily, because the result would be horrible and frankenstein.

I am not trying to distort your words and I think you've missed my point. I was making an analogy between RedHat's attempts to nullify the desktop (how is this FUD and paranoia again?) with the wish of some that RedHat the OS were nullified. Both are ludicrous.

You are also being missleading. I do not argue that common themes like Geramik are bad. I argue with your wish to see RedHat make all of these 'Star Trek' (See: frankenstein abomination) layers. Havoc is the chief proponent of this and he is a top RHAT developer.

A New Desktop for MS
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:10 UTC

Eugena, if there was a XP/BeOS type desktop (with some OSX touches here and there) you could run on top of a MS kernel, would you use it as your main desktop? Based on your earlier suggestion, I think you would. It will, however, never be, as you pointed out, because MS has total control over how the desktop looks. Compare that with the flexibility of KDE to mold your desktop experiance. It sounds like you want the best of both worlds, consistancy, yet your own private Idaho.

@Mike Hearn
by Unknown on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:10 UTC

Here we go again with the FUD and paranoia. Red Hat are trying to ensure the user doesn't have to care about the existance of KDE and GNOME. And why should they? Why should they know of, or care about, these little "wars". They just want to get on with their work. If KDE/Qt apps use Keramik and GTK2 apps use Mist and GTK1 apps use the default, that is strange and confuses people, so you have Red Hat specific themes and artwork.

Mike, I was trying to explain this to you earlier but you usually avoid replying to me. I assume this has to do because your lack or arguments against my replies.

Look, the KDE developers wrote KDE because they had one vision in mind. The vision of having a full integrated Desktop Environment. The same intentions were made during the GNOME process but changed later and today someone changed the idea once again with arguments like yours.

The user should not care, the user should not know about war (which war ?), the user should run all his apps that look the same. Exactly KDE offers exactly this, I don't see why GNOME needs to change their orientation once again with this have multiple applications that don't belong to GNOME run on the GNOME plattform. With this stuff in mind I don't need a Desktop at all and would probably use BlackBox and run these standalone applications. Your argumentations are basically worthless because KDE offers exactly an unified Desktop Environment, with equal looking applications which share the same Themes. KDE offers all applications that is required to do daily work, there is no need for KDE to have their users use OpenOffice or Mozilla because they offer already powerful counterparts which are well and nicely integrated in KDE. So where is the point ? I don't share your opinion nor do I share Havoc Pennington's opinion. Wasn't it enough for him splitting the GNOME community into 2 parts itself by doing nasty things on it ? Wasn't it enough does he now have to continue the same colletaral damage on KDE ? I don't want a messed up KDE with mixed GNOME and KDE libs, this is the biggest horror ever and I would switch to another alternative then which may be in this case NOT linux anymore. What is GNOME today ? 5 years and still not usable. Look and compare MorphOS for example, same time of development, different plattform, includes a full OS fundament including DESKTOP far more usable and far ahead of what GNOME is today and less people worked on it.

Now I may sound rude, offensive and unfair but what actually is GNOME today if there wasn't Eazel who horrible failed with their concepts and Ximiand with Evolution ? GNOME today would simply be a Panel, Windowmanager and a bunch of fully wrapped libraries. No filemanager, no Emailer, still no browser nothing. 5 years and nothing done while KDE on the otherhand stomped a whole working Desktop out of nothing. I know I just hurt a lot of people feelings but we need to see it that way at the end.

Re: Bullshit
by Centinel on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:11 UTC

Don't be fooled by all of these who call for the gradual merging of everything. They are either corporations or employees of corporations that are to scared to make a choice OR they wish to control/have a hand in, all of these projects and hence don't have enough time, money to get there hands in on everything ... so they try and 'nullify' it all.
<p>
OK, wiseguy, how about all the users who won't adopt Linux on the desktop because of a dearth of comemrcial apps? The fragmentation puts off many commerical developers, and the lack of popular apps puts off many users.

The desktop wars are seriously holding Linux back, and it's bigger than Dallas.


Re: Bullshit
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:11 UTC

>The desktop wars are seriously holding Linux back, and it's bigger than Dallas.

Haha, good one. ;)

@jbolden1517
by DCMonkey on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:13 UTC


Good reason. KHTML uses QT which is a GPL app which means KHTML must be GPL. Gnome as a matter of philosophy does not bundle libraries under the GPL because they want to leave the floor open to commercial development (something KDE is opposed to).

KHTML is LGPL (Though I don't know exactly what "LGPL for KDE" is supposed to mean)
http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/licensing.html


If you think the HTML library in kdelibs is better than the one in Mozilla then you are KDE user.

Or maybe a Safari user ;)

@Unknown
by Mike Hearn on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:19 UTC

"If the community is really so much flaming KDE and QT then why is it used by most people today ? 5 times more developers, 5 times more users, acceptance in german government, acceptance on most majory distributions. "

I'd be interested to know where you got these statistics from. I've yet to see any conclusive figures. In fact, you'll find that Red Hat leads in market share, both for desktop and server, by a large amount. The idea that KDE has 5 times the number of users is crack - how did you arrive at this figure, when nobody even knows how many people use Linux, let alone GNOME or KDE?

You're strange maths is shown here too:
"I like to let you know that I'm standing fully behind you. Your arguments and replies are making much sense to me and I'm happy that many others have the same opinion."

Many? Where are these many? 1 != many.

Harmony is history now. It was too late to solve anything, the KDE developers had effectively already told the world that they weren't willing to co-operate. Harmony was not an answer, especially considering the sheer size of it, it was merely a "we're not going to stop, so if you don't like it, solve it yourself". Ooops, bad answer.

Harmony was the equivalent of Wine - replicating a proprietary API piece by piece. Qt is enormous, it'd never be a 100% perfect clone. It was not a good answer.

Tisk tisk
by dwilson on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:23 UTC

I can understand all of the developers attachment to their work. When I work hard on something I don't want someone else to come in and ruin it. However, Stefan is right that GNOME and KDE share the same goals. Therefore it is suiting that some cooperation occur. I don't believe (from the things I've read) that Stefan wants a literal merge between KDE and GNOME. He simply wants everyone in both teams to understand that when you have the same goals, collaboration will help everyone.

I would never suggest gnome and kde merge because there are certain things that could never be reconciled between the two (qt vs gtk for example). However, a little bit of attention to interoperability never hurt anyone.

@Looncraz
by Robert Renling on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:25 UTC

uhm I stand by my opinion, outsource the gui specific profiles and ui widgets to a professional designer /collective instead of these shabbylooking.. "things" you have hacked together.

and imo, bluecurve for gnome+kde isn't more incoherent than your sketches... i'd say it's the other way .

@Adam,@galaxy,etc
by minkwe on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:26 UTC

The truth is you guys are just being difficult to reason with and childish. I can assure you that the wheel is turning and you can't do anything about it. In a few years, some of your statements here will make for good sigs on slashdot because they would sound extremely ridiculous and short-sighted. Only time would put you in your respective seats and shut you up, so flame and throw FUD and troll while you may.

Its just a matter of time buddies 8^)))

Re: Bullshit
by krong on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:26 UTC

The desktop wars are seriously holding Linux back

Holding it back from _what_? From commercial clones of MS Clippy? From world domination? From making it easier for Mike Hearn to write software? I (and many other) DE developers I don't care about any of those things - we want to express ourselves through software, build a great system, and perhaps help others by giving this work away. If you like KDE's approach, join in as a user or developer. If not, find a DE you like and join/support that instead.

extrapolations is the keyword
by Unknown on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:28 UTC

> I'd be interested to know where you got these statistics from.

Maybe from all the votes that got collected on various places over the months ? Sometimes things are really simple to answer such as this one.

I agree that not ALL people on this globe using Linux, KDE or GNOME participated on these votings but see it like an normal election where some serious math formulas exists doing extrapolations. Anyways look back on all these pages with votes and compare yourself.

re: Freedom
by Captain Chris on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:30 UTC

"They are doing it for the same reason that 10 years ago they started creating free server applications. To permanently end the artificial ecoomy created by intellectual property law in software. Linux is not a product it is a social revolution."

Funny, I thought it was a way for me to get my work done.

Look, you can be as etherial and Marxist as you want, but the fact is that more users=more apps=more users=more apps, etc. It's a fundamental economic cycle that feeds and builds upon itself. And fewer users=fewer apps=fewer developers, etc. Usage brings about more development, and there will be little growth in usage if a product isn't attractive (and user-friendliness is very attractive).

General comment on OSnews
by redtux on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:30 UTC

Just thought I'd post to defend you, Eugenia

two points (one on topic sort of)

1. Your reviews are EXACTLY what reviews are supposed to be, ie: you review things honestly from your perspective and biases. I may not always agree, but knowing where you stand I can judge better the stuff you talk about.

2. I find it laughable that all the anti-gnome/RH zealots now see you as pro-RH following a good review (BTW kudos for that after the flames you got on the phoebe list)

You have criticized RH often in the past, so one review of praise does not exactly mean you've been bought out by the "evil" RH

@minkwe
by Unknown on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:33 UTC

> The truth is you guys are just being difficult to reason
> with and childish.

Well I'm into serious development for nearly 20 years now. My arguments are not being shitten out of my ass.

Thus said, get some programming skills and some years expirience, then come back and participate to this conversation. If you think that changes can be done that easily the way Havoc wants then go and help him, I like to see you whining about the problems that you may face over time. Talking here on this forum is one way but practically CHANGING these things as one visionaire likes to see it is far more difficult than you can imagine. 6 years KDE can't easily be thrown into trash just because someone dictates it. It requires manpower to change all this and it requires everyone to participating to this idea. Both is not given so forget it.

Nullifying Aqua
by Rayiner Hashem on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:34 UTC

I do hope you realize that there exists 2 very different widget sets in OS X too: BrushedMetal and Aqua. So far, nobody seems to be complaining. Of course, nobody has got the right idea yet. What needs to be done is not a merging of implementations, but a merging of interfaces. Everybody codes to the C-library. Nobody complains about the single interface. Everybody is happy because there are multiple implementations of the C library (BSD-libc, uclibc, newlib, glibc) for specific requirements. Everybody codes to X, and nobody complains because multiple implementations (XFree, MetroX, AcceleratedX) exist. What needs to be done is not to make one KNOME, but to make a single binary (rather than source-level) interface that apps can code to, and automatically use the implementation the user selects. Now, the major problem here is that apps today are coded at too low a level. You can't unify the programming interface and still allow the two desktops to maintain their significantly different personalities. The application has to be highly abstracted from the GUI, to the point where it doesn't even know where buttons or toolbars actually are, it just knows how to request them and how to respond to events from them. This same paradigm works incredibly well for the CLI (where apps have no clue where input is coming from or where it's going) and would not only make a unified GUI interface possible, but make GUI coding much easier overall.

The Facts About Red Hat
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:34 UTC

Eugenia: The fact about Red Hat is that they made both GNOME and KDE the same by default in Red Hat. Don't you consider that nullifying and destroying the differences between the two desktops? Why not call Red Hat on that instead of pretending they are innocent?

This is not what interoperability is about, and Red Hat does not get that message. GNOME could have easily used Geramik to integrate into a KDE environment while KDE could have used BlueCurve to integrate into a GNOME environment. Same goes for single/double click and other look and feel issues.

Nullifying is BAD BAD BAD.

Is it any wonder that Havoc's words is taken with a grain of salt?

RE: The Facts About Red Hat
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:38 UTC

>Don't you consider that nullifying and destroying the differences between the two desktops?

Red Hat did not do that. They simply used their right to change the defaults for BOTH Gnome and KDE on the way they think that would work best for their customers. More work remains to be done, and what they already did was 100% legal and RIGHT for their business.
SuSE also changes the default Kicker on KDE, but no one is complaining!

@Eugenia
by Unknown on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:45 UTC

I like to ask if OSNews could adopt some sort of Threaded comments and reply option including preview and HTML comments. This would make reading and replying more pleasing specially when replying to certain people. I know many people asked for this already and I personally think that this would really enchance reading and reduce traffic because of the Threaded view.

RE: The Facts About Red Hat
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:50 UTC

Geezus. Who talked about lawyers? Who talked about politics?

They made both desktops the same for no good reason. Why would you advocate that? They removed choice and at the same time tell the KDE developers they support choice. Why would you advocate them?

This is what people do not like about Red Hat. It has NOTHING NOTHING to do with interoperability. Almost everyone wants interoperability. It's nullifying that's BAD.

Stuff
by Mike Hearn on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:53 UTC

@Adam: "KDE is a desktop *and* a platform. As a developer the platform part of KDE is important for me to rapidly create an application that seemlessly works with other applications on the same platform."

Sure, that's fine. Unfortunately, KDE the desktop and KDE the platform are coupled. That means for instance, I cannot write a program that embeds into KOffice, without using KDE the platform. That causes me problems, because then that same component won't embed into OpenOffice, or AbiWord, or Gnumeric...... ie, I'm shafted unless I write that same component at least 3 times (and i still don't cover all the bases).

So, clearly something has to change. What has to change is that a layer of standards is inserted between KDE the desktop and KDE the platform. That means you can write software using KDE the platform, and have it integrate properly into GNOME, and OpenOffice, and everything else. And of course vice-versa, replace "KDE Platform" with whatever floats your boat, XUL or whatever.

"Try as hard as you like, you will not be able to merge all the platforms you mentioned"

Except I never said merge them. You're putting words into my mouth again. I don't know where this idea of merging platforms came into being, I think you are confusing APIs with platforms. On Windows, I can write using Delphi, or Visual Basic, or .NET, but they all use a common platform (COM, Win32 APIs, ActiveX, iexplore, menu system, control panel applets etc).

So, what Havoc wants (and what many many 3rd party developers want) is to unify the platform. That does not mean forcing you to write in GLib C, far from it. Done properly, as far as you're concerned in fact, very little changes. See system tray protocol for an example.

"I am not trying to distort your words and I think you've missed my point. I was making an analogy between RedHat's attempts to nullify the desktop (how is this FUD and paranoia again?) with the wish of some that RedHat the OS were nullified. Both are ludicrous."

Now I'm confused. So you say you draw an analogy between two completely different and unrelated things, both of which are ludicrous?

OK, so if you're not distorting my words, then please try and address the points I'm making. I never mentioned distros, so I'm not sure how they entered the conversation. They make a rather poor analogy or metaphor, if that was the idea.

@Unknown: "Maybe from all the votes that got collected on various places over the months ? Sometimes things are really simple to answer such as this one."

That's a duff answer. What votes? Where? When? Who collected them? I say there are 200 times more GNOME users than KDE users, and I have lots of votes to prove it. But, some things are so clear that they don't need supporting evidence, so I won't bother telling you about these polls I conducted.

"Well I'm into serious development for nearly 20 years now My arguments are not being shitten out of my ass. "

I thought you were at university? Maybe I'm wrong.

kdelibs
by jbolden1517 on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:54 UTC

KHTML is LGPL (Though I don't know exactly what "LGPL for KDE" is supposed to mean)
http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/licensing.html


If you think the HTML library in kdelibs is better than the one in Mozilla then you are KDE user.

Or maybe a Safari user ;)


OK the kdelibs components of KHTML in and of itself KDE are LGPL. The QT part is available under 4 licenses in particular is not available the LGPL. So KHTML itself would take on the most restrictive licensing of both parts which is GPL. Apple's webcore removes the QT code so it is LGPL but totollly apple specific.

Disappointed :(
by ShawnW on Thu 13th Mar 2003 21:59 UTC

I'm a user and a somewhat new developer to the Linux GUI area of the arena. I want to respond to a few things I felt were totally untrue in comments made to this article.

First, many people claim that KDE under RH8 is crippled, or that it crashes all the time and is horribly slow. This *is* *a* *LIE*. The nicest thing about using RedHat 8 is that KDE and GNOME applications look so similar that it really didn't matter which one I chose. I ended up choosing KDE simply because I liked it's window manager better ;) I use KDE all day, every day, I have several applications open run music, I even use the "evil" NVidia binary/mixed source driver and Kernel 2.5.64. Guess what, my machine continues to speed right along. I also run applications targeted for several different environments, for example:

NEdit for my primary editor
Anjuta/KDevelop for my IDEs
Phoenix (Mozilla) for my Browser
Evolution for my Email
Konsole for my Shell

I like the fact that thanks to RedHat's changes, all of those behave roughly the same window management wise, and look roughly the same as well. The above applications are all applications *I need* to get my work done every day.

Second, as a user *I* *don't* *freaking* *care* what you think is better. I want all my applications to interoperate more. I don't care if you think that's technically impossible, or a bad idea. At the end of the day, this is why Windows wins on most people's desktops. To be honest, the main two reasons I use Linux on my desktop are:

I work more efficiently because of virtual "workspaces" concept that most X Window Managers provide.

Because I don't have enough money to shell out for a $2000 development environment (Visual Studio ala Whatever).

Because I believe in open standards.

Because I've spent a lot of time contributing to free software projects.

Third, the license of Qt is the main thing that keeps me from using Qt. I like Qt, but for example, right now I actively maintain a port of the Linux AGS runtime engine.
( http://drevil.warpcore.org/ags/ ) Is it open source? No. Is it freeware? YES. I ended up choosing Gtk because I cannot release the source, therefore the GPL license constraint keeps me from using it. Even though Qt is better than Gtk IMO, especially with the IDE Trolltech provides I can't afford the outrageous price of Qt for a non-commercial project. This is where I like Gtk, because as a user I can contribute to their project, and use it for mine. You argue that "you're just wanting to take advantage of free software", while I'd argue that I'm not making any money off this and how is it "really free" if I can't use it *freely* in the way I want to?

Last, I'd like to dispel the myths that RedHat did a disservice by choosing "GNOME" applications (which only one is) as the default:

Browsers: You think Konqueror is better than mozilla? GET REAL. I write commercial browser based software for a living, and over the past few years (yes, I've worked on it that long) and through two complete rewrites of this particular commercial application Konqueror has never even been able to even render the login screen correctly, *even though it's always been validated by w3.org's validator*.

This is why I use mozilla. You would say, "well that's your fault for not spending time on improving Konqueror". To which I would say, I don't have time to improve someone else's project, Mozilla worked from day one. Konqueror has never worked. Of course, I'm hoping this will change with Apple's involvement in the picture...

Mozilla works. Plain and simple, it renders so many pages that Konqueror will not that it's just plain stupid. Konqueror will get better, and that's great, but until it's at the same level of quality as Mozilla rendering wise, RedHat did the right thing by choosing to default to a browser that will give the user what they expect when browsing.

Email: KMail != (Evolution || Outlook). As a person who used Outlook Express most of my life, I tried many different email programs. I tried the KMail in KDE2.1, that was painful, I ended up using Mutt for quite a while. Then I discovered Evolution, and I've never looked back. Evolution is very comfortable for me as a user. I can work very efficiently and quickly in it, and I know that my mail is stored in XML format so that I can always easily move it to another program if necessary.

Now I realize that Email programs a personal preference, and it's very subjective to judge. So there is wiggle room here, I also have not used KMail in KDE 3.1 yet.

Office Apps: KOffice != OpenOffice. KOffice does not even begin to be able to properly parse or open half of the documents the Windows people around here throw at me. Does OpenOffice do them perfectly? No. But at least I can read them. On over half the files I've opened with KOffice they just come up blank! What would I think of RedHat as a user when I opened up the "default" office environment only to discover that there wasn't much "office" in the environment?

Will KOffice improve? I certainly hope so, seriously.

Last on this topic, I would like to state that *yes* I have used KDE 3.1, I also have a debian installation because of binary distribution issues due to the GCC 3.2 ABI change for the programs I distribute. KDE 3.1 is *much* better than the steaming pile I experience with KDE2, it seemed like everytime I turned around KDE2 was throwing up "bomb" dialogs. KDE3 is a very nice experience. However, for a few *subjective* reasons I still prefer RedHat's KDE:

1) Font configuration, RH8 wins for me here
2) Themes. Keramik while pretty, isn't really practical to work with for long hours during the day. Less "colored" themes like bluecurve are much easier on the eyes. The profesional photo backgrounds included with RH8 are a lot easier on my eyes as well.
3) Konqueror while better than it was still fails to be able to even render *VALIDATED* HTML that Mozilla and IE (Under Win32) will. It also completely renders many sites I browse daily very wrong.

Last, as a developer I'm getting soooo very tired of all of these wars and political infights. Both sides are saying "well if you're desktop didn't exist it wouldn't be a problem". That is *so* childish. That's not the spirit of cooperation. That's the spirit of *bugger off* I'm *holier* than thou.

Am I thankful and greatful for all the time donated by so many people around the world? YES! But I also want them to join the adult society of the software world and mature.

Interoperability
by Darius on Thu 13th Mar 2003 22:00 UTC

I don't really care of the two desktops merge, just so long as I can run KDE apps in Gnome and vice versa. Anyone who doesn't wish for this is simply hitting the crackpipe too hard - just like those goons (like at linuxpages.net) who don't want a unified package manager. *PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTT*

@Ali
by minkwe on Thu 13th Mar 2003 22:03 UTC

you've got no clue what I can do so don't even go there. At least I don't brag about it. Since you are such a coder and know everything, show me one thing that you have done that can not be floccipaucinihilipilificated.

@Mike
by Adam on Thu 13th Mar 2003 22:12 UTC

[That means for instance, I cannot write a program that embeds into KOffice, without using KDE the platform.]

Sure you can. Just write a wrapper around it using KDE the platform. That is what you are all about right? Wrappers around wrappers around wrappers. Right. KOffice was written with KDE the platform. If you wish to use the KDE platform no one is stopping you. If you wish to right a binding for the KDE platform no one is stopping you.

[Unfortunately, KDE the desktop and KDE the platform are coupled.]

Right. However it's clear from your previous statement that you really wish to decouple KDE applications from the platform they were written with. Uh ... good luck with that.

[On Windows, I can write using Delphi, or Visual Basic, or .NET, but they all use a common platform (COM, Win32 APIs, ActiveX, iexplore, menu system, control panel applets etc).]

Wrappers around wrappers around wrappers. BTW, they do not all share the same platform. Many pieces sit on top of other older legacy pieces and many do not. You can do all the same with Linux and KDE. Just right wrappers around wrappers around wrappers.

BTW, to bad you can not understand my analogy. It is a good one, but perhaps you are to narrow minded to see it. Sorry.

commercial apps
by jbolden1517 on Thu 13th Mar 2003 22:14 UTC

OK, wiseguy, how about all the users who won't adopt Linux on the desktop because of a dearth of comemrcial apps? The fragmentation puts off many commerical developers, and the lack of popular apps puts off many users.

Good. Linux is too young and still could easily get polluted by commercial apps. The fact that commercial apps haven't hit the platform yet has bought tons of times for free apps to develop independently.

Already the desire to emulate Windows has hurt lots of import aspects of Unix. For example Unix had much better layout programs than Windows and IMHO LyX / KLyX would have been a much better choice for Windows word processing than the StarOffice / OpenOffice word processing commercial combo that got created.

OTOH the lack of apps particularly Microsoft apps has been a godsend. The lack of a good Linux browser hurt desktop use for years. But the result has been Mozilla which is a better browser than IE even on IE's native platform. The lack of Visual Studio resulted in the success of QT which has given Linux far away the best set of C++ widgets available. The lack of Oracle/dB2/SQLServer gave postgres and MySQL time to develop and now they are challenging these databases on their home platforms. The lack of a good webserver bred Apache.


@ShawnW
by Adam on Thu 13th Mar 2003 22:16 UTC

Great. I am happy you found the desktop and environment you wish. Luckily, I and many others have found our preference also. They are different and that is fine :-) So, let's all just use and develop with our preferred desktops and applications and let the other live in peace.

XParts
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Mar 2003 22:17 UTC

Look at XParts in KDE CVS.

FUD: the last resorce argument
by Andreas on Thu 13th Mar 2003 22:25 UTC

You link and modify GPL code for in house development. You only cannot sell or distribute without the source code and limit further distribution.

Example: a bank develop a in house backoffice using GPL QT. Do they have to pay Trolltech? NO! Only if they want support! They can even distribute it to subsidiaries in other countries, etc... because you only have to make available the source code to whom you distribute the program.
This is basic GPL stuff. _Stop the FUD_. KDE will not "lose" because of that. Try another reason.

Once KDE was not free enough. Now they say is too free.
Well people could be wright about not free enought, but they are wrong about "too free". GPL is freedom for the user. Total freedom. Including in house development. It's a smart licence.

Wrappers
by Mike Hearn on Thu 13th Mar 2003 22:29 UTC

"Sure you can. Just write a wrapper around it using KDE the platform."

Uh, but then I'm still using the KDE platform. Which means linking with Qt, which I don't want to do.

And you're ignoring the vast bulk of code, that does not use KDE, nor could be adapted to use wrappers. They use their own platforms. Those apps aren't going to go away - standards are the *only* solution here.

Again, I think platforms and APIs are being confused. Platforms are systems. APIs are interfaces onto those systems.

@Mike
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Mar 2003 22:47 UTC

["Sure you can. Just write a wrapper around it using KDE the platform."

Uh, but then I'm still using the KDE platform. Which means linking with Qt, which I don't want to do.]

Could you please explain how on earth you are going to embed something into KOffice without linking to Qt? How will your 'Star Trek' API/Platform, whatever you are talking about, will achieve this? Give a concrete example of what you would propose, please?

Does anyone use GNOME as desktop enviroment???
by dadogg on Thu 13th Mar 2003 22:53 UTC

It has no functionality...

@Adam
by ShawnW on Thu 13th Mar 2003 22:55 UTC

Your comment seems to indicate that you failed to see the following comment I made in my post:

"I use KDE all day, every day..."

Even though I use KDE all day, every day, does that mean that I don't think it doesn't neet to improve, or that there exists some philosophies in other systems that it could benefit from greatly? No.

You know...
by WattsM on Thu 13th Mar 2003 23:02 UTC

As a user, I only care about operations, not underpinnings: I want to be able to send the document I'm working in my word processor in mail with one menu command or by dragging and dropping the file icon to the mail message composition window, I want to be able to cut and paste between all applications, and so on. This is not rocket science. The only thing necessary is a standard high-level message API shared by applications. That's it. The under-the-hood implementation of this API doesn't matter. Say it with me: the implementation details do not matter. Qt? GTK? Roll-your-own? Who gives a damn?

If the KDE and GNOME libraries give all KDE and GNOME applications this functionality, that's great. More power to 'em. If it means, as a user, I need whatever libraries my applications want on my system, I will have those libraries on my system. Again, this is not rocket science. In a perfect world, would that be unnecessary? Sure. In a perfect world you wouldn't have 78 copies of four versions of Microsoft's Visual C runtime libraries scattered around your Windows partition, either. Cruft happens.

I have never seen such a profound case of missing the forest for the trees as is visible in these comments. If this is the true state of KDE/GNOME "cooperation," though, I'm only being partially facetious when I wonder if the next big Linux "desktop distribution" will be built around GNUStep, XFce4, Rox or something else sufficiently removed from this nonsense to think clearly.

Eugenia's words
by Another matthew on Thu 13th Mar 2003 23:07 UTC

I want more people to have those views, and I think that's a way to increase Linux's adoption. Eugenia, online there are people who take more meaning from "commercial" and "product" than was ever intended. I think that by "commercial" you mean software for most people. I think that by "product" you mean software. I agree with everything you say, everything, but when you say it that way people don't listen.

You're always talking about usability - and how to adapt to what people need - well I've observed that people argue with you on your terms and waste time arguing semantics. I've seen this for the last year (I'm a long time reader). Eugenia, you need to use different terms or the people with their own prejudices will find it too easy to disregard what you have to say.

You may say that they're your words, and you're right. You don't have to change. But just look at the crap that happens when people get the wrong idea in their head.

Thanks,

Eugenia's words
by Another matthew on Thu 13th Mar 2003 23:10 UTC

Similarly, when you talk about "Corporation" people have their own prejudices about this. Also, that they're a corporation is beside the point - it's about software that people can use. The corporation wants to give it to the most people, and that's something that everyone can agree with (unlike the "Corporation").

Parts
by Mike Hearn on Thu 13th Mar 2003 23:18 UTC

"Could you please explain how on earth you are going to embed something into KOffice without linking to Qt? How will your 'Star Trek' API/Platform, whatever you are talking about, will achieve this? Give a concrete example of what you would propose, please?"

I'll be quick 'cos I want to go to bed ;)

See how Microsoft have been doing it for years with COM. Basically a set of language neutral rules on how to structure VTables and get pointers to them. Pretty low level. Anyway, it's a good way to bridge platforms together, without the need to merge them. Delphi users can use the VCL, Visual Basic users can use.... uh, whatever VB users use ;) In C++ you have MFC and ATL. It can be used from raw C as well.

It's not just about multiple languages though... for instance you could bridge standard C++ and Qt C++ together....

COM is ok, rather ugly. CORBA is a more standards based version of the same thing, but rather complex and has a focus on outproc rather than inproc objects. Also of course KDE would never accept it.

There are possibilities for other object models that'd let you do the mythical embed into KWord using any language/environment/API/runtime thing ... but they haven't been coded yet ;)

They don't mean merging platforms though, just standardising some interfaces. The way things should be done.

Night night.

My take on this
by Maynard on Thu 13th Mar 2003 23:22 UTC

This is what it seems the GNOME/KDE war is about.

Motion: - Let us make our Linux desktops interoperate better.

GNOME: - Yes, yes, that is a brilliant idea.

KDE: - No, out desktop interroperates with itself, no need to interoperate with anyone else.

My question, who sounds more like Microsoft in this case.

I think KDE needs to come out of its shell and realise that the same things that are being asked of them are the same things people asked Microsoft and they refused. Now look who you are trying to replace.

Interoperability starts at the lowest level. We are supposed to level the playing field between all developers, and the GPL, while it is good for programmers who want their work which they put in for free to not be taken advantage of by anyone, especially a big corporation, it is not suitable for the most important parts of the platform and is being used restrictively in this case.

If you want to develop using Qt on Windows, you have to make a decision at the outset whether you are going to license your product as GPL or closed source. Trolltech controls Qt, and that is not too attractive for companies. Its not attractive for OSS developers too. Don't give me the you can modify it and make it suit yourself if Trolltech tries to screw you over. Once there are some good closed source commercial apps based on the Qt, trying to fork Qt is out of the question. Qt is getting more powerful. The LGPL does not allow that. No one can control how people develop using the LGPL. If commercial closed source alternatives are too expensive, the barrier of entry for free version is lowered.

I really don't like that the KDE project seems to be running away from the spirit of open source software. De facto standards are not standards as some KDE developer was trying to imply. That is how Microsoft got to where it is right now. Standards need to be agreed on and documented.

And to all those GNOME bashers, I swear you have not looked at GNOME.

Bah!!!
by Alex on Thu 13th Mar 2003 23:23 UTC

While I agre that apps should look and probably feel the same way on both dekstops, and some funddamental things should be established such as copy/paste, notification area, theme compatiblity etc. I THINK WE SHOULD NTO GO TOO FAR! From waht ir ead Eugenia wants far more.

I want both projects to keep their identiy intact!

RE: Bah!!!
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Mar 2003 23:26 UTC

>From what i read Eugenia wants far more.

REALLY? Re-read the article then before write that trash over here.

>I want both projects to keep their identiy intact!

Me too! Nobody said anything against that!

@Mike @Maynard
by Adam on Thu 13th Mar 2003 23:28 UTC

Mike: Interesting. Good Night :-)

Maynard:

No, really you are over simplifying. Some in the KDE community are all for what Havoc is proposing (not me). Others are virulently against all forms of interopability (not me). Most are decidedly cautious about it, but in general believe that interoperability is a good thing (me). I think this is true of the GNOME community too.
Maynard, you lost me completely though when you started FUDing about Qt licensing though.

@jbolden1517
by Rich on Thu 13th Mar 2003 23:30 UTC

>> "Good reason. KHTML uses QT which is a GPL app which means KHTML must be GPL. Gnome as a matter of philosophy does not bundle libraries under the GPL because they want to leave the floor open to commercial development (something KDE is opposed to). If you think the HTML library in kdelibs is better than the one in Mozilla then you are KDE user."

Oh, please.. if you really want to show how 'destructive' the unity push is you'd better do some more research first.

KHTML could be perfectly forked into a general purpose HTML library for Linux because it's LGPL, not GPL.
Have a look at the following page for some backup: http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/licensing.html

And yes, KHTML is better in some areas, one of them is with widgets.
Personally I prefer native widgets (Gtk2 on Gnome and Qt on KDE), not those ugly XUL widgets that only take over the look of the current theme (it looks nearly the same, but it does not _feel_ the same).

The nonsense that I would be a KDE user because I like KHTML better is bull shit.


>> "Many of the data structures for KDE are provided by their standard widget set, QT. Gnome was designed to not use QT; Gnome has no permission to take Trolltech's code and relicense it under the LGPL."

Who said I was talking about stuff from KDE?
So you're probably assuming, once again, that I'm a KDE user.
Wrong bet.

I was rather talking about glib, or even a complete new library (yeah I know, that takes time.. a lot of it).


>> "Because you didn't know why they wouldn't happen. You probably thought it was people being stubborn not that it would be essentially illegal."

Don't just act like you know your stuff, know it.


ps. I haven't read all posts so if someone else came up with that link: too bad.

theyre kreepy and theyre kooky
by gomez on Thu 13th Mar 2003 23:30 UTC

mysterious and spooky


theyre all together ooky

the unification family

OK
by Alex on Thu 13th Mar 2003 23:58 UTC

If you want their identitiy intact, and you want applciations to look/behave the same way, why do so many disagree.

I think the above is top priority as long as it can be done elegantly without greately affecting the advancement of oth desktops or sloiwing their speed. I especially care for look, I don't mind the different behavior to be honest.

I do also want notification area compatibilities, copy paste compatibility like I mentione, but waht else is really needed.


NOW TO TROLLTECH!

You people are bashing their license for no reason. They are very fair, they work hard to make their flagship product Qt and have it released under the GPL as long as you do not develop applications and make money off them. This sounds totally fair, if your not making money from Trolltech's products, why should trolltech make money from you? I don't see the problem!

re:unknown
by redtux on Fri 14th Mar 2003 00:15 UTC

whoever "unknown" is, I am pretty sure its not Ali

Too KDE centric and Ali's back using gnome now (if still not happy)

Also for all his faults Ali normally signs somewhere in a thread and has a recognisable style, which differs totally

Just thought I'd stick up for him as hes not flaming at the moment

reply to maynard
by jbolden1517 on Fri 14th Mar 2003 00:18 UTC

This is what it seems the GNOME/KDE war is about.
Motion: - Let us make our Linux desktops interoperate better.
GNOME: - Yes, yes, that is a brilliant idea.
KDE: - No, out desktop interroperates with itself, no need to interoperate with anyone else.
My question, who sounds more like Microsoft in this case.


Well lets get a real history then:

KDE - Lets build a GUI for Linux that is more than a window manager. There is already a widget set called QT

Gnome - We don't like QT. Lets create an entirely different widget set. Oh and we will design it in C not C++ so that combining the two will be almost impossible.


---- several years pass -----

Gnome - Now that QT is licensed OK and our project is stalling lets create a common set of widgets.

KDE - OK no problem just link QT into GTK. QT is designed to support links like that

Gnome - Well that mean that GTK would be GPL and we only distribute LGPL libs. The only support we have left is on the commercial side so we can't do this.

KDE - Why should we want to link in GTK? Our users don't have any real desire to run GTK apps and if/when they do they understand enough to be able to handle it. Its your vendors who want their users who want to run QT apps without needing to know about KDE/QT.

___________

The spirit of open source is that cooperation is voluntery. KDE is willing to make minor sacrifices to work better with Gnome (for example they got their window manager to be gnome compliant). They aren't willing to make major sacrifices and double their development time to work well with Gnome. Gnome want this primarily so that commercial developers don't have to pay a trolltech a few grand when they sell software. I don't think that's unreasonable position for KDE.

What does Gnome have to offer KDE that makes it worth their while? How are KDE based distributions suffering from the split? How are open source developers hurt?

I can understand why RedHat and Sun (and hence the Gnome governing board) want this since their users want KDE apps and they want to be able to rebrand them. But how does that help KDE?



wow.
by Colin on Fri 14th Mar 2003 00:25 UTC

I am amazed at the attacks and defenses/counterattacks that took place on this thread. It is amazing at how many people "wake up" as soon as someone expresses how they think linux should/shouldnt be.

Colin

Opinion
by Ez on Fri 14th Mar 2003 00:26 UTC

I've read the first page of comments and I can't be bothered to read any further.
I agreed with the article: The fact is that Linux is business. IBM, SusE, RedHat Mandrake etc are primarily responsible for the current widespread adoption of Linux.

The point the article is making is that there needs to be better interoperabiliy to for the benefit of people using the desktop environments.

So far as i could gather, H Pennington and some others have already implemented or talked about what needs to be implemented to that behind the scences, KDE and GNOME and their related apps interoperate more seamlessly than they do right now. This isn't about merging the desktops and it's not about making applications look the same. It's about achiveing better usability and consistency when using GNOME or KDE apps.

The point is, that if some developers don't want this, then so be it. The distributors and resellers are pumping out to the masses. Those same masses are demanding better usability and consistency. If said idelistic developers won't provide it, someone else will. Simple.

People just want to compute!
by mabhatter on Fri 14th Mar 2003 01:29 UTC

The whole thing boils down to the lonely developer. She's out there right now working on the next killer app. Of course instead of working on the app, she's trying to choose a license that will fit her program. If you go QT you have to sell it to get back the money you spent for the license or you can GPL it. If you GPL it, no one will ever pay you for it but it will be free. Worse yet is to LGPL it then another CO can change stuff and you have to buy it back from them.

She has an idea for a cool widget that will integrate with desktop publishing and improve everyone's life. But who does she write it for? If it's for KDE and uses QT it's pay or free, If its for other platforms it just won't work.

Hence, the widget never gets developed! Realize that for all the "diversity" in the Linux world, people's mindshare can only handle 3-5 options. If there are 3 big desktop platforms that don't cooperate, each with their own way of doing things and their own apps, that only leave 2 remaining mindshare options! You can never build a best system in that environment. If the best Browser sits in one platform and the best website tool sits in the other, your at an empasse--the programs can never take advantage of each other! The current practice is to just run them all at once. That leads to horrible system bloat. As both systems develop now the space grows twice as fast as if they would get along!

Users just want to buy/download something! They want it to work! They don't want to worry about why GPL is better than Commercial and why they can't work together. Maybe there's a third option--data formats. If there were common GPL'd data formats [just the format, not the implementation] that would be a start for apps working together. Example: Why there isn't a OpenOffice.org import filter for Koffice & AbiWord. That's a simple thing that doesn't hurt anyone. But developers will violently oppose it. Why? If I email a document .rtf & .doc are the only common formats even between Linux apps! They're both Microsoft![html & txt don't count--maybe html/xml should though]

For Linux to take off basic interoperability needs to be dealt with! It's the network effect--it's only valuable if you can easily share it. Computers are about to be a lot smaller and cheaper--running everything at once won't be an option in the embedded space! Our programmer has to be able to pick one platform for her workstation and know she can share her work [documents and programs] with grandma, the kids, and people in europe. If they all have Linux that has to be enough. Or we can just give up and buy MS devices, at least they all work together. [they don't work well, but they do work together]

...Continued...Java was pointed this direction
by mabhatter on Fri 14th Mar 2003 01:43 UTC

Sun's original vision for Java was exactly what you all are asking for! It was supposed to have a JVM written for each platform. The platform would then add as many hook as possible from Java directly into their platform providing a consistant feel in their platform. If you moved the program to a different platform it would then feel just like that platform's programs do.

You saw how that turned out: MS wanted to add it's own functions not just hooks. Then, no one else wanted to do anything with it. Sun took it upon themselves to rewrite all the features just for java to use because no one would get along. Now java is huge, bloated, and slow--all because developers wouldn't come down from their ivory towers and work together!

Warning: That's where linux is headed if people don't work things out!

Apparently we're all now wrong or irrelevant.
by Anonymous on Fri 14th Mar 2003 02:50 UTC

For what it's worth I like GTK+, which seem's like it must come as a suprise to alot of people here that seem to think that it's some kind of upstart that began as an afront to the Qt people. For that matter, I quite like GTK-- too, I looked at Qt a few years ago, the whole moc thing didn't appeal to *my* personal tastes so then I went with gtk, gtk-- does C++ more along the way I like it, so I use that. I even LIKE corba, shock horror, I'm sure DCOP might be lovely but it's not going to make too much headway in the banking sector.

I could'nt really give a crap about HIG's I wont write an app that I find too hard to use and if people want to suggest changes and I dont specifically dislike stuff then cool. Im not going to sit down and read a doc telling me how many pixels away from the north pole my dialogue boxes should be. I'm sorry, but it's just not that important to me.

Frankly the vast majority of free software is, and always will be, written by, as Eric Raymond put it, people scratching an itch, and frankly attempting to tell someone where they itch is just plain rude. The majority of glorious hordes of hackers out there are not trying to create a 'desktop environmen', they are trying to have a little fun writing something they geta kick out of, so to hell with your great visions of a unified desktop, frankly I dont think the majority of the people that you seem to be wanting to tell what to do give a damn what you think.

Traditional unix/geek/hacker.

For the part of Linux and programming that it is about "geekness", I agree 100% with what you say. Programming is just a hobby for many people, so reading HIGs just to create an emulator front end is pissy boring.

However, there is another part of Linux, the one that came out of its cave around 1999, and that is the corporate Linux platform. And in THAT world, different rules are used. The customers have different needs than the geek/hobby programmer has. And the Linux companies need to follow up on their user' needs.

Therefore, we have a clash today. People like yourself (geek programmers), and people like RH/SuSE (corporate/product needs). We have a schism of a sort.

And this schism is what it needs to be sort out. Pretending that the problem is not there or taking the attitude "I don't care what you want to do with my source code" is not right either. The Linux platform today has a hype. People expect a lot from it. Linux has changed. Most of the geek programmers haven't though. And this is good. And bad. Depends how you see the whole Linux thing.

RE: Apparently we're all now wrong or irrelevant.
by Anonymous on Fri 14th Mar 2003 03:09 UTC

well from personal experience in linux advocacy in SME environments, and NOT as a 'geek' of any kind, my finding have been that the issue against adoption of linux on the desktop have had nothing to do with dialogue bozes, fonts, or "a more unified desktop feel", they are entirely due to standard business thinking around support, (pretense of) liability, and changing from the norm (apple/windows).

From a unix admin perspective I can promise you that linux is here to stay, and has all but won the war, and that comes down to pure pragmatism.

I've given up on linux desktp advocacy amongth friends, partly because it's is frankly impossible (the moving target of jsut what isnt quite right this week), and the realisation that frankly there is no point in most people usng a unix based desktop if they are not going to use it in a unix oriented way, Thats not arrogance it's just fact, you get nothing out of it except a whole lot of "its not the same".

> adoption of linux on the desktop have had nothing to do with dialogue bozes, fonts, or "a more unified desktop feel

I disagree. Look, feel, behavior is *a* factor. But it is NOT the only factor! I would say that the issue we discuss here today has only about 30-50% to do with "why linux is not big on the dekstop". The rest percentage is because of other things as you stated, plus application support.
But here today we just tuckle one of these issues, not all of them.

>I can promise you that linux is here to stay

Of course it is! Especially on the server space! It is a strong server platform!
What we clearly said is that Linux will have slower adoption in the desktop market if these 4-5 issues are not fixed.

RE: Apparently we're all now wrong or irrelevant.
by krong on Fri 14th Mar 2003 03:18 UTC

Traditional unix/geek/hacker.

You probably didn't mean that as a compliment. Nice.

Pretending that the problem is not there or taking the attitude "I don't care what you want to do with my source code" is not right either.

I don't think anyone would pretend the problem isn't there. It's an issue that time, technical merit, and willpower will sort out. Nobody will be hurt in the meantime. But what you want to do with other peoples source code is irrelevant. It's GPL, you can do what you want with it. What you _can't_ do is tell _me_ what to do with it or my free time. I just don't care. I won't compromise my enjoyment of my preferred development platform to make it more in tune with your subjective HIG preferences.

The Linux platform today has a hype.

Who cares about hype besides newbie freeloaders and giant corporations looking for free code? If you want to shape what gets done in a free project, you'll have to pull your own weight and contribute.

People expect a lot from it.

And there would be NOTHING there for people to expect anything from except for the "traditional unix/geek/hacker" you dismiss as cavemen in need of your various forms of wisdom.

Wouldnt it kill gnome?
by Mat on Fri 14th Mar 2003 03:23 UTC

Im a little late in the conversation but... wouldnt this kill Gnome? I mean if KDE can do everything KDE can PLUS everything Gnome can... why have Gnome??

I must have missed the point ;)

RE: Wouldnt it kill gnome?
by Eugenia on Fri 14th Mar 2003 03:28 UTC

I think you have lost the plot a bit here.. ;)
It is not about Gnome and KDE (no matter what some people might want to turn the issue in that direction). It is about Gnome libs and KDE libs and Qt and GTK+.
The point is that there are applications (the very reason why an OS can be useful or not) that are written either for GTK+ or for Qt. And they don't interoperate well together. And people want to. So freedesktop.org and most of the big companies want to make these apps work better together. But they find resistance or misunderstandings from the "KDE Vs Gnome" people.

RE: Wouldnt it kill gnome?
by Mat on Fri 14th Mar 2003 03:49 UTC

But my point is still somewhat valid ;)

If all gtk application behaves as well in KDE than they do in Gnome, what's left of Gnome? If the core GTK+/glib is present in KDE, why have Gnome?

Of course this sounds like I believe KDE is superior to Gnome but the same could be said if Gnome could run every Qt/KDE apps perfectly. But it seems they can't because of licenses, so we're left with KDE that can do everything...

I know this article is only about "interpoerability", but in the end, when everything "interoperates" so well together, you lose all incentives to have 2 different platforms, right?

Yes, my english is very suck. ;)

RE: Wouldnt it kill gnome?
by Eugenia on Fri 14th Mar 2003 03:55 UTC

>you lose all incentives to have 2 different platforms, right?

No. Their desktops will still look different, have different options on their menus/context menus, have different layouts etc. There is still choice.

@Adam a$$-clown
by rock_the_casbah on Fri 14th Mar 2003 04:07 UTC

//Another notable difference between you and I ... I use a Free Desktop every day and you are still stuck using your closed system.//

Stuck how? Stuck with a solid OS that runs nearly every program you could ever want, and is "out-of-the-box" compatible with *THOUSANDS* of different pieces of hardware?

Yah, that would suck.

Ass.

RE: Apparently we're all now wrong or irrelevant.
by Anonymous on Fri 14th Mar 2003 04:26 UTC

Ultimately it seems to me that...

1. telling the little guy (whose kind have produced this wonderful thing that is here for all to whien about) that he should be looking at the bigger picture is pretty offensive, his picture looks just fine, you would'nt tell Turner to paint adverts.

2. The majority of sme/corporate decisions will be made without even glancing at thee aesthetic elements that get so much attention, RedHat have gotten, and will continue to get, major corporate accounts because they represent a viable alternative, not neccesraily an aetheticly suprerior one. You might be right about speed of adoption, but IMHO improving aethetics and integration are not the only, andindeed not the quickest, methodof achieveing acceptance. Many of the concerns out there will be met as people seek to meet the next of the technical challenges, by promoting your point of view you can guide what challenges people look at, but this shouldn't be done by trying to point things out as absolutes when they are subjective and emotive issues.

3. I think alot of the grass roots developers are becoming rather concerned tha the notion and promotion of variety and choice is being put down by those out there who want to seek corporate acceptance. And for many of us its not a price we are willing to pay.

4. It will all sort itself out in the end. Those with the means and motive may well devleope the grand unified system that they want, and may people may take it up and use it. My personal suspicion is that other market forces are going to decide how successful these efforts are in the end. Those of us withother goals will keep plodding on, after all, we've not done so bad over the last 25 years.

One thing is for sure though, successive releases of the main commerical linux distro's are acting as a wedge, each release is driving that wedge deeper and deviding the community, regardless of the "desktop devide". The devision is between the unix users and hobbyist that know what they like, and the desktop users who seem to be told what they like.I can guarantee that one of those groups is going to survive, and we shall see about the other.

Freesoftware Sainthood
by Steve on Fri 14th Mar 2003 04:38 UTC

The adult tolerance that has been demonstrated towards some of the childishness on both GNOME and KDE lists has been nothing short of amazing. A few people have had reasonable, mature, disagreements but the sheer volume of the petty snipes that have been maturely allowed to pass unremarked is quite encouraging, regardless of whether interoperability is achieved or whether the best technical design is arrived at. After all, it can always be redesigned later, but if we fall to infighting and acrimony, we are lost. Havoc in particular has been very mature on the KDE list, as have a few of the KDE people on the Gnome list.

Standard GUI API
by Anonymous on Fri 14th Mar 2003 05:33 UTC

wxWindows provides a standard cross-platform GUI API with multiple language bindings.

If (??) wxWindows can be warapped around QT and GTK+, app developers would have an API to code with regardless of the underlying DE or OS.

RE: Standard GUI API
by Eugenia on Fri 14th Mar 2003 05:40 UTC

The API used to create the apps is *not* the problem. The rest is.

RE: Wouldnt it kill gnome?
by offtangent on Fri 14th Mar 2003 08:31 UTC

> No. Their desktops will still look different, have different options on their menus/context menus, have different layouts etc. There is still choice.

I realize what they are trying to do here with laying down the framework, but like Mat seems to suggest, at some level it would seem like reducing either DE to a theme, and that is probably what really scares some of the people in both camps.

@Mike Hearn
by Unknown on Fri 14th Mar 2003 09:10 UTC

There is no need to get personal just because you get out of arguments. GNOME has fallen back, GNOME destroyed it's own community, GNOME is in-efficient, GNOME is worthless as plattform. Mike, there are many votes on all places that can prove this and your reply really sounds more ignorant and hardheaded to me than openminded.

http://www.desktoplinux.com/cgi-bin/survey/survey.cgi?view=results&...
http://www.linux.com/pollBooth.pl?qid=1386&aid=-1
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?threadid=398...

Here are some examples Mr. Mike, now show me one poll on one unbiassed page that shows GNOME on first place.

Again, I don't see the necessarity for KDE to trash their concepts and road just because some GNOME'rs wants so. And now after the KDE team has rejected you people are becoming unfair and bash about KDE being uncooperative and whatelse. First of all SHOW the world that you can keep up with KDE then we can talk about cooperation again but right now you only managed to create a big disappointment.

student perspective
by Newbie on Fri 14th Mar 2003 10:09 UTC

Hey guys, I am a college student and I have been using mandrake 9.0 for about a month. I currently use kDE because it is most familiar to what I am used to xp, and I can work faster. Things that I use my computer for: writing papers, email, internet, AIM, FTP, IRC, P2P, mp3/divx/xvid player. I dont really understand the argurment that people want all their apps to look the same. I actually did not like the fact that KDE installed with all its own stuff as default, seemed a little to forceful to me. I like that a distribution comes with most programs that one needs, but I dont think they have to be KDE apps. I like that basic functionality exist with the file browser and config tools. However, I like that programs look different... they are after all. I use mozilla/mail cus it doesnt have all the extra stuff that evolution has which I dont need. But as long as it is close enough to what I am used to using (forward, backward etc), it does not have to look like the file manager, web browser, writer etc. This didnt even occur to me untill I read these posts. What did occur to me is that OOo looks very dated and wastes space with a drop down url browser making presentation combersome. I think the ability to use a program on different platforms is more important then making them look the same. One should be able to cut paste, and use programs seamlessly. The fight between KDE and GNOME does not really matter to me, I just want stuff to work. I think KDE will be popular with first time switchers like me becaues it is more intuitive after windows. That being said I do enjoy the ability to choose my environment and configure things as I see fit. I have tried gnome, KDE, windows maker etc. Just a word about what we are up against, I intalled mozilla for a friend of mine getting sick of popups. She got mad at me and demanded that I reinsall netscape 4.7 because she couldnt figure out how to get the mail client to display her total messages number. Suffice it to say I am in the vast minority and most people are not very competent with, and do not care about their computers. If you want wide spread acceptance of linux it has to be *very* easy. So interoperability is good, and for me anyway so if flexibility. There was an article in the main campus paper the other day about palladium and the IT people were not happy and neither were students (piracy is rampant in this setting w/ mega bw as I am sure you all know). College users my be fertille for new linux users if M$ keeps pushing. I would actually suggest making these "important" college apps available on a "evaluation" cd or something because it was a pain to figure out how to install all the stuff that I use. I dont care because it took me a good 2-3 years to get to that point in windows so few weeks to make the switch is more then fair. However it would just grease the wheels of progress. Anyway just my 2 cents, maybe you will be interested in the opinion of a college student, maybe not. M$ is the bad guy here guys.

Amen
by Anonymous on Fri 14th Mar 2003 10:23 UTC

..is all I need to say. Eugeina. nice to see that someone gets it.
Beeing a developer, it's just way to frustrating making GUI apps for linux. Nothing is consistent, everything can be done in several ways(good), but they are not compatible or doesnt interoperate(bad).

@Newbie
by Unknown on Fri 14th Mar 2003 10:31 UTC

How is this related to this technical conversation the others and I'm having here ? We are trying to argue about advantages and disadvantages about two totally different Desktops and their fundamental layers. We are talking about if it's good merging them or not. And obviously there is no reason for one to drop their fundamental layers in favour of another Desktop and vice versa. The point is, that KDE exists long before GNOME, we today wouldn't have this split community or we wouldn't have this sorts of conversation or war if there wasn't another Desktop. GNOME is a fragmentation, now they realized that KDE is growing faster than GNOME, now they come to KDE and beg for cooperation and beg KDE to drop 50% of their fundamental layers. For what ? I bet if KDE would have been in this really really sad position that GNOME is today then I bet none of them would care for KDE either. Even better I think a lot of wine bottles would be opened if KDE would simply disappear. So argued, I don't see the relevance for an cooperation with KDE. GNOME made the fragmentation 6 years ago, they can't keep up anymore and they fear to loose the Desktop race. I also like to add that there is a lot of fragmentation inside the GNOME libraries itself, like multiple Toolbar code and various other wrapped code. If there wasn't this fragmentation that GNOME is responsible for then we would have The GIMP, Evolution, Mozilla with QT or KDE support these days and would happily look into a nice future with one dominating Desktop Environment, no war, no fragmentation, no fight between standards, no such conversations like this and many more.

This integration in KDE is not necessarily forced, it's because the framework is that way. E.G.

- one Clock Object embeddable in other apps,
- one Addressbook Objekt embeddable in other apps,
- one Thumbnail Object embeddable in other apps,
- one Bookmark Object embeddable in other apps,

and so on, this is nothing bad and nothing wrong. It of course causes fragmentation with applications using their own standard Widgettools such as OpenOffice or XUL but this is not our fault, this we can not change. Now look on GNOME,

- Nautilus has own Bookmark support,
- Galeon with own Bookmark code and editor,
- GThumb with own Bookmark code,
- Evolution with own Addressbook format,
- Evolution with own Clock and Calendar,
- Gnome Desktop with own Clock and Calendar.

This is FRAGMENTATION because their philosophy changed from an unified and integrated Desktop to single standalone applications. KDE is a Desktop Environment and was that since day one. Desktop (Windowmanager capabilities and Libraries) and Environment (Other stuff around it that feels and work the same). GNOME used to be a Desktop Environment as well but with 2.0 they dropped the idea of Environment.

Look at Dan Duley's cool Pixie Plus

http://www.mosfet.org/pixieembedding.html

7 Lines of code changed in his Program (because of OO and it's seamless integration) and now his Pictureviewer is able to show PDF, PS, HTML documents as well. GNOME developers would probably need half a year only to support half of this within their applications. You need to understand that KDE has a working framework already with all sorts of Objects, these Objects can be used to create NEW applications in a really short time. You don't need a diploma or much computer experience just to understand this. GNOME is lacking all this.

v @unknown
by minkwe on Fri 14th Mar 2003 13:08 UTC
@minkwe
by Unknown on Fri 14th Mar 2003 13:26 UTC

Well, who should take you seriously ? With your last reply you shot and disqualified you so much that it obviously need no further comment. Is this a normal behaviour from GNOME people like you are to heavily attack people you obviously don't know about just because you have no other arguments to show up ?

Now the world seriously sees what the main problems in this community are regardless the fact of GNOME or KDE, the true facts are people like minkwe who have no further or true arguments to bring up becoming personal by attacking people on the worst and most evil way they could find.

- You have NOT replied to any of my replies and to it's real contents,
- All you and Mike Hearn was up to is slandering people on it's worst without even going into contents of what's being said or written.
- You are the REAL trolls of this community while others at least made constructive and technical comments about things.

This is nothing about GNOME or KDE anymore, this is about personal attacks of individual people. In no time within all the ~140 we talked disrespectively about Havoc Pennington for example, we only expressed our opinion about him for not being right in the direction he likes to see things but in no time we called him a Troll, an asshole, a liar or whatever. We just argued about his opinion and his short sighted consequences that may happen for either KDE or GNOME.

What you and Mike Hearn and the other bunch of morons are trying all the time is the lowest possible piece of shit people can do. No argumentations and then trying to hit on the lowest possible way people can do, below the belt.

You and the other minions are trying to show the world how much of an asshole this person is (whoever he is) but you only showed how much of an asshole you are on your own. Maybe even worse than that.

v minkwe fuck seriously off
by oGALAXYo on Fri 14th Mar 2003 14:07 UTC
Re: @unknown
by minkwe on Fri 14th Mar 2003 14:08 UTC

pot calling the kettle black 8^)))

Not wanted on dot.kde.org, not wanted at gnomedesktop.org, not wanted at osnews, not wanted at slashdot.org

Must say something about this person (who ever he is ;) )
Get a shrink!

v @minkwe
by oGALAXYo on Fri 14th Mar 2003 14:17 UTC
Re: Unknown
by minkwe on Fri 14th Mar 2003 14:19 UTC


Now we have 145 Messages written here, where 10 are from the Unknwon person.


So are you saying that you are unknown or not?


Now, you are experiencing what happens when you pretend to be several different characters (which is not strictly the same as being anonymous): It becomes hard to keep your stories straight.

It's all ok to have GNOME/KDE/XFCE/E17/whatever.

What a user wants is to have some work done.

What a developer wants is to implement some means to fullfill the work that the user (maybe himself) needs to do.

What is blocking to the user in the current state is that applications doesn't interoperate well (e.g. cut-n-paste, drag'n'drop, file-formats, etc).

What is blocking to the developer is an "easy choice" to keep the user happy.

Leave the DE as they are, but make them inrteroperable in the user's perspective (just support a standard DND/Cutnpaste/fileformat... thay're just protocols, have nothing to do with the UI).

Re: @unknown
by minkwe on Fri 14th Mar 2003 14:22 UTC

Since you've made it your duty to spread FUD about GNOME, I've made it mine to inform others that may be tempted to listen to you.

"He that lives by the sword, dies by the sword!" he he he

you are still dumb
by oGALAXYo on Fri 14th Mar 2003 14:23 UTC

> So are you saying that you are unknown or not?

I thought you found out that obviously 10 writings made by Unknown are oGALAXYo ? Why do you still ask if you where sure in first case ? But the question isn't WHO wrote the comments, the question is WHATS written in these comments. Now that you found out that I'm the author of these comments, are you now willing to prove me wrong or do you still fear to reply to me just because I know so much about and around GNOME ? By the way you simply could hasve asked normally who I am and would have get a normal answer to it. No need to get to such an low dirty level.

@minkwe
by oGALAXYo on Fri 14th Mar 2003 14:25 UTC

> Since you've made it your duty to spread FUD about GNOME.

You haven't proven on this one yet. Will you ? Show the FUD I wrote. Prove the world wrong.

> "He that lives by the sword, dies by the sword!" he he he

Exactly, the sword as to sharp sides and you have cut yourself with it.

re: @galaxy
by minkwe on Fri 14th Mar 2003 14:29 UTC


We have a free room here in our house, I like to invite you to come over here with your furniture and be part of my persoal life, including sexual life. Maybe we find an agreement and start loving each others.


No thanks!
I finished my psychology degree already, I don't need another 'subject' to work on.

Level of discussion now...
by Freddan303 on Fri 14th Mar 2003 14:30 UTC

10 Print "You are dumb."
20 Print "No, you are dumber."
30 Print "No, you are dumbest."
40 Print "No, you are dumbest in the whole world +1."
50 Print "No, you are dumbest in the universe + 100."
60 Print "Whaaaa. My daddy can beat up your daddy."
70 Goto 10

Run

:)

v consult a doctor
by oGALAXYo on Fri 14th Mar 2003 14:34 UTC
v re:@galaxy
by minkwe on Fri 14th Mar 2003 14:40 UTC
yes ?
by oGALAXYo on Fri 14th Mar 2003 14:54 UTC

> GNOME destroyed it's own community

Guess why ? Maybe because of people like you ? Slander, Libel, piss other people off because of their opinion ? Getting lower level of conversation because of no arguments ?

You still haven't valued and proved the world that my comments here are wrong ...

@galaxy
by Robert Renling on Fri 14th Mar 2003 15:04 UTC

No you see the problem here is you, You said in a previous comment that you've committed patches to a variety of projects including gnome, so I took the liberty to grep the gnome cvs tree and guess what, nothing there from you, and this atlantis browser of yours, hasn't even been produced , and yet the other day on irc you asked a question, a question only a beginner would ask in the irc channel.

So no I cant really take your "skills" for ..granted.

Whilst I probably will get called a ranter or troll now, I've seen posts from you and Seriously I can't take them for what you want them to be, please do enlighten us with some proof the next time..

and btw, Settle on one nickname if your going to comment...


gnome is what it is
kde is what it is
e17 is what raster wants it to be ;-)
xfce is what it is and so forth

in the end of the day your concerns are being adressed already, you just reiterate to divide.. nothing else..

c'est la vie

@Robert Renling
by oGALAXYo on Fri 14th Mar 2003 15:12 UTC

Uhm, what are you people up to now ?

Look in the Authors list of Balsa, Look in the Changelog of GALEON, GDM2, MC (Midnight Commander) and various other things. Look in GNOME 1.4 cvs as well. CVSGnome my own project and even Atlantis got offered as binary on my webpage some months ago. While I am writing this, I gonna sent you the binary tarball.

@galaxy
by Robert Renling on Fri 14th Mar 2003 15:46 UTC

okay, grepped my local mirror of the cvs tree once more, nope nothing about you and i tried atlantis.. promising project.. hope it gets released.. other than that..c'est la vie

@Robert Renling
by oGALAXYo on Fri 14th Mar 2003 15:51 UTC

learn to grep using my real name and not my nick. i'm asking a friend to set up a little mirror with all the shit i made only to keep you people shut up.

re: @oGALAXYo
by minkwe on Fri 14th Mar 2003 15:55 UTC

The onus is on you to prove your evil allegations, and accusations.
you even said in an earlier thread a few weeks ago:

> GNOME 2 was an extremely needed change
> of path; the powershift inside the project, the new
> libraries and the emergence of the UI designers inside the
> project gave a new life.
@oGALAXYo: definately i fully agree to this. it's not that gnome is not nice or full of overall mistakes. no that's definately not the case and i would be wrong saying this in any case.

You are not exactly accurate about your facts either:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=2747&offset=30&rows=45#71...


Ok my appologizes - Maybe I should be more precise next time when replying.

But since you appologized for that you are forgiven.

Why don't you spend you time to write a CVSkde build script and release it under a closed license?


There's no point discussing your posts an longer because you are internally inconsistent.

:)
by oGALAXYo on Fri 14th Mar 2003 16:05 UTC

Listen Minkwe, what you are up to the readers and I seriously don't understand. But be it that way continue your doings, no one will ever contribute to GNOME anymore because of people like you. Sad that the big failure of GNOME is at the end nailed on the head of one person who only expressed his opinion. You are laughable.

:)
by oGALAXYo on Fri 14th Mar 2003 16:06 UTC

How about a FileSelector ? To trivial to embed into GNOME eh ?

Summary
by Datschge on Fri 14th Mar 2003 16:12 UTC

Let me collect some points I'd like to call "facts". Not being a developer myself I try to make the developer's view, as I see it, understandable for normal users. Feel free to prove me wrong if possible and necessary.

It's obvious that Gnome and KDE won't merge. Mergers, especially in the Free Software community, need a high level of cooperation among all developers. This is not going to happen.

Red Hat is very late in the desktop race. The only country I know where they actually do have a majority of market shares today is the US, they fall second, third or even lower in all other countries. And this doesn't even exclude the server market, the only market Red Hat is really particularly strong.

Commercial software support doesn't depend on the desktop, it depends on the compatibility between distributions. As long as distributions can't ensure basic low level compatibility accross their own versions as well as competitors the market is already way too fragmented by that. Each fragmentation need separate support while all of them together barely reach the level of market share by Apple. No Gnome/KDE merger would change that, and the licensing issue between GTK+ and QT is in this situation highly laughable at best for commercial deverloper.

According to some outdated market figures in the US at http://lwn.net/2001/0524/dists.php3 about 68% of all Linux boxes run KDE as default, Red Hat being the only distro which has Gnome as default. Today it might even look worse for Gnome considering that there are still only Red Hat and Ximian actively promoting Gnome (Sun doesn't have much effect since their systems are barely something you'll run as your desktop) while many new Linux distributions which actually promote their desktop use from the very beginning are also using KDE as default.

Considering this whether interoperability will be increased doesn't depend on KDE developers, it depends solely on Red Hat willing to pay enough good developers to create good enough code which KDE developers then are willing to use regularly.

Red Hat has only a chance by doing this move since Linux so far lacks a real platform/framework structure, that is except the one created by KDE developers. While other developers still worked on single libraries KDE developers agreed on a platform/framework structure early on and are working on it since then. In the platform/framework realized within KDE most features and behaviors are standardized, there are single places for commonly used features like bookmarks etc. which then can be shared. Communication and integration between programs is realized as well. KDE is an allrounder desktop solution which offers satisfying standardized solutions to most questions programmers have.

Now I mentioned programmers. But shouldn't we care about users? Yes, we should, but still the equation "more users=more programs" and vice versa is wrong here. It's really is "more programmers=more programs". And while Gnome was a project started for political reasons with a following in the eye candy lover groups which now turned into a simplicity lover group, KDE, with QT, was from the very beginning a (C++) programmer's darling which allowed programmers to simplify and streamlining their own development environment in an already working platform/framework structure.

Distributions using KDE can now benefit from all these which increases development on many different levels which not only results in satisfaction for programmers but also a lot of specialized programs which are more and more closing all remaining gaps on which KDE within itself suffered in user Joe situations. Gnome on the other hand stagnates. It has GIMP with which everything started, a couple of GNU office programs, a file browser and a outlook clone contributed by commercial developers, a bloated former commercial office suite still to be integrated, a bloated former commercial browser which is still far from being integrated perfectly, a couple of semi-core libraries which still need to be combined, and it's still missing a working platform/framework structure since Cobra is mostly only used as integrating point for different languages.

KDE became self-sufficient for it's core users, the developers. Gnome on the other hand still relies on programs which know nothing about each other and suffers on the non-existence of a platform/framework structure vision to finally solve this. And here's where Red Hat jumps in and want to ensure full interoperability.

This is a noble goal, but the only way I see them achieving this is either creating programs and libraries within Gnome which are fully compatible to the existing solutions in KDE, or, which is more likely to happen and already worked on, propose an API independent solution for the whole platform. But the latter is no longer necessary for KDE itself so only Red Hat can come up with a solution. For KDE to be able to accept and actually include their solution Red Hat must ensure that firstly the new solution allows for full backward compatibility without cruft, and that secondly the new solution offers enhancements truely usefull even within a pure KDE system.

Regarding D-BUS this seem to be the way Havoc likes to go (ie. being backward compatible with DCOP while offering network transparecy and security/right management). But this will be a lot of work for Red Hat, and whether Gnome developers really like to see their environment "infected" by solutions already included within KDE for quite some time remains to be seen.

I think this makes Eugenia's point!
by Roy on Fri 14th Mar 2003 16:24 UTC

I think the level that this discussion has degraded to has proven Eugenia's point.

KDE and Gnome are no longer hobbyist projects. They are both huge, with corportations behind their development. Once a project grows to a certain size, leadership and the ability of developers to work together is more important than any individual's coding abilities. The sad truth is that many "individualist" developers (hackers) will find themselves feeling disenfranchised by the projects they once loved.

thanks
by oGALAXYo on Fri 14th Mar 2003 16:27 UTC

I want to apologize to the readers for jumping on that horse of that minkwe troll and bringing this once nice thread down to a low level. But I hope that by reading from message 144-* that you will understand my reactions. Said this I would like to thank Datschge for his nice reply which hopefully bring this conversation up again. I fully agree with him.

@Roy
by Datschge on Fri 14th Mar 2003 17:02 UTC

Sorry if that disappoints you but KDE has no particular leadership nor a corporation behind them. So yes, the ability of developers to work together (resulting in rather excessive but effective code sharing) has been more important than any individual's coding abilities alone there for quite some time now.

damn!
by the arbiter on Fri 14th Mar 2003 17:56 UTC

Such immaturity and name calling I have not seen since junior high. I sincerely hope you aren't all this intransigent and stubborn in other facets of your lives.

Linux is in deep shit if this is what legitimate technical discussion issues turn into. As a user, I could care less about any of the political issues.

Just give me a distro I can use!

Communication is the key
by Georg on Fri 14th Mar 2003 18:30 UTC

Hi all.

Most postings are about merging KDE and GNOME or that GNOME is far behind or about licenses or I don't know what (crap).
But, hey! Hello?
I think most of you lost the point.

We all here talk/write in a particular protocol (English, most probably). But some people think (as an example) Spanish woul be a better approach to talk/write to each other.

But why don't they?
Why the hell am I (trying to, actually) writing in English now?

Because I WANT TO INTERCHANGE INFORMATION!
There are lots of object component models out there.
There are lots of programming languages and paradigms out there.
There are ... (to be continuied).
And I actually don't care.
It's not about crippling KDE. It's about developing a common way to interchage information.
Why not a network protocol, as X11 is one? (I don't know wether this is clever though).

Eugenia's ideas are only POSSIBLE solutions to find such a "protocol", not THE solution.
And as it seems, you don't like this solutions, try to find one that pleases all!

Cheers, Georg

@Datschge
by Roy on Fri 14th Mar 2003 18:32 UTC

SUSE and Mandrake are both corporations that need to make money. I was always under the impression that their developers contributed to KDE, though I may be wrong. I'm not a KDE (or Gnome) developer, so I don't really know how the projects are managed, but I find it difficult to imagine that KDE doesn't have people steering their projects. It may be informal and not done by a corporation, but KDE does have some form of leadership, right? Anyway, it sounds like you got the basic point of my post.

The whining and name calling that I'm seeing here doesn't work in a professional environment. I'm amazed that these people can't even accept that other people have differing opinions. If this is how OSS developers behave, I want no part of it. Luckily, from the interview I saw a couple days ago, the top people in both KDE and Gnome seem level headed.

Interoperability
by Maynard on Fri 14th Mar 2003 18:48 UTC

The problem is that one side is not willing to make compromises to enable interoperability. Why should people writing GTK apps have to link GTK to Qt to enable interoperability. Interoperability means eliminating dependence on toolkits, not masking it. Think of the internet. You fire up a browser which has very little in common with the next, and you still get your information. That is what protocols do. You develop a protocol, and let people implement it as they see fit. Defining a protocol and saying you must use certain toolkit is not making it interoperable with other environments.

Tempest in a teacup
by stopdabombing on Fri 14th Mar 2003 19:23 UTC

This is a lot of excitement over very little. No need to "merge" or "unify" anything. KDE or GNOME will win naturally in the marketplace, no need to bend one to the other. Linux will survive without merging KDE & GNOME. GNOME fell behind, and now they want to "unify" - BFD, somehow we didn't see them come to KDE before KDE pulled ahead, but now that Red Hat needs a desktop, and GNOME is utterly lame, they're desperate to "unify" with the leader KDE. But GNOME gives KDE NOTHING. Sure, there are apps where GNOME is ahead (honestly, most important apps GNOME is better), but it is only a matter of time - and not much time - before KDE pulls ahead in apps as well. Then, GNOME can just shrivel up and die. This is not about a "war" between KDE and GNOME - it is natural evolution, the better adapted survives and pulls ahead. I don't understand why you care if KDE and GNOME are unified? Of what advantage is it? WHY NOT LET GNOME (or KDE) DIE??? Jesus weeps, people, Windows doesn't feel a need to "unify" with Apple, why should KDE and GNOME do so? This is some kind of insane agenda driven by Red Hat, and you are falling for it. THERE'S NOTING TO IT!

trolltech
by jbolden1517 on Fri 14th Mar 2003 19:26 UTC

The problem is that one side is not willing to make compromises to enable interoperability. Why should people writing GTK apps have to link GTK to Qt to enable interoperability. Interoperability means eliminating dependence on toolkits, not masking it. Think of the internet. You fire up a browser which has very little in common with the next, and you still get your information. That is what protocols do. You develop a protocol, and let people implement it as they see fit. Defining a protocol and saying you must use certain toolkit is not making it interoperable with other environments.

But here we get to a major difference between the two. The lowest level "components" for KDE are QT objects. Gnome on the other hand controls GTK. If they want an implementation depending on a bridge between libraries then that really is a discussion Gnome should be having with Trolltech not with KDE.

QT or GTK are UNIMPORTANT!
by Georg on Fri 14th Mar 2003 19:52 UTC

SCENARIO:
Originally we wanted to draw something on a graphics card.
Some implementations did this by actually drawing on the graphics card. Other Implementations provided some API (a library or toolkit or whatever you want to call it) to indirectly and hardware independently access graphics cards.
Another implementation was to invent a network protocol whereas the server was meant to be the "drawer" (X).
This provided another level of abstraction from the original problem (and API or toolkit or library).
There are more than one Xserver implementaions.
There are at least two toolkits.

YOU STILL THINK OF GTK AND QT as solutions!
GTK and QT are toolkits!
Again:
Is it possible to solve this problem of interoperability with a protocol?
I am not necessarily talking about X11 Extentions.
SOAP perhaps?
Think about it.
Would it be a good idea?
What do you think?

There are more than one Xserver implementations available... Thus more than just one toolkit (both, QT and GTK, and even others or all) could implement this protocol.

@Roy
by Datschge on Fri 14th Mar 2003 22:31 UTC

SUSE and Mandrake are both corporations that need to make money. I was always under the impression that their developers contributed to KDE, though I may be wrong.

Mandrake used to employ David Faure, and SuSE employs Waldo Bastian and Lubos Lunak. Those are some of the very few developers who get paid for working more or less full time on KDE. They already worked on KDE before getting employed by those companies. Mr Faure mostly does random bug fixes and kis current focus is KOffice. Mr Bastian and Mr Lunak are the guardians of the holy grail so to put, the KDE libraries. They ensure that all changes to the libs are fully debated and consistence and actually work while ensuring backward compatibility, fixing bugs etc.

I'm not a KDE (or Gnome) developer, so I don't really know how the projects are managed, but I find it difficult to imagine that KDE doesn't have people steering their projects. It may be informal and not done by a corporation, but KDE does have some form of leadership, right?

It does indeed have some form of leadership, the leader is the release coordinator who is elected by the developers in the kde-core-devel mailing list for coordinating the next major release and all its subsequent buxfixes. Those release coordinators are often veterans contributing to KDE for a long time already. For KDE 3.0.x and 3.1.x the coordinator has been Dirk Mueller, for coordinating KDE 3.2.x Stephan Kulow has been elected. Similar to that every single program or package has its own project maintainer. But that's all you get as formal informations, everything else is done practically voluntarly. For more transparency of the release procedure Mr Mueller introduced the KDE release schedule guide ( http://developer.kde.org/development-versions/release.html ) gives a basic overview over what's planned and what's being worked on. PR stuff like press releases are usually something the release coordinator cares about (if at all). Since the introduction of KDE League, which has been etablished for financing the promotion of KDE by financing appearances at exhibitions and printing advertising material, its unsalaried elected head Andreas Pour keeps posting stuff like the KDE Feature Guide ( http://promo.kde.org/3.1/feature_guide.php ).

The whining and name calling that I'm seeing here doesn't work in a professional environment. I'm amazed that these people can't even accept that other people have differing opinions. If this is how OSS developers behave, I want no part of it. Luckily, from the interview I saw a couple days ago, the top people in both KDE and Gnome seem level headed.

I think these kind of flame wars are pretty much limited to outside forums. KDE has an abundance of specific mailing lists ( http://lists.kde.org/ ), most of which are led by some dedicated programmers, where everyone can find one that suits him/her. Mailing lists are usually accessible for everyone, while CVS access is limited to the "core" developers. According to the most recent KDE-CVS-Digest ( http://members.shaw.ca/dkite/mar72003.html ) there has been 2500 individual developers contributing code and around 2000 CVS commits every week ( http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-cvs ). There's roughly 2.6 million lines of code in KDE's CVS now, catching up to the Linux kernel in size which code amounts to 3.1 million lines at the moment.

This all is not without problems like you can see at the following example. Often people debate for some time, come to a conclusion, and exactly in that moment someone has to join the debate who is questioning everything again, and this can repeat again or suddenly die off if there are more important stuff to care about. This way it took well over 4 months from the initial re-design of kde.org by root who started the discussion until last sunday when a final design (which can be customized like every KDE thingy =P) finally went online, satisfying every W3C rule and nearly everyone envolved. Now the different CSS style sheets are being further improved, and at some point we plan to have a poll to choose the most popular one of them as default style.

Overall I have to say that the community sense within KDE is great while participating, it just takes time to really get into this huge project and realize all the connections.

Reply to Eugena
by jbolden1517 on Sat 15th Mar 2003 05:44 UTC

I thought Eugena’s summary was good but it deserved a reply from the other side.

I disagree that the average Linux user wants to make the sacrifice of various libraries in exchange for applications looking and acting the same. Outside of OSNews I almost never hear this issue raised. Linux users are used to apps that have wildly different interfaces. The support standards but their support is tempered by a belief that innovation is more important than standardization. The Gnome (and remember GNOME stands for Gnu Network Object Model Environment) governing committee itself agreed with this when they broke the GNU standard for documentation (texinfo) and went with docbook instead. This is the typical UNIX attitude:
--standards are good
--backwards compatablility is good
--programmer freedom is the greatest virtue

I do most certainly do agree that many non Linux users consider this lack of corporate driven standards a major barrier to Linux adoption. I certainly do agree that one of Apple’s strongest features has been how similar their apps feel and look. All other things being equal applications looking and acting the same is good. All other things being equal the greater the degree of cooperation between these desktops the better.

As for the big Linux companies considering interoperability a priority that’s not surprising. On the other hand Linux is fundamentally anti-corporatists in nature. The fact that conflicts of this nature are inevitable is the reason big companies don’t govern any important part of Linux. The kernel group is still governed by the people who were part of the kernel from the early days. KDE and Gnome are both governed by developers. Apache, Samba, etc… again by developers. Corporate friends of Linux deserve to be heard, they deserve to be given respect, and they deserve to have considerable influence. The developer community deserves the final say. There are tons of operating systems for people who want suits in charge

As for the charge of going back to 1996, I’ll go further it goes back to the early 1980s when an academic anti-corporate operating system that been developed primarily by academics and programmers in the spare time was taken over by corporations. I absolutely agree we should avoid the mistakes of Unix. If the original X libraries had had a GPL license and not the MIT license the Unix desktop would be 10 years ahead of where it is today. Instead the corporations did very little to improve X and spent most of their effort guaranteeing that no implementation of X was actually free in practice and an entire project needed to be started to rebuild X and recreate all the work that went into the Unix desktops from scratch. An entire decade was lost because of trusting corporations. Similarly with the kernels or any other component that wasn’t developed by Berkley during the 1980s. That’s why in the 1980s the notion of “free software”, the GNU project was developed so that this would never happen again.

So I agree completely we should avoid the mistakes of Unix the debate then is what was the mistake. Was it to:
-- do everything the corporations asked so as to assist “commercial adobtion”
or was it to
-- not take sufficient care that what is free today remains free?

Most people who believe in free software understand that liberating territory is a long process. If 10 years from now Windows is still 85% of all desktops, and these windows desktops are still running 3/4ers commercial software; but the other 15% is 100% free software that would be a huge victory and 10 years well spent. If 10 years from now the Linux kernel is running on 85% of all desktops and 3/4s of the software running on Linux is commercial that would be a massive defeat. Replacing Louis the XIV with Louis the XV was not a meaningful change compared to replaceing Louis the XVI with Marat.

Finally, as for RedHat forking KDE I doubt that is what would happen. The cost of maintaining a forked version of a heavily worked on GPLed program is immense. To maintain a competitive forked version RedHat would need to be willing to spend some percentage of the resources that KDE spends to develop their own programs. Currently KDE has several thousand developers (though not full time) and with the likelihood that KDE might become the German governments standard desktop, this number could get kicked up another order of magnitude. It’s the same reason that IBM will not fork the Linux kernel even when Linus rejects a patch they desperately want. IBM does not want to have to endure that expense, the virtue of Linux is the ability for most corporations to only pay a small percentage of what the full operating system would cost; fork and you that number can skyrocket. What I see as more likely is that RedHat:
-- stays with Gnome
-- provides all alternative desktops include KDE in fairly “raw” form. That is they don’t treat KDE any different than BlackBox, Windowmaker, Sawfish.. KDE would be an expert option for people who can reasonable self support and for some reason prefer KDE to the RedHat/Gnome desktop.

This BTW is exactly what KDE wants from RedHat. RedHat’s current policy annoys the very KDE customers that a KDE desktop as an alternate desktop is supposed to appeal to.

Even if I were wrong about expense I see another reason that RedHat would never do this. They do not want to be Caldera. They know the fact Caldera was hated by the hacker community did enormous damage to their product. Caldera had far and away the best installer, the best implementation of X, the best enterprise features… in the mid 1990s, But they consistently got horrible press and couldn’t get the cooperation from other projects they needed to be successful. RedHat has interests that: the Samba team, the kernel team, the apache team, the mozilla team, the gcc team, etc… not become uncooperative with them when the need something. RedHat has a very good reputation with both the hacker community and the business community. They are not going to screw that up over providing a forked KDE desktop.

There will be cooperation between Gnome, KDE and other desktops. A great number of these standards may even become features of X and supported by all desktops. But its not going to be corporate driven. The hackers are still (thankfully) running the show. Corporations are welcome to contribute but not to control.

RE: Reply to Eugenia
by Eugenia on Sat 15th Mar 2003 05:55 UTC

>Outside of OSNews I almost never hear this issue raised.

It was the right time to bring this issue up, and I am proud that osnews was the first place to mention all that. ;)

>Linux users are used to apps that have wildly different interfaces.

Thing is, these companies need more customers, and these customers will be windows users, hence the need for fixing the UI and usability of Unix. It is about time for this to be taken care of.

A few questions
by Anonymous on Sat 15th Mar 2003 07:14 UTC

It took me a looong time to read the posts (arf tired) and I have a few questions that keep on bugging me :

First no offence to anyone please I am just trying to understand :

Why would someone that uses mostly Xp and MacOs try to give lessons to Linux Developers ?

I do not feel like it is anybody's mission to bring Linux as the major player in the OS playground, so why do people that mostly don't use it want that to happen ?

What is the value that RedHat brings to the Linux community ? For I what I know they collect free software mostly developed by hackers, package it and sell it for $$$$$$ (In the case of RedHat the package can even piss off the original developers) I want to see the cvs contribution of their developers weighted against the rest of the word.

Why do other distros like Debian and Slackware don't complain about this ?

I have heard about people asking for interoperasomething, is it just because the word is cool ? I would rather find a per application request most sensible (like : I want this feature to work) and I am actually curious to see examples.

RedHat making x $$$$ x being pretty high, why don't they just pay more people to implement the work they need to catch up, instead of asking the free labor that the Linux Developpers are for them to carry their greedy needs ?

I don't think RedHat is doing anything for the love of Linux, so just give me one good reason for the hackers to incorporate their vision if it doesn't bring them any immediate value.

Bottom line it seems to me that if you want something to happen for a system you don't use, when you have the unique chance to be able to contribute but you prefer to sit on a chair writing articles that you know will mostly just bring quarrels, I think you ought to ask gently and not just try to give lessons (which is how it look to me, and by reading the threads I don't think I am the only one).

No I am not oGALAXYo, but I agree with him.
And about some of the other dudes I hear them checking other people's cvs commit, why don't they never talk about theirs ?

Cheers, George W.

KDE vs. GNOME is just the trendy media creature of the moment
by ghost in the shell on Sat 15th Mar 2003 09:24 UTC

If one looks at the statistics, it is easy to see that the growth rate of KDE is far outpacing that of GNOME. KDE is more popular than GNOME in almost every country, possibly even all countries.

In the United States, we find a relatively small number of technical people and the GNOME-funding companies constantly whipping up media hype on GNOME and making a big fuss about interoperability, compatibility, etc. Is this interop such a big deal in the real world? Of course not. It is a media creature, not a natural creature.

In a year, maybe two years, it will be obvious that KDE is by far the worldwide market leader and no one will really get worked up about GNOME anymore.

Redhat's blatant anti-KDE attitude will last for a while, but they are going to run into more and more problems in the worldwide Linux community. I think someone before me called it the "Caldera effect" and I would agree with this assessment. I think Redhat will be smart and rework their desktop plans to be KDE-centric within the next 1-2 years. Redhat showed some intelligence recently by offering workstation and entry-level server versions of their OS distribution. So they will not stick to their wicked Frankenstein GNOME in the face of market pressure to get rid of it.

There is a strange analogy between GNOME and Apple. They both try to be something for the "rest of us" not quite realizing that the "most of us" went with something that worked well enough and are busy doing what we want to do. Apple sacrificed enormous market and mind share because of their arrogant elitist culture and it looks like GNOME is doing the same thing.

It is no wonder that this GNOME vs. KDE media hype issue was whipped up on this website as it is run by an editor with a clear pro-Apple/pro-Microsoft/pro-big-corporation bias who seemingly out of cultural sympathies for GNOME keeps bringing up all sorts of strange conflicts and issues that simply do not exist in the real world. Linux is not monoculture. Apple and Microsoft are monoculture, much more Apple than Microsoft. Linux _works different_ than the life-stilling monotony of the monoculture platforms.

What I can heartfully say for Linux is viva le difference!

Re: @gost ...
by minkwe on Sat 15th Mar 2003 10:26 UTC

I think you are wrong. The KDE vs GNOME war is only heating up now because both desktops have succeeded. Check this thread from from 1997/11/06:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&frame=r...

Some of the stuff is not relevant anymore but is a good historical recap of the real situation.

linux suck!
by jhonny depp on Sat 15th Mar 2003 10:31 UTC

i prefer twm ..

it is not just position, but velocity and acceleration as well
by ghost in the shell on Sat 15th Mar 2003 10:43 UTC

GNOME and KDE may have each become "successful" but KDE has got major velocity compared to GNOME and seems to be accelerating as well.

If the media didn't hype the KDE/GNOME incompatibilities, it would not be a big issue. This is really my point. Time will take care of the evolution of the Linux platform. Monoculture media people really are not a good influence on any computing platform, especially one as broad as Linux.

Unfortunately, the de facto model for "news" is usually "manufacture conflict" and "dirty laundry". Not very conducive to constructive problem solving.

It will only be a matter of moments before Linux users are branded terrorists for instance. Microsoft and USDOJ already came out and basically said that P2P users are supporting terrorism. There has been next to nothing from the media when it comes to objective people-centric reporting of these issues.

And as the wireless is sucking my battery dry... i think i'll call it a post.

yes
by oGALAXYo on Sat 15th Mar 2003 11:04 UTC

Nice reading on google groups. We shouldn't forget the fact that these points are valid if we view them at this time 1997. During that time both Desktops where similar, same way of brokeness, same looking control-center, a lot of functionality, good way of storing preferences and so on. Today we have 2003 and in the middle of 2002 GNOME 2.0 reached the light, we need to compare both Desktops today again and not of what's written 6 years ago. Today the opinions of the same people would be different I guess. The GNOME developers are making one big mistake, the mistake to belive that everything is turning around them and they ignore the fact that KDE is not sleeping during that time. Today they offer a complete round Desktop environment, maybe not perfect at all but really usable. We should compare again when GNOME 2.4 comes out and KDE 3.2.

For this war issue, I sometimes have the feeling that the GNOME corner is far more agressive defending GNOME e.g. on Slashdot and other places without even bringing up facts why they think their Desktop is better. Years ago it was the stupid excuse that QT was not GPL'ed and today the excuse is more stupid than the old one by saying you can't write Propritary software with QT because of the lincense. There is not much brain needed to understand that this kind of argumentation is laughable because the person saying such statements think the company can't afford such a license of 1250 USD (while they could ask for personal condition at TT) but on the otherhand like to make money on their own with their Propritary software. This is really an ashamed argumentation.

Then people start arguing about the cool software they use and we always hear stuff like, XMMS, AbiWord, Galeon, GAIM, XChat and so on. Now look at these named applications and what do you see ? None of these applications are relevant for business.

I want to hear:
- UML creator (Umbrello for KDE),
- KPovModeller (for 2D/3D technical stuff),
- Kivio (for other layout stuff).
- Kpresenter (for PowerPoint presentations)
- Kdevelop (a really working IDE, the best so far i've seen, not that I use it but to mention it)

where are the fullworking counterparts for GNOME ?

- Dia (not usable and bascially not GNOME related),
- Anjuta2 (development stagnated not usable).

That's it. Where are the programs that may be worth for a business to use it on their System ? Sure GNOME has Evolution but don't expect a business to write emails 8 hours per day (their workhours).

Has anyone at least thought about these issues when writing arguments ?

Call me wrong again, call me whatever you like but these things are important.

re: @galaxy
by minkwe on Sat 15th Mar 2003 11:55 UTC

galaxy-galaxy,
If you read through the thread you will realize that even then, interoperability was being discussed, Havoc was not a RH employee, KDE was not stable, GNOME was not stable, QT was not GPL!

From this thread, interoperability was already being discussed as you can see here, that was in 1997:

9. Gnome and KDE people actually work _together_ on how
to make programs written for either desktop system
work on each others systems (ie. retain integration).

Notes: if a free Qt clone appears, there will be little incentive
to use the original Trolltech version, hence making the original
Qt basically useless under X11 - Trolltech might as well release
X11 Qt under LGPL now.

Conclusions:

Future prediction if nothing changes: option 1, eventually followed
by option 7.

The easiest option to take would be 9 (if egos can be put aside).

I can see a significant amount of people getting pissed off enough
to take option 5, resulting in option 7.

My recommendation: option 9


What we are seeing now is that egos are getting in the way of interoperability as was predicted.

So all your conspiracy theories about why there is a discussion on interoperability NOW, just evaporate into thin air. It is okay to state as an individual user that you don't care about interoperability. But to come out and state that GNOME is begging KDE because it has fallen behind, or that Havoc is pursuing the evil agenda of his employer is just not true and simply FUD.

For the last time, this discussion is about the benefits of interoperability for the Linux desktop user, it is not about the differences between KDE and GNOME, or advantages of one over the other. Could you give us a single constructive un-emotional non-religious reason why interoperability between GNOME and KDE is a bad thing for the Linux desktop user? -- We didn't think so.

Remember that we have used both GNOME and KDE and we know the differences, some of us like GNOME better and some of us like KDE better so there is no need to bore us with your opinion of it either. Just stay on topic: Interoperability!!! No more no less.

---
FWIW arguing about which desktop is better is like arguing which color is better. It's like a color-blind individual arguing that everybody should be dressed in yellow because that is what they like.

@minkwe
by oGALAXYo on Sat 15th Mar 2003 12:09 UTC

Nice try. Who of us started getting personal and totally OT ? You or me ? And now you have the nerve critizising me for being a bit OT with my reply ?

Interoperability is indeed a nice thing, KDE offers it. Why should KDE care for other teams with other visions ? Some dictators already destroyed GNOME and now they are trying to force their dictatorship on KDE. But here it has to stop. You can't force GNOME's requirements and visions on KDE. KDE for me is the last bastion of the hope getting a halfway usable and productive Desktop and I (and probably others too) won't allow any harm and damage to this. Maybe I'm wrong with this, maybe right, regardless of that that's what I'm beliving in.

re:@galaxy
by minkwe on Sat 15th Mar 2003 13:05 UTC

You still haven't answered the question.

re: @galaxy
by minkwe on Sat 15th Mar 2003 13:24 UTC


Who of us started getting personal and totally OT ? You or me ? And now you have the nerve critizising me for being a bit OT with my reply ?


I'll leave that to the readers of this forum to check for themselves. Besides I'm very calm, you are the one getting all worked up and paranoid. My intension was not to burst your bubble. Contrary to your contention, I am simply pointing facts regarding the truthfullness of your posts and obvious contradictions and attempts to mislead.



Interoperability is indeed a nice thing, KDE offers it.

That just says you don't know what interoperability is from webster:

Main Entry: in·ter·op·er·a·bil·i·ty
Function: noun
Date: 1977
: ability of a system to use the parts of another system

You shurely realize we are talking about more than one system here.

What would you say about this:

Why should GNOME care for other teams with other visions ? Some dictators already destroyed KDE and now they are trying to force their dictatorship on GNOME. But here it has to stop. You can't force KDE's requirements and visions on GNOME. GNOME for me is the last bastion of the hope getting a halfway usable and productive Desktop and I (and probably others too) won't allow any harm and damage to this. Maybe I'm wrong with this, maybe right, regardless of that that's what I'm beliving in.

@minkwe
by oGALAXYo on Sat 15th Mar 2003 15:49 UTC

> You still haven't answered the question.

You haven't even bothered to answer mine either so why should I or others care for your ranting and trolling shit ?

I'm agreeing with galaxy...
by Datschge on Sat 15th Mar 2003 16:34 UTC

...at least in many enough regards. But I don't think the whole topic will be changing anything, KDE as a whole won't care, and GNOME shouldn't care, Red Hat can contribute their code whereever they think it's needed, and whoever think it's needed can use it then.

What we are seeing now is that egos are getting in the way of interoperability as was predicted.

No, egos were the problem which led to some people not trusting a commercial product which was promised being freely available for all free software developers for all time (which has been true and can't be changed now anymore due to the GPL). One parts didn't care about all the worries (aka FUD) and went ahead building a coherent platform based and extending on the freely available library product which already offered a great framework, the other part meanwhile was debating about whether to make a clone or a competing library resulting in a lack of alternative coherent platform/framework up to today.

For the last time, this discussion is about the benefits of interoperability for the Linux desktop user, it is not about the differences between KDE and GNOME, or advantages of one over the other. Could you give us a single constructive un-emotional non-religious reason why interoperability between GNOME and KDE is a bad thing for the Linux desktop user? -- We didn't think so.

Interoperability is not a bad thing for "the Linux desktop user", most of them won't even notice it as such. They'll just notice when something doesn't work the same way or even not at all.

KDE has a vision and built the platform to avoid the latter problems, and offers the fitting framework which ensures that everything stays coherent and is easy to take over by any other program within KDE.

GNOME had basically the same vision but concentrated on few specialized applications and libraries instead building a coherent and easy to reuse platform/framework structure, thus they still can't easily avoid the latter problems. It's missing many low level systems KDE has realized for quite some time now. Now Red Hat says we should ensure interoperability between GNOME and KDE. I say, sure, please build a coherent platform/framework based on GNOME and the we can easily create wrappers and translators for the communications between both desktops. But while KDE has standardized and widely used systems already GNOME doesn't, and that's the problem I see which should imo be resolved first. KDE developers have it already so they'll only interested in this kind of talk within GNOME when the result will be significatntly better than what KDE already offers to them.

Main Entry: in·ter·op·er·a·bil·i·ty
Function: noun
Date: 1977
: ability of a system to use the parts of another system

You shurely realize we are talking about more than one system here.


I disagree, next to Windows9x/ME, WindowsNT/2000/XP, MacOS, OSX, BeOS and other advanced Desktop systems only KDE is imo worthy being called as system. Achieving interoperabilty is not much of a problem between systems with standardized interfaces. GNOME is a collection of libraries and features which even contradict each other at times, that's not what I call a system.

Why should GNOME care for other teams with other visions ?

They shouldn't, they should care only for their own vision, just like KDE.

Some dictators already destroyed KDE and now they are trying to force their dictatorship on GNOME.

I don't see dictators within KDE.

But here it has to stop. You can't force KDE's requirements and visions on GNOME.

Blame Havoc, he seems to think now that GNOME itself can't build a platform all itself anymore so he now want to create "global standards" like D-BUS, copied its structure from KDE's DCOP and want it to be interoperable with KDE's existing system (again DCOP).

Anyway KDE developers are mostly caring about what they are working on, and that's their KDE programs, platform and framework (which are improved with most new feature since most of them can be shared between all KDE programs with ease using the existing infrastructure). I'd expect GNOME developers to do the same, but I can't avoid the impression that there are hardly any GNOME developers, there are only developers who make use of GTK/GNOME libraries and are good at making kick ass stand alone programs but do not really care about the non-existence of a decent platform/framework structure.

@Datschge
by oGALAXYo on Sat 15th Mar 2003 17:07 UTC

... well written.... well written...

@Datschge and @oGALAXYo
by kelvin on Sat 15th Mar 2003 18:28 UTC

Look, you're blowing this way out of proportion, it's only about interoperability at the message bus level. A system wide message bus would be beneficial for everyone, including people who don't even use GNOME, KDE or even X itself. DCOP is a great system, but it has it's limitations, hence DBUS.

Further, I don't see the need for all the GNOME bashing. What's your point? Just use KDE, and leave it at that. All the bashing is nothing but bad karma.

@kelvin
by oGALAXYo on Sat 15th Mar 2003 18:52 UTC

Yeah this is right but you are missing some little details here. It's not about DBUS anymore it's more. Please go to the Desktop-Devel-List on mail.gnome.org and then on the kde mailinglist from this News Topic link. When you start reading more attentive and with some more background knowledge about the whole situation and not just a peephole out of it then you understand that GNOME wants more changes. There are already writings about KDE need to adopt GStreamer, GLIB, ATK, DBUS, GConf etc. at least all this stuff is spread from the GNOME community and the KDE people have hard times denying that they adopt anything of that. Such argumentations spread in the public leads to many frustrations and false informations. Please see the things as a whole. If KDE adopts all this stuff mentioned above then it definately will require heavy changes in the core layers of KDE. Now Havoc Pennington (for sure a honourable person who has some visions) wants to go a step further and have both projects share the same bottom layers, this requires both teams to find an agreement on what to change and how to change. If it comes to an cooperation for that (which is the point). My worries here are that KDE is in no need of such cooperations, which only leads in frustrations and leads to throwing the Desktop back for another 2 years at minimum. KDE already has a stable framework and does not need a cooperation the way GNOME likes it because their framework is already stable and proved to work flawlessly.

This all has nothing to do with what Desktop I use or I not use, or what other people use. The insight from GNOME comes a bit too late imho. GNOME (because of the fact that moved from 1.x to 2.x recently is fresh enough to adopt new technology (they are only adopting new technology but doesn't make it usable for the endusers - as sidenote) but KDE is not because they already have what they need. If GNOME really wants this kind of interoperability then they should join the KDE team and work on one really successful Desktop.

To say, interoperability and sharing layers is a nice idea. But the real logical solution is merging both teams and work on KDE to make it a really good Desktop. This is the only logical and correct conclusion and solution to be made. KDE is far ahead eveything else is TRUE fragmentation.

@kelvin
by Datschge on Sat 15th Mar 2003 18:52 UTC

Sorry if my post made it looking like bashing GNOME, that wasn't my intention.

re: @Newbie
by Captain Chris on Sat 15th Mar 2003 18:59 UTC

"How is this related to this technical conversation the others and I'm having here ?"

This is typical of far too many (but thankfully, not all) hackers in the Linux community: the unwillingness to listen to the non-techies who will eventually decide whether or not their products become successful in the marketplace. Newbie was just trying to give input to the conversation from a user's perspective, and he's immediately dismissed because he's not (as you put it) "technical."

Nice.

GNOME is a terrorist organization
by Anonymous on Sat 15th Mar 2003 22:01 UTC

When I read about all the technical stuff they are trying to force on KDE it just reinforces that GNOME is a Microsoft-culture company. Yuck.

It would be a very good thing if GNOME was simply disbanded. The group as it is today has less than zero to offer the world and are just a political organization doing the bidding of their corporate masters. It is shameful how they are trying to terrorize KDE.

@oGALAXYo
by kelvin on Sat 15th Mar 2003 22:30 UTC

I follow both desktop-devel and kde-core from time to time, but I don't agree with your analysis. I don't see a coordinated GNOME effort to convince KDE to use GNOME technologies. Specifically:

* GLIB: aRts already contains parts of GLIB. The GLIB question was brought up by one of the aRts developers (Stefan Westerfeld) of whether or not it would be alright to rely on official GLIB, in order to reduce code duplication and maintenance. For what it's worth wv2 (the .doc importer for KWord) also relies on GLIB.

* ATK: KDE has no accessibility framework, so the reuse of (some of) ATK would be a Good Thing, and would ensure a11y compatibility with non-KDE applications.

* GSTREAMER: Gstreamer isn't even an official part of GNOME yet, so it's premature to make any assumptions.

* GConf: I did a quick search of the kde-core archive, and gconf has only been mentioned in 19 mails _ever_.

All this is still theoretical as DBUS isn't even completed yet, and neither GNOME nor KDE has even committed to using it. Both desktop environments recognize that there are larger issues involved and remember that DBUS is a joint venture between GNOME and KDE developers.

Even if DBUS were to be adopted as a standard, KDE will of course keep using DCOP as it's a good system. There will most likely be DCOP-compatibility layer in DBUS to enable existing KDE applications to function unaffected.

@oGALAXYo
by Datschge on Sun 16th Mar 2003 04:00 UTC

Hey Ali, I can't find another way to contact you. Care to contact me, please? =)

@Datschge
by oGALAXYo on Sun 16th Mar 2003 11:50 UTC

eMail on the way.

Jeezus
by steven on Wed 19th Mar 2003 10:07 UTC

God you are a bunch of sad bastards aren't you? I am quite positive after reading all these comments to Eugenia's thoughtful article that if the rest of the Linux community is like you lot, Linux is never going to get *anywhere* on the desktop. Well done. Maybe you should all go fight a war or something, let out that frustration.