“This post comes at the convergence of a number of events. First, there was the story on OSNews titled ‘Has the Desktop Linux Bubble Burst?’ That generated a number of responses, one of them from Aaron J. Seigo. With all the drama buzzing in the background, I went back to my Suse 10.2 installation and started to look at the KDE desktop.”
well, isn’t this chap happy with KDE… i must say i’m impressed with Suse 10.2 as well. like the new KDE menu, and the overall speedincrease, esp in system management.
I use KDE, I love KDE but KDE slows me.
I run Gnome on my Ubuntu boxes at work, but, I agree with the author. KDE runs very well indeed for me on Slackware and FreeBSD:-)
It takes guts to say what this guy has said, it might spark some serious flames again
I don’t agree in that KDE has eclipsed Gnome, I think Ubuntu’s popularity has put Gnome in a level of acceptance it had never enjoyed before.
Having said that, I couldn’t agree with him more on his comments about GTK and the importance of a solid foundation. Gnome and KDE might be considered by some about equally capable now, but I firmly believe Qt and KDElibs will give KDE the advantage on the long run.
Not that this should surprise anyone, though. That’s why Mono has gotten quite a few supporters on the Gnome camp. Leaving the always polemic patents issues aside, it’s clear that these people know they need a better foundations if they are to keep themselves competitive. Whether in the end it’s Mono, Java, or something else, it seems certain that a better platform to build their software on is needed. That’s where KDE has always shone anyway.
Edited 2006-12-24 17:57
>The motivation for Gtk+/Gnome’s existence is gone,
>and has been gone for some time.
Funny how this twists history, GTK stands for GIMP Tool Kit and the purpose was to replace Motif with something that is free. GNOME chose GTK+ as its tool kit and didn’t create it, so no mater what you think GNOMES motivation to existence is (and I think this guy is full of crap on that issue) it doesn’t affect GTK+ motivation to existence in any way.
>I believe that there’s nothing that can be done for
>Gtk+, even if a miracle occurred and the right number
>of highly organized, superbly qualified software
>engineers suddenly appeared with a plan to fix the
>problems that beset Gtk+ and Gnome.
This is a speculation based on the idea that GTK+ and GNOME are badly engineered. No facts just opinion. GTK+ was reworked a lot for version 2.0 and 1.0 could take a lot of ideas from Motif (just think how GTK implemented GDK as an abstraction instead just using X directly) and who knows where else they took ideas from?
GTK+ is good software the only valid point (and I think this is what jbauer is talking about when he goes into Mono) is that GTK+ is just a widgets set and QT is a lot more. But that point was never made directly (and I don’t think indirectly either) and is close to irrelevant in languages like Python or Mono so you can decide yourself how heavy this point truly weighs.
Harping about the competition because they have some problems right now isn’t very sportsman like. Shouldn’t we be beyond this now?
Edited 2006-12-24 18:54
“Funny how this twists history, GTK stands for GIMP Tool Kit and the purpose was to replace Motif with something that is free. GNOME chose GTK+ as its tool kit and didn’t create it, so no mater what you think GNOMES motivation to existence is (and I think this guy is full of crap on that issue) it doesn’t affect GTK+ motivation to existence in any way.”
Gnome was founded my Miguel BECAUSE of Qt’s license. Miguel was a KDE hacker before he ever started Gnome. He was disenchanted with the Qt license situation, and thus started his own project.
GIMP Tool Kit was created by GIMP developers because of Motif, sure. Gnome still would never have existed if Qt was GPL from the start. Maybe there would have been another desktop environment started, but Miguel chose GTK because GIMP folks had already started it, and he saw it as a viable option.
His facts are correct, so I’m not sure where your issue lies?
Gnome was founded my Miguel BECAUSE of Qt’s license.
>Miguel was a KDE hacker before he ever started Gnome.
>He was disenchanted with the Qt license situation, and
>thus started his own project.
Lets call this point A:
>GIMP Tool Kit was created by GIMP developers because of
>Motif, sure. Gnome still would never have existed if Qt
>was GPL from the start. Maybe there would have been
>another desktop environment started, but Miguel chose
>GTK because GIMP folks had already started it, and he
>saw it as a viable option.
And this point B
>His facts are correct, so I’m not sure where your issue
>lies?
The author’s facts are not correct because he never mentions point A or B and he mixes them up. If you read the parts I’ve quoted you will see he lumps GTK+ and Gnome together. I mentioned point A to demonstrate that he is confusing an issue.
GTK existed prior to Gnome and was motivated by something other then QT’s license; Gnome chose it but could have chosen TK just as easily (supposedly Miguel considered TK). The author is stating that Gnome outlived its motivation because QT’s license was changed but by lumping GTK+ with Gnome the author is also stating that GTK+ outlived its motivation. That is plain false.
Is muddling the facts and making false points not an issue to you?
Other then that there are lots of other issues with the article, for example that the original motivation of Gnome hasn’t changed or that Gnome hat only one motivation. I don’t know about you but I remember KDE 1 and that annoying program bar at the top would have been enough reason for me to start a new project.
Didn’t you realize the guy is doubts the right of Gnome to exist? And by extension GTK+ which had nothing to do with Gnome at the beginning? What would become of the Gnome based Apps and the GTK+ based apps?
IF his point was remotely valid, THEN the point made by Gnome zealots that KDE had no reason to exist during the times QT was not Free Software was equally valid. I find both points are total bullshit and that somebody could even mention something so stupid is rather offensive.
The sole reason for GTK+ to exit should be to support the apps build on it and the same holds true for Gnome. Same goes for all tool kits and DEs, any opinion to the contrary is basically politically motivated bullshit.
Edited 2006-12-24 21:32
I can see that the article was definitely written by a poor soul.
First of all, you can clearly see right from the beginning that the author’s opinion is biased (by his discontent with Gnome). It doesn’t matter if you prefer Gnome or KDE or any other Window Manager. They all have it’s pros and cons. But they all share the fact that they’re available from a group of developers’ good will, for free. Seeing the author saying those things, especially that is hopeless (ooooh deeeeear!) about Gnome and GTK is like stabing it in the back.
KDE is good for tuning freaks (like the author, as you can see). Gnome has simplicity and coherency all over, it’s easier to use than KDE. No wonder the big comercial linux offerings go all to Gnome (Red Hat, Novell, Ubuntu). So, why didn’t the author try to explain this?
Still, it may be true that Gnome will suffer from the lack GTK progression, but for now, my opinion is that it is a good window manager. Oh, and please do everyone a favor and try to make consctructive criticism.
Edited 2006-12-24 19:32
“No wonder the big comercial linux offerings go all to Gnome (Red Hat, Novell, Ubuntu). So, why didn’t the author try to explain this?”
You forgot Sun in that list. That said, pro-GNOME folks keep trotting out this argument, but under closer scrutiny it just doesn’t hold much water.
As to Redhat, they’ve for quite a while now abandoned the notion of a Linux desktop. I read that with RHEL5 they’d like to reverse some of that, but for a number of years now they’ve been pushing Linux as a server platform, and not a viable desktop option. Shoot, from what I hear their sales force doesn’t even use it on their own personal systems (what do they use? hint, starts with a W).
Sun’s a similar story to Redhat (though using Solaris instead), in that they market themselves primarily as a server platform, with maybe some high end specialized workstation type stuff. Aren’t they pretty much frozen on GNOME 2.6 or something still anyhow?
As to Novell, well no big surprise there. Remember, Novell’s Linux entity is a (not always harmonious) coupling of two very different companies: Ximian (founded by GNOME’s original founder…) and SUSE (which historically has been very KDE-centric up until the aquisition by Novell). As I mention below, with openSUSE 10.2, it looks like they’re now going back to some of their roots (at least in the sense of bringing some balance.)
Ubuntu, again no surprise, since much/most of the original devs that Shuttleworth scooped up in the beginning of the project were Debian GNOME maintainers. So it’s not shocking that they’d have chosen GNOME as their springboard. That said, there is this thing called Kubuntu which looks rather popular as well…
Anyhow, the argument is a little moot. Seriously, how much of a real presence would you say Linux as a _desktop_ has in the enterprise market anyhow (and this coming from the resident desktop linux zealot at my work (a university)). The only company I can think of off the top of my head with a real desktop presence is Burlington Coat Factory, and at least on their POS units it looked more like it was running IceWM or something.
Final point: I imagine most of the desktop Linux presence out there is by enthusiasts for the platform. And in that case, taking a look at the more hobbiest oriented distros out there is interesting. Why? Because, for whatever reasons, they largely appear to favour KDE instead as their desktop of choice.
“The only company I can think of off the top of my head with a real desktop presence is Burlington Coat Factory, and at least on their POS units it looked more like it was running IceWM or something. ”
That’s one of the problems with desktop linux. It can look like anything therefore nobody knows what linux is supposed to look like or how it’s supposed to work. That’s great for enthusiasts but it’s not going to sell to corps
> That’s one of the problems with desktop linux. It can look like anything therefore nobody knows what linux is supposed to look like or how it’s supposed to work. That’s great for enthusiasts but it’s not going to sell to corps
That’s a bad thing? They can make it into a win2k look-alike or design a desktop that provides their exact requirements. The source is there, they are free to change it however they choose to.
That’s a bad thing? They can make it into a win2k look-alike or design a desktop that provides their exact requirements.
Yes, you, like many others, have re-revealed why “choice is bad” ™ [troll mark].
This is because the customer gets many more options for having a system that meets their needs, i.e. “is different from what I use and therefore unknown, prob’ly bad”.
Yes, “choice is bad” ™ defies the marketing wisdom that customer choice is a selling point. “choice is bad” ™ bravely warns us that even *if* the customer actually knows what they need to perform their daily operations they will be unable to select it from a group if more than one option is offered to them. Therefore multiple options equals no sale.
The plus side of this is that the salesperson who has the least to offer absolutely ROOLZ (and doesn’t have to spend a bunch of time staying up to date on the product).
[The only company I can think of off the top of my head with a real desktop presence is Burlington Coat Factory ]
Are you sure that you have seen enough companies. Let me add some of the BIG ones ::
1) IBM – arguably having the biggest workforce in IT industry. They are having a modified version of RHEL and use it on their desktops. They have even ported ll their internal applications on RHEL. So if one fine day u want to Run Lotus Notes ( mail client) or for that matter most of IBM applications, well they run on Linux.
2) Yahoo – Most of their desktops are FreeBSD based. The default desktop is KDE. They have plans to port all their applications to KDE/Gnome.
3) Google – They use Linux in big way. Ubuntu is one of the distro they use and use it to the extent that there is a buzz of google bringing out Gubuntu.
4) The city of Munich has migrated more than 14,000 computers to their own version of Linux (LiMux ).
OK I agree that all the above mentioned also use Windows, but the number of people using Linux/FreeBSD on desktop is not small by any standards.
If Steve Balmer believed that Linux is no threat to Windows on desktop, then MS would never have made a deal with Novell. But then, this is my personla view.
Cheers.
>> You forgot Sun in that list.
Let me tell you about my initial experience with Solaris Enterprise System 6/06. I have the complete DVD set, sent to me when I responded to an invitation to review it. I have a lot of good experiences with Solaris on SPARC, so I didn’t hesitate to say yes.
I got the software and attempted to install it on two Boxx systems built with Athlon FX 56 (socket 939) CPUs and ASUS motherboards. The first attempt on the first box installed, but seemed to only come up with CDE as the desktop. When I did it myself the second time (on the second system) I figured out how to select and install the Gnome-based desktop. While the underlying OS was top-notch, the desktop was not. It was very dated, and the overall display quality was poor, especially when compared to Ubuntu, FC5, and Suse 10.1 under Gnome. In the end I installed SLED 10 over the second Solaris install, and the folks who managed the first Boxx dropped Windows XP back on it. I recommend and admire Solaris for it’s superb server capabilities, even over Linux, especially on x86 machines.
>> …with openSUSE 10.2, it looks like they’re now
>> going back to some of their roots…
I agree. I don’t know how OpenSuse 10.2 will feed into SLED, but SLED 10 put some real polish on the OpenSuse 10.1 release. I’m very interested to see how the next major release of SLED turns out with the advances in KDE I’ve seen in OpenSuse 10.2.
>> Final point: I imagine most of the desktop Linux
>> presence out there is by enthusiasts for the
>> platform.
Or, as in my case and a few others I know, as a development platform for Linux server applications or embedded Linux work. This fight over the desktop has become irrelevant. Linux will not take it over. Everybody in the business world concedes this. But that doesn’t mean Linux is dead; far from it. Linux is a powerful enabling software technology for new hardware directions. Whenever I want to drop an embedded 32-bit chip into a new device, I turn invariably to an ARM or Geode chip running… Linux. Look at what’s happening with phones. Or better yet, go look at LinuxDevices (http://www.linuxdevices.com). Linux is an enabler for new technologies simply because it is so flexible from a software engineering standpoint. And it doesn’t cost you anything to use it, except the work necessary to customize it for your specific needs.
KDE is good for tuning freaks (like the author, as you can see).
It would have been much better if you had stated why you think GTK/Gnome is good by making clear what you think are its strong points. There was no need to include that sentence in your argumentation. I think it’s fair to say KDE’s virtues go well beyond its ability to be customized, and not every user that likes KDE do so only because they want to ‘tune’ it to the extremes.
>KDE is good for tuning freaks (like the author, as you can see). Gnome has simplicity and coherency all over, it’s easier to use than KDE. No wonder the big comercial linux offerings go all to Gnome (Red Hat, Novell, Ubuntu). So, why didn’t the author try to explain this? <
I hardly think that changing the color of your window decoration or changing your wallpaper is is being a tuning freek.
the bottom line is that most windows users will discouraged by the inability to change simple things that they can easily change in windows or osx when using the gnome desktop. I know in coorporate settings this may be a little different, but on a typical home users desktop, this annoys the hell out of people which is exactly why i don’t use gnome.
If i want to use change my desktop settings i don’t want to do it form the cli.
Are you kidding me? Compared to Windows or OSX, GNOME is still a dream come true for desktop tweakers. The main reason it has taken some time to get decent colour changing support is, that it is much harder to do with custom themes and theme engines. I don’t see Windows or OSX providing anything like that out of the box.
GNOME has no interest in making a regular user’s life hell in favour of corporate environments, that’s a myth at best.
well, in windows, i can change the color of the windowdecoration, and most other colors as well. same with KDE (even more precise, actually). but not in Gnome. it annoyed the heck out of me…
Quote: “KDE is good for tuning freaks (like the author, as you can see). Gnome has simplicity and coherency all over, it’s easier to use than KDE. No wonder the big comercial linux offerings go all to Gnome (Red Hat, Novell, Ubuntu). So, why didn’t the author try to explain this”
They go for Gnome because they don’t want to pay licensing fees to Trolltech for the QT toolkit. Plain and simple.
I use Microsoft Windows as my default operating system these days (wake me up when they get Photoshop CS2 working reliably on WINE), and I use Webshots – does that make me a ‘tuning freak’ as you so subtletly put it?
KDE, whilst based on QT, is also “from the developer’s good will”, but your comment assumes that this can only be the case if the desktop environment is sourced from a totally free toolkit (GTK+).
I see this type of argument all of the time on Photography forums – Canon vs Nikon. My Nikon is better because…my Canon is better because…I prefer…blah blah blah. In the end, the main thing is what works for you, the user. When I used Linux, I used KDE as my desktop, because it worked for me and I preferred it. Ergo, it was better [to me]. I tried Gnome, and in all honesty it didn’t do anything for me whatsoever. Recent tries using Ubuntu’s live disk still do little for me.
Dave
They go for Gnome because they don’t want to pay licensing fees to Trolltech for the QT toolkit. Plain and simple.
Wrong. Trolltech asks for licensing fees only for commercial closed-source applications, if you are developing an open-source one – you don’t have to pay anything.
Yes, but big players like Redhat and Novell want to tailor and customise KDE to suit their needs, and I think you’ll find (unless I’m very much mistaken) that they then need to pay licensing fees to Trolltech.
Either that or such big corporations have reasons to back Gnome rather than KDE (or some other desktop environment).
In all honesty, I found XFCE to be light years ahead of Gnome – in looks, features and usability, and they do it on a shoe string budget I’m sure, with far less resources. This, of course, is my opinion, you can like it or leave it. It’s good to see the Gnomites of old are still at their old tricks of modding down anything that doesn’t pay ‘homage’ to their belovéd Gnome.
I’ve read many Suse/OpenSuse users complaining that KDE support is no where near as good as the Suse of old. Think about it – Novell owns Suse. Novell owns Ximian. Novell employes Miguel and Nat. Migel and Nat founded the Gnome project, and they also founded Ximian. Is it any wonder why Novell (and Suse) is focusing more on Gnome? It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to put 1 and 1 together.
I personally won’t touch Suse, I was very badly burnt by them several years ago, and their support was atrocious. After that fracas, I swore to never use a Suse product again (or recommend it for that matter). I’d much prefer a Debian system, Debian treats everything equally, no favouring one desktop over another because of monetary considerations.
Dave
“”” but big players like Redhat and Novell want to tailor and customise KDE to suit their needs, and I think you’ll find (unless I’m very much mistaken) that they then need to pay licensing fees to Trolltech. “””
You’re mistaken. QT is GPL… period.
As long as the resulting works are either not distributed, or are distributed in a way compatible with GPL (just like with *any* GPL’d software), they are following the license and owe no licensing fees.
I think you are confusing “(non)commercial” with “GPL”. RedHat and Novell are distributing their modified versions of KDE as OSS.
I, personally, think it is the attention that Gnome has paid to usability for average (not computer savvy) people that is the attraction for the distros.
Smaller distros, on the other hand, are attracted to KDE because it is easier to maintain in a distro.
If KDE ever really took usability for non-techs seriously, with formal usability testing and the whole bit, they could make a real killing.
Of course, their current users would hate them for it.
[i]Yes, but big players like Redhat and Novell want to tailor and customise KDE to suit their needs, and I think you’ll find (unless I’m very much mistaken) that they then need to pay licensing fees to Trolltech.[i]
Yes, you are very much mistaken. Qt is GPL and the KDE libs are LGPL/BSD, so they can tailor and customize KDE all they want. Big or small players don’t matter, GPL is equal for everyone. And Qt has been GPL for a very long time, since KDE 2(And KDE libs have always been LGPL/BSD). So please stop spreading such nonsens, it’s way overdue do bury that crap.
And when it comes to paying for Qt, SuSe(From before it became part of the big Novell) had no problem whatsover with the licensing fees. Remember the gem of Suse, YaST was originally a closed source application requiring a Qt license. And when they relicensed it as GPL, license cost was not even mentioned as one of the reasons. So that’s simply a red herring.
I’ve read many Suse/OpenSuse users complaining that KDE support is no where near as good as the Suse of old. Think about it – Novell owns Suse. Novell owns Ximian. Novell employes Miguel and Nat. Migel and Nat founded the Gnome project, and they also founded Ximian. Is it any wonder why Novell (and Suse) is focusing more on Gnome? It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to put 1 and 1 together.
No, you’ll find most Suse users happy that Novell is continuing with such strong support of KDE. More attention was placed on KDE in 10.2 than in Gnome, particularly compared to the 10.1 release.
Novell’s initial decision regarding Gnome was unfortunately the spark that ignited the whole “Gnome is the enterprise desktop” argument, despite KDE’s dominance particularly with commercial distros.
Yet the fact that Novell has retreated from that decision is not one that is discussed as much. Their initial decision to recant and claim both desktops will be supported had nothing to do with outcry from the community, it was from their actual customers. Their customer base was mostly inherited from Suse, which meant it was very predominantly KDE.
The resurgence of KDE development by Novell, particularly with the work in Suse 10.2, is also noteworthy. Work on things like the new KDE menu was not done just for the benefit of the community, they will be rolled up into SP1 as a feature-pack upgrade for SLED. KDE is very much alive and kicking at Novell, despite Nat and Miguel’s best efforts.
Heck, I even had a buddy that worked at Novell and his dual-boot laptop defaulted to KDE when we was in linux.
The only major linux player focused almost exclusively on Gnome is Red Hat, and they are the only major player that has openly stated that the linux desktop(tm) will never happen anyways. So that’s not exactly an overwhelming endorsement.
Of the freedesktops, KDE is probably the most flexible and widely supported. With KDE 4.0, that support will even include Windows and OSX for application portability, since Qt will run natively on both of those. KDE is stronger than ever. Novell, as the vendor with the strongest stated intent in desktop adoption, cannot afford to ignore that momentum.
But as always, vive le choice.
The only major linux player focused almost exclusively on Gnome is Red Hat, and they are the only major player that has openly stated that the linux desktop(tm) will never happen anyways. So that’s not exactly an overwhelming endorsement.
When and where did Red Hat say that? I find it hard to believe they’d ever make such a sweeping proclamation. Would appreciate a link if you have one to such statements.
Edited 2006-12-25 18:02
When and where did Red Hat say that? I find it hard to believe they’d ever make such a sweeping proclamation. Would appreciate a link if you have one to such statements.
Ok, I was being a bit tongue in cheek. The “(tm)” was supposed to be a reference to this generic idea that desktop linux will become a viable replacement for Windows. Red Hat does not subscribe to that theory, they stopped pursuing standard desktop-type solutions with RH9, and gave birth to Fedora as a community-led but non-supported project.
Here’s an interview with Bob Young from 2002 (source: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-828802.html)
If you scroll down you’ll see the following question:
Some people have always thought the real success of Linux would be if it could challenge Microsoft on the desktop. But that doesn’t seem to be Red Hat’s focus.
I used to stand up in front of Linux crowds and say, “Linux will never be successful on the desktop,” and of course I’d get booed off the stage. And I finally realized the mistake I was making. Linux will not be successful on the PC replacing Windows OS. But we absolutely will be successful on the desktop as a geographic location.
Think about what’s the killer app that’s taken us as far as we’ve gone — because people don’t buy operating systems, they buy applications. Well, the killer app that has driven this model is the Internet itself. When you get a collaborative application — which is the Internet where that collaboration is essential to the value of the network — then in order for all the players on that network to play fair with each other it has to be open source technology. The moment one company owns a protocol on the Internet, the Internet will fail. It’ll be all over. The bulk of the value will disappear.
He’s basically proposing that the desktop doesn’t matter, the network is the new killer application. Hence Red Hat’s focus on server and server-based application platforms, with less of an emphasis on pure desktop adoption.
I don’t actually necessarily disagree with that position, nor do I agree with the idea that linux can or should even try to be a drop-in replacement for Windows.
But in any discussion of desktop linux, with the emphasis of making the desktop itself relevant rather than a simple tool for accessing the network or using workstation-type utilities, then Red Hat has bowed out for now. In the context of the discussion, going back to the “Gnome is the enterprise choice” argument, I was merely pointing out that Red Hat’s decision to use Gnome is likely pragmatic and not strategic.
Here’s an interview with Bob Young from 2002
Thanks for the link, was interesting.
But in any discussion of desktop linux, with the emphasis of making the desktop itself relevant rather than a simple tool for accessing the network or using workstation-type utilities, then Red Hat has bowed out for now.
Is any major player seriously going after the home desktop market? Even though Red Hat may not be pursuing such sales, i’m not convinced it means we should think less of Gnome. Don’t forget Red Hat’s desktop work with Fedora, where they continue to improve and promote Gnome. They haven’t really bowed out at all.
Is any major player seriously going after the home desktop market? Even though Red Hat may not be pursuing such sales, i’m not convinced it means we should think less of Gnome. Don’t forget Red Hat’s desktop work with Fedora, where they continue to improve and promote Gnome. They haven’t really bowed out at all.
I agree about the home market, personally I don’t think it’s viable at this point.
But the point I was basically making was not so much to say that people should think less of Gnome as a viable desktop. Rather, it was to say don’t think less of KDE as a viable desktop just because Red Hat, among others, defaults to Gnome. That’s a popular flawed argument that is brought up frequently.
I like KDE and part of my job at work is supporting it for our network. That said, for a little while now I’ve found myself disliking just about every “tweaked” up version of it that various distros were putting out. Simple vanilla, compiled straight from source KDE was what I liked. Until openSUSE 10.2…
This one’s got me really impressed. It finally looks like the SUSE folks (well, at least the openSUSE folks) have went back to putting the polish on the desktop that distro was formerly best known for. They appear to have taken some of thought of what has gone into the ximianized/novellized version of GNOME in SLED (largely unchanged it seems in openSUSE)and brought it into KDE, but all with it’s own unique slant and implementation. The end result is highly functional, still customizable, and rather pretty to boot.
Have to admit, I really thought the new menu was stupid for the first little bit, but using it further I think it’s just about the right balance between functinality, unclutteredness and ease of use (I have some minor quibble with it, but overall for me it works).
I don’t mind so much that the Novell folks have been pouring resources into their GNOME, but it’s really nice to see KDE getting some love over there again.
Gtk+ is the foundation for Gnome, and frankly, that foundation has collapsed …. I believe that there’s nothing that can be done for Gtk+
One developer speaks out and asks for more GTK love, and suddenly the foundation for Gnome has collapsed and there’s nothing people can do about it?
Oh, come on.
Both projects have problems.
It’s true that GTK+ sux
But it doesn’t stop me from using Gnome. Gnome itself is ok. All it needs is a unified control panel and a better menu editor. Oh, and more options… like KDE. I prefer control over simplicity.
On the other side, QT is ok. The only things that really annoy me are the redrawing issues. Interfaces built with QT flicker all the time. It feels like Win95 on a 386
Anyway, GTK is not better. Most windows resize themselves when text labels change size. How weird is that…
Anyway, KDE is great too. It just needs better artwork and more polish. KDE4?
I have worked on both GUIs GNOME and KDE, and on a 24/7 pattern with a file/other servers. I can tell you that on both cases they crashed regularly when networking was saturated and you start to use xine to play a .avi file with 1080p specs.
With GNOME the situation is a little bit worse as the whole GUI sometimes restarts much like windows explorer.exe restart when it crashes, but both nautilus and konqueror crash frequently under heavy load and under many mount points that goes offline; but again nautilus crashes much frequently than konqueror, that’s why I log on gnome but use all the tools of kde instead once inside (konqueror, konsole, kxxx,…).
Linux in general is good but buggy for desktop use; for server work is very good (solaris being excellent); and as a workstation you can only depend on it if you are experienced with CLI rather than GUI if not then MacOSX is you paradise.
The fact that Linux is such a strong OS from the CLI also limits its adoption as many “primary” desktopss.
If you have a Linux desktop and you need to use some GUI apps for Windows, it is a pain.
If you are on a Windows desktop and need a decent command line, you can just putty into a Linux box and it works fine.
The OS installed on my work machine is Windows, but I do most of my work in a bunch of other OS’s usually.
can we stop saying that KDE is difficult or hard because it is so customizable, both DE’s are very good, in my Opinion KDE being better, does Gnome have something as good as Superkaramba
everyone knows that QT is the BEST. End of story, how can you compare an underfunded and undermanned toolkit to QT.
the sooner we can switch more people to QT the better.
“can we stop saying that KDE is difficult or hard because it is so customizable, both DE’s are very good,[…]”
Indeed, they are, and KDE surely is not difficult or hard, especially not because of it’s ability to be customizable. I completely agree.
“[…] in my Opinion KDE being better, does Gnome have something as good as Superkaramba”
As far as I can remember, the use of Superkaramba is not restricted to KDE, but it uses some libraries KDE offers, and, it is part of the KDE distribution since version 3.5 and will be part of Plasma in version 4.0. So you can use it with Gnome as long as KDE libs’n’stuff are installed.
For Gnome, you can use gdesklet (which can be used with KDE, Fluxbox or XFCE as well). It offers the same functionalities. At this point, I won’t argument if it’s better, faster, more coloful or more intuitive because I’ve not used Superkaramba or gdesklet. So you may want to try it out for yourself and see if you can like it.
So the answer should be: Yes, Gnome has something as good as Superkaramba.
“everyone knows that QT is the BEST. “
You should complete your sentence in a way like “is the best for [insert something]”. But where do you take the term “everyone” from? Who do you mean with “everyone”?
Refer to expression logic: Throwing around claims with allquantificaion (“everyone”) and absolute attributes (“the best”) leaves you on a point where you are not able to proof what you say, but allows others to proof you completely wrong very easily (by only one anti-example).
“End of story, how can you compare an underfunded and undermanned toolkit to QT.”
The amount of maintainers / developers does not say anything about the quality of their software. Nor does the amount of money you stuff into it.
Let me tell you this: If you’re developing software for special purposes (remember: I did not say “for everyday applications designed for school kids”, well educated scientists will use software built for them after their instructions and honoring their requirements), you may have the situation explicitly not to choose Qt, maybe because of its license, of its requirements or its restrictions. There are some situations where you intentionally decide to choose Gtk because it fits best for your needs (as a programmer) and the ones of the users of the program you’re going to develop. From my experience, Gtk has the advantage of being available on many platforms, may be interfaced with C, has some “OO like’ features even in C, does not need a macro compiler, and is licensed very free. Actually, I used it for developing medical diagnostics software for clinical use where Linux, BSD and Solaris based systems will be used. I’m sure I don’t want to do it using Qt. Not that Qt is not good enough, but it’s not good for this speacial project. For another one, it may fit well.
So please see this: It’s always the question what you want to do with a certain toolkit, Gtk, Gtk+, Qt or any other one. It depends on the case what you need. So let me state it unmisunderstandable: Qt is not the best.
“the sooner we can switch more people to QT the better.”
Good luck. 🙂
Ah, yes. The old crux. I will preface this comment by disclosing: I used to swear by Gnome, but now have switched to neither.
These days, I use Fluxbox, and pick-n-choose the best app’s for my task at a given time. I find Gnome products to universally look better, yes? Particularly the panel; however, it seems time-and-time again I am using KDE based programs in my daily life. I’ve also found the GTK2/Gnome file-menu’s to be atrocious, though that is another debate ( http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=16771 ).
It seems that the likes of Apollon, Krusader/Konqueror, Yammi (woot!), and to some extent, Kopete have slowly taken over my daily rituals; though, it’s my contention that unified desktop environments are mere crutches for new users — those of us who desire the best tools for the job will naturally select the likes of Opera, aMSN, etc., the best from Gnome, the best from KDE, and run those anyway; who cares about looks or interfaces – I dare anyone to present to me a unified interaction method that is ideal for all programs. It does not exist.
So while my favouritism is for Gnome, my uses more KDE, I must say it is a rather useless distinction (beyond the default packaging of distro’s) as to which holds better – both forward quality programs, use what’s best, as they can co-exist.
Not because Gnome sucks — it doesn’t. There’s a lot to like about Gnome.
I use it because it comes with applications I like, especially the KStars planetarium program. Now, I can install the KDElibs in Gnome and use it there, but there’s another issue:
I like to have KStars handy when at the telescope, so I can quickly reference, log, and choose viewing targets. That means my laptop is running in the dark. I need to maintain dark adaption to view faint objects.
KStars has a “night vision mode” that turns its screen red, which is easy on the eyes in the dark. However, it doesn’t do you any good if the Window Manager borders can’t be adjusted to match!
I can’t adjust those colors properly in Gnome. In KDE, it’s easy to do, and my night vision is saved. Also, KStars simply works more smoothly and looks better in its native KDE.
It’s not about being a “tuning freak”, it’s about having an environment that lets you do what you need to do, and set things up in the way that’s most useful to you.
I got used to the KDE way, and admittedly it’s a bit more complex than Gnome — but not extremely so.
And it turns out I like Konqueror better than Firefox — most of the time. It’s not as fast, but it’s very stable. During those occasional times when Firefox is the better choice, it’s easily available.
It’s all about your own comfort level. KDE matches mine. Gnome is great for others. I like the fact that Linux lets us choose — and I’ll take either one over Windows, or even OS X.
same thing for me….. there are better software for kde…
like konqueror, kmail, kopete, koffice k3b, k9copy, kdevelop, quanta…… and kde ui is more consistent then gnome
“KDE is good for tuning freaks (like the author, as you can see). Gnome has simplicity and coherency all over, it’s easier to use than KDE.”
That’s what I used to think – before I tried Kubuntu Edgy. I shunned KDE before, because of the numerous hard-to-find-out-what-they-do applications, the (consequently) overcrowded menus, etc. But the Kubuntu version is very clean, and feels right at home.
One more thing. Do not call someone a tuning freak, not even an enthusiast, for wanting to change the background, or the color of theme. Ever. It is the absolute minimum the user should be able to do on a desktop, and it is very sad that Gnome does not provide one of these. I also wanted to do this, and ended up hacking the theme files. Ugly.
One more thing. Do not call someone a tuning freak, not even an enthusiast, for wanting to change the background, or the color of theme. Ever. It is the absolute minimum the user should be able to do on a desktop, and it is very sad that Gnome does not provide one of these. I also wanted to do this, and ended up hacking the theme files. Ugly.
Changing the background is one thing, but changing the theme colors? Is that so important? In windows it´s only possible if you disable the theme engine and run with the classic style. Is there any other desktop with a themable interface that allows you to change individual theme colors but KDE?
is not something i find a likely scenario.
If i want to create a small closed source App in Qt i have to spend more money on a Qt License than i would have to spend at two complete Windows Development Workstations (Hardware+Software).
If i want to create an GTK App i can create an Open Source App or an Closed Source App without getting poor.
If i want to create an GTK App i can create an Open Source App or an Closed Source App without getting poor.
Most ISV’s don’t mind spending the equivalent of 1-2 weeks of a developer’s salary for a development framework that will generally save more than that in terms of development time, as well as providing commercial support. Of course you can also get commercial support for Gtk development from Novell or Red Hat, but they’ll charge you more than Trolltech will for Qt.
A large number of Qt licenses out there were purchased for development on Windows, even for internal application development only, so apparently not everybody places as small a measure of value on their time versus the static cost of licenses as you do.
But again, whatever tool works best for the job, and if you find gtk makes you more productive then you’re better off using it. But if you’re using it simply because it’s free without evaluating the real cost-benefit of using Qt for commercial development, then that’s simply poor business decision making. Price isn’t everything. Cost is far more important.
You hear this argument about QT being less attractive for commercial closed source development due to the licensing costs in such a case, but I think that must largely come from folks who’ve never actually worked in this situation, or at least never been the one writing the checks…
Seriously this:
http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/pricing
is pretty normal in terms of commercial licensing costs. Companies are fairly used to having to shell out thousands, even tens of thousands of dollars for software licenses for a _single_ program. This isn’t stuff you just go to BestBuy or Walmart to pick up…