Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Apr 2007 22:11 UTC, submitted by elsewhere
"One of the many new technologies for KDE 4 is the often mentioned, but seldom explained Solid hardware API. Hardware has always been a bit of an annoying element of using Linux and other UNIX-like operating systems, but Solid hopes to fix that for KDE 4. In many ways, Solid is like Phonon, in that it's a Qt/KDE style API around already existing components at the lower level, such as freedesktop.org's HAL. It is already quite functional in the backend, and it's already affecting visible KDE components."
Thread beginning with comment 234007
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Why isn't KDE a distro?
by halfmanhalfamazing on Thu 26th Apr 2007 03:14
in reply to "Why isn't KDE a distro?"
Member since:2005-07-23
I think that's a fantastic idea, although I'm sure many of the KDE devs are working very hard as it is.
They can only do so much. But an actual KDE Linux distro would be along the lines of a mac or windows....... as opposed to (this distro over here) which happens to be KDE based.............
RE: Why isn't KDE a distro?
by elsewhere on Thu 26th Apr 2007 03:28
in reply to "Why isn't KDE a distro?"
Member since:2005-07-13
What I'd like to see (though I'm a nobody and my opinion really doesn't matter) is for the KDE developers to make an entire desktop distro in their vision. Take the latest stable version of XOrg, the KDE configuration panels, a stable and recent kernel, one of the popular package managers, and fill in the gaps with purely KDE technology. If they have the manpower, I think the K folks are in the best position to reduce the splintering that happens because the Linux desktop is cobbled together from so many loosely-coordinated projects. It's better to have 1 vision than 20.
I think KDE's strength has been distro independence. It's reasonably self-contained and fairly simple to compile/package, which is why it is generally the default DE of choice for smaller distros where resources are limited, in addition to being supported by the mainstream ones. KDE4 now brings a degree of platform independence as well.
The nice thing is the consistency it offers. You can generally get a consistent KDE experience across any *nix platform. It's up to the distros to better integrate KDE into their platform if they choose to, it shouldn't be the KDE devs doing so. If you look at the job leading KDE distros like openSuse, Mandriva, Kubuntu, PCLinuxOS etc. it's hard to see the advantage of KDE devs doing themselves, let alone the resources it would take.
Sort of along those lines, I think the thing that is most impressive with KDE4 is the forward-thinking they're doing with all of the different abstraction layers and frameworks. Yes, the Gnome folks tend to think this is bloat. Just use gstreamer, what's the point of phonon... Just use HAL, what's the point of Solid... Ignoring the fact that KDE4 is also being presented as an application framework for non-*nix environments, something many people seem to frequently overlook, I suspect those advantages will become even more clear over the next few years as KDE4 matures and is able to rapidly adopt and integrate new technologies as required across different platforms, with minimal tear-down/rebuild required. That's the sort of thing that will also address the splintering and controlled chaos you're referring to.
Counting on applications being able to "just work" without caring about the state and support of various underlying subsystems, or even the host operating system itself, will be a substantial advantage for users and developers.
Personally I think it's a little bit sad that most of the time KDE4 has come up over the past few months, people tend to want screenshots or to see wobbly plasmified windows beaming across an SVG rendered screen, totally overlooking the impressive foundation being laid with the other components so far. I guess the irony is that the success of frameworks like solid and phonon relies on average users not needing to be aware of or to even know anything about them.
Oh well, the geek in me is fascinated, even if others are just waiting for plasma and oxygen. It's good stuff even if I can't see it.
RE[2]: Why isn't KDE a distro?
by w00dst0ck on Thu 26th Apr 2007 04:04
in reply to "Why isn't KDE a distro?"
Member since:2006-02-01
This is a decent idea actually. Funny thing is your final line
It's better to have 1 vision than 20.
This is partly why I use FreeBSD combined with KDE as my OS/Desktop of choice. FreeBSD to me is what I wish Linux was. Don't get me wrong Linux is fantastic for many but for me I like how the FreeBSD system is organized, base system is separate from the ports. KDE to me is very much like that, with the same sort of organization within the underlying code, streamlined and clean. But that's just my random off-topic rant.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-02
I like the way the KDE seems to be done: less design-by-commitee and more internal elegance. Maybe their interface is by programmers and for programmers, but the internal workings of KDE have always seemed to be quite good. And they don't seem to have a problem with reinventing the world (i.e. not using stuff that's sorta broken and instead just rewriting an area until it works).
What I'd like to see (though I'm a nobody and my opinion really doesn't matter) is for the KDE developers to make an entire desktop distro in their vision. Take the latest stable version of XOrg, the KDE configuration panels, a stable and recent kernel, one of the popular package managers, and fill in the gaps with purely KDE technology. If they have the manpower, I think the K folks are in the best position to reduce the splintering that happens because the Linux desktop is cobbled together from so many loosely-coordinated projects. It's better to have 1 vision than 20.