The article yesterday on KDE4 triggered both Sebastian Kuegler and Aaron Seigo to respond via their blogs. Kuegler writes: "The Free Desktop and KDE have come a long way during the last years. There have been various huge changes in KDE's social structure, in it's infrastructure and of course in the sourcecode itself. I've split this into three different areas where I think a shift in paradigm has taken place." Seigo writes: "Mark my words: KDE4 is a revolution unfolding and you're getting to watch it all happen from the very beginning."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-22
Sure Mac OS X has some nice stuff the FOSS world doesn't have (yet). On the other hand, the linux kernel is far more capable than what they have
Huh? Mac OS X is based on BSD 4.4 with a Mach 3.0 micro-kernel. It is certainly different to Linux, and maybe Unix system calls are slower to call because of the architecture. But 'far more capable' is stretching it a bit. KDE 4 will certainly run very well on Mac OS X with no loss of functionality, and it will use a technically superior window manager than X is on Linux.
You can program Cocoa applications in Objective-C with Interface Builder to construct the UI, and as far as I'm concerned that is still better than KDE application programming in C++. Writing KDE applications in Ruby or Python might be a different matter, but we need to push that and get more adoption with lots of python and ruby apps before we can really claim KDE 4 is as good a RAD environment.
Member since:2005-07-07
KDE 4 APPS will run, not plasma, and not everything to the extend possible. KDE is Free Software, build to function best on Free Software, and we will keep it that way. Indeed, Mac OS X is superior in some area's, I just wanted to point out it isn't in all area's. The kernel is an example (scaling the Mach kernel for servers is horrible, and I know, I worked at a company who tried it) and there are more examples.
and yes, overall, Mac OS X might be better. But it is Non-free, so it sucks, no matter how you look at it as it is build to take away your freedom - and I'm serious about that. Besides, my point is mostly about the innovation we hope to make possible in the future, not how KDE 4.0 stacks against Leopard (I agree Leopard is better in most areas).
Member since:2005-07-06
Why are you shifting the discussion towards the kernel? KDE is a DE that runs on many OSes/kernels and which kernel is used below KDE doesn't matter. Aseigo asked a question and I gave a set of answers that I think are important and none of them have anything to do with kernels.
If your only remaining argument against my answers is "Amarok is better than iTunes" then you should know which ares are left to build a compelling ecosystem for casual users.
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:
2005-07-07
Sure Mac OS X has some nice stuff the FOSS world doesn't have (yet). On the other hand, the linux kernel is far more capable than what they have, and Amarok is much better than Itunes. We each have stuff the other doesn't have, though overall Mac might be better. It's not free software, though. And we expect to become much more innovative, starting with the 4.0 release. That was the target of KDE 4, you know, enable innovation. It's why we did focus so much on underlying technology. So 4.0 isn't that innovative in itself, but it will be - at least, that's what we hope and expect.