The KDE team has released KDE 3.5.8, a maintenance release. New stuff: "Improvements in Konqueror and its web browsing component KHTML. Bugs in handling HTTP connections have been fixed, KHTML has improved support of some CSS features for more standards compliance. In the kdegraphics package, lots of fixes in KDE's PDF viewer and Kolourpaint, a painting application, went into this release. The KDE PIM suite has, as usual, seen numerous stability fixes, covering KDE's email client KMail, the organizer application KOrganizer and various other bits and pieces."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-07
"Managing the dependencies of Gnome does require more in the way of resources for distributors. But in the grand scheme of things, the advantages of the Gnome model seem to pay off. Or at least, more of the larger distros seem to favor Gnome."
That's far more rooted in the politics of yore, and the momentum from cooperate distros fixation with "Follow the Red Hat HIGGy-corporate-desktop-itis". KDE releases are regular, with public schedules. (About the only KDEs to really slip a schedule are the big X.0.0 releases.) I mean apply the release schedule logic to the kernel-- or Xorg. That clearly must be why we haven't had the 'Year of the Desktop' yet. 
Those default choices have probably had a negative impact on the KDE install base, but with that being said, KDE seems to be competing rather well with certain Distros default choices. To be honest, if you like GNOME, good for you! But that doesn't mean that you (not you specifically) have to be proselytizing about the one true 'Free Desktop'-- Because there isn't one, and that's a very good thing.
Member since:2005-07-24
I'm not quite sure what relation, if any, your response has to do with my post. But here goes.
"""
"""
I has to do with out of the box usability, which the majority of people like, vs menus and submenus of submenus full of obscure options that a minority who prefer to tweak the hell out of their desktops like.
"""
"""
I didn't really refer to adherence to any release schedule. I just said that when Trolltech releases, they release in a monolithic way, all at once.
But since you mention it, Gnome does do better at sticking to a schedule than KDE these days. It didn't used to be that way. Gnome has gotten better and KDE has gotten worse, in that respect.
"""
"""
Let me ask you this. If Gnome were on 90% of free desktops and its users were very happy... and kde were on 10% of Free Desktops and its users were very happy, what would you think of that? I ask because I believe that most computer users want *simple*. The current Free Desktop user base is not representative of the average computer user. But if World Domination goes as planned, it will become more and more that way. And that will bode ill for the relative popularity of desktops which do not focus upon *simple*.
My guess? KDE will become a sort of niche refuge for the power user "elite".
Member since:2005-09-21
You forgot developers, who like a consistent API covering the majority of common functions in a consistent, well documented, and stable manner without having to hunt down 5 libraries with different APIs, build systems, and levels of maturity.
Member since:2007-06-22
[q]But in the grand scheme of things, the advantages of the Gnome model seem to pay off. Or at least, more of the larger distros seem to favor Gnome.[q]
I like to believe, that the "advantages of the gnome model" that you seem to see play a minor, or even neglectable, role in the overall cause that makes some of the larger distros choose gnome as primary option.
For example:
1. Novell bought Ximian with a lot of GNOME know how.
2. GTK is LGPL while Qt is GPL / commercial if you prefer to release your program as closed source
In my opinion, the Qt Framework is _technically_ a major advantage for KDE in comparison to GNOME. And I further like to believe that this technical advantage will some day pay off and convince "some of the larger distributions" to rethink their choice.
Anyhow. I think it's _still_ good that both DEs exist to keep the innovation coming. (terrible cant, I know, but still true)
Member since:2007-06-22
1. Novell bought Ximian with a lot of GNOME know how.
Novell also bought SuSE which was at that time one of the biggest supporters of KDE with a lot of paid programmers to work full-time on it. Granted, they almost ruined SuSE by trying to force its users into GNOME and cease/lessen KDE development but thankfully the users "convinced" Novell to retract this decision. I'm also under the impression that Novell bought Ximian mostly for the Mono framework, the GNOME stuff like Evolution was the icing on the cake.
2. GTK is LGPL while Qt is GPL / commercial if you prefer to release your program as closed source
Yes, and closed source applications are exactly what we want on a desktop dedicated to Free Software. Oh, wait...
Edited 2007-10-17 19:52
Member since:
2005-07-24
"""
I tend to ping over to gnome sometimes, but I eventually pong back to KDE. I really prefer the look and feel of gtk applications, but KDE seems to be glued together stronger.
"""
No. Not really. But you are correct that the user (or distributor) do not have to worry as much about dependencies with QT. It's a difference in development and release philosophies between GNOME/GTK and KDE/QT.
While the Gnome/GTK model emphasizes distributed development of independent libraries, each with a separate release path for each, Trolltech prefers to develop a set of libraries and release them all at once, as a monolithic lump. This is good for resource constrained projects like Slackware and PCLinuxOS. Also for individual users who want to upgrade at random times, on a whim, with minimal fuss.
Managing the dependencies of Gnome does require more in the way of resources for distributors. But in the grand scheme of things, the advantages of the Gnome model seem to pay off. Or at least, more of the larger distros seem to favor Gnome.