Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Mar 2009 18:43 UTC, submitted by elsewhere
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Any discussion about GNOME vs. KDE is sure to end in tears. It's basically impossible to discuss which of these two Free desktop environments is better than the other, mostly because they cater to different types of people, with different needs and expectatotions. As such, Bruce Byfield decided to look at the two platforms from a different perspective: if we consider their developmental processes, which of the two is most likely to be more successful in the coming years?
Thread beginning with comment 355841
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: There is no argument
by satan666 on Mon 30th Mar 2009 19:24 UTC in reply to "There is no argument"
satan666
Member since:
2008-04-18

There's nothing at all to argue about. Install GnomeDo on any desktop environment and you never need anything else. GnomeDo ftw

I think GnomeDo is one of the strongest reasons not to use Gnome. It's based on Mono. What's the point in running .NET stuff on Linux? If you want to run .NET stuff better use Windows.
Why go for the surrogate (Mono) when you can use the real thing (.NET)?

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: There is no argument
by sbergman27 on Mon 30th Mar 2009 19:46 in reply to "RE: There is no argument"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I think GnomeDo is one of the strongest reasons not to use Gnome.

Why? GnomeDo is not part of Gnome. If I wrote an app called "KBabyMulcher", would that be a strong reason not to use KDE?

How about WinMulch? iMulch?

Edited 2009-03-30 19:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[3]: There is no argument
by darknexus on Mon 30th Mar 2009 19:47 in reply to "RE[2]: There is no argument"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Thing is, most people get confused over what is part of GNOME and what is part of their distribution's standard GNOME environment. Hense these misconceptions that GNOME-Do is part of GNOME standard and that GNOME depends on Mono, etc etc...

Reply Parent Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

If I wrote an app called "KBabyMulcher", would that be a strong reason not to use KDE?

How about WinMulch? iMulch?


That depends - what are the licensing terms?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: There is no argument
by paws on Mon 30th Mar 2009 21:16 in reply to "RE: There is no argument"
paws Member since:
2007-05-28

I'd say the strongest argument for using GNOME Do on Linux and not on Windows is that it doesn't run on Windows, even if it is based on Mono.

+1 for Do, though. Killer app.

Edited 2009-03-30 21:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: There is no argument
by segedunum on Mon 30th Mar 2009 21:46 in reply to "RE: There is no argument"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I think GnomeDo is one of the strongest reasons not to use Gnome. It's based on Mono.

Yer, but as much as I've had a go at Mono around here, purely from a developer point of view, what else on Earth are they going to use? Like it or lump it, Mono is currently the path of least resistance to creating anything remotely functional with Gnome or GTK today. Beyond that, there is nothing there for developers that is acceptable.

Whether Mono is the right choice from a 'Trojan Horse' point of view or even if running everything in the CLR is the right way to go are other questions entirely.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: There is no argument
by flynn on Mon 30th Mar 2009 23:58 in reply to "RE[2]: There is no argument"
flynn Member since:
2009-03-19

Yer, but as much as I've had a go at Mono around here, purely from a developer point of view, what else on Earth are they going to use? Like it or lump it, Mono is currently the path of least resistance to creating anything remotely functional with Gnome or GTK today. Beyond that, there is nothing there for developers that is acceptable.

For now I would agree with you. Right now Mono is the best path for rapid development of Gnome/Gtk apps. Maybe Vala will change that soon.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: There is no argument
by abraxas on Tue 31st Mar 2009 02:46 in reply to "RE: There is no argument"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

"There's nothing at all to argue about. Install GnomeDo on any desktop environment and you never need anything else. GnomeDo ftw

I think GnomeDo is one of the strongest reasons not to use Gnome. It's based on Mono. What's the point in running .NET stuff on Linux? If you want to run .NET stuff better use Windows.
Why go for the surrogate (Mono) when you can use the real thing (.NET)?
"

Mono is not .NET. I am sick and tired of hearing this BS line. Mono is C# and the CLR with its own libraries. .NET compatibility is included but nobody develops .NET applications on Linux. They develop Mono applications. Mono hatred is based on ignorance and nothing else. GnomeDO, Banshee, Beagle, F-Spot, and other first class Mono applications share only the C# language and the CLR with Microsoft's product and they are both ECMA standards. Class libraries are entirely different and they are the bulk of what makes up Mono.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: There is no argument
by segedunum on Tue 31st Mar 2009 13:51 in reply to "RE[2]: There is no argument"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Mono is not .NET. I am sick and tired of hearing this BS line. Mono is C# and the CLR with its own libraries.

You cannot separate the two, which is what Mono's weak FAQ attempts to do. You can create your own libraries within Microsoft's implementations, but that doesn't stop you needing the pre-requisites - a .Net environment to run them in.

From another standpoint as far as Microsoft is concerned, and with everything I have ever seen filed by them over .Net, you are deemed to be covered if you are running within a compatible CLR as per the ECMA specifications - regardless of what libraries you use. That means Mono. In addition, the ECMA does not stop them ever filing something over those specifications in the future, which is why the ECMA specifies you need to license them under RAND terms for as long as they are ECMA standards.

Now, the obvious question is: How long will that RAND license last? That's the problem. It certainly isn't forever I can tell you that, and nothing makes it so.

Think the ECMA provides protection for you? Think again. That's what a lot of people have difficulty with, and it's an issue that has never been addressed. For open source projects they just can't live with that kind of uncertainty.

Class libraries are entirely different and they are the bulk of what makes up Mono.

No, they are not, so please stop regurgitating the Mono FAQ. It is wrong. It really doesn't matter what libraries you use, you can be covered with one brush by using the CLR, CLS and anything covered by the ECMA because that's what you need for those class libraries to be worth anything. They are very much a part of the .Net environment.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: There is no argument
by Lobotomik on Tue 31st Mar 2009 06:35 in reply to "RE: There is no argument"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Because you like Banshee better than Rhythmbox?
Because it is free?
Because only one in one hundred Linux apps use it?

Reply Parent Score: 2