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 355947
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: I don't think so
by cycoj on Tue 31st Mar 2009 03:10 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't think so"
cycoj
Member since:
2007-11-04

"What finally makes a desktop success are it's applications and for them what is first needed is a good base which basically is what gnome is building.

Developer's 101: Those things you listed are independent libraries, are not written with any common Gnome toolkit or framework, they all look completely different to a developer and it's not clear at all what applications will use what or even what versions will be used by applications running on the same system. It's a mess, basically.
"

Well that's actually a good thing IMO. Why depend on the huge kdelibs components when you only need, e.g. sound functionality. Especially for a developer, why should I choose a framework which limits my application to essentially only one desktop (see my comments earlier).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: I don't think so
by lemur2 on Tue 31st Mar 2009 03:17 in reply to "RE[2]: I don't think so"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Why depend on the huge kdelibs components when you only need, e.g. sound functionality. Especially for a developer, why should I choose a framework which limits my application to essentially only one desktop (see my comments earlier).


I don't understand what weakness it is that you think KDE has that GNOME does not have. GNOME applications are very poor performers under KDE, because they have to load massive GNOME libraries. Applications such as OpenOffice, Firefox and Thunderbird are the same on both KDE and GNOME, because they basically use the libraries of neither.

What's the difference?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: I don't think so
by abraxas on Tue 31st Mar 2009 22:50 in reply to "RE[3]: I don't think so"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

I don't understand what weakness it is that you think KDE has that GNOME does not have. GNOME applications are very poor performers under KDE, because they have to load massive GNOME libraries. Applications such as OpenOffice, Firefox and Thunderbird are the same on both KDE and GNOME, because they basically use the libraries of neither.

What's the difference?


Massive GNOME libraries? Like what? Glib? It's tiny as are most GNOME libraries. In fact I can't quite figure out what massive library you could be referring to. Firefox and OpenOffice actually can use some GNOME libraries if you want to build support for it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: I don't think so
by elsewhere on Wed 1st Apr 2009 04:43 in reply to "RE[2]: I don't think so"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Especially for a developer, why should I choose a framework which limits my application to essentially only one desktop (see my comments earlier).


Perhaps, as a "developer", you'd like your application to run on more than one platform.

When all else fails, it's easy to try and connect a line between frameworks and the miserably overused concept of "bloat". This is a popular argument from people that aren't actually developers. But the point of a framework is to make a developer's job easier. That's the sort of thing that will ultimately lead to better applications.

KDE4 apps are portable to Windows and OSX, much in thanks to the cross-platform nature of Qt, and the frameworks in KDE that abstract platform-dependent features. Gnome apps are portable to Windows and OSX as well, but the linux-support layer they will require to run will really underscore your point about questioning why developers would want to develop for "essentially only one desktop".

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: I don't think so
by segedunum on Wed 1st Apr 2009 09:28 in reply to "RE[2]: I don't think so"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Well that's actually a good thing IMO. Why depend on the huge kdelibs components when you only need, e.g. sound functionality.

The problem is that applications generally need to get functionality from many different sources (look at the dependency list of an average application), all those libraries look and program differently, and as with brain damage like libegg and libsexy, you get developers depending on different versions of libraries or even copying and pasting code into their application to get what they want and to top it off they all look different to program for.

Like I said.

Especially for a developer, why should I choose a framework which limits my application to essentially only one desktop (see my comments earlier).

Do you really think that's what you're protecting yourself from on a practical level? You're pretty deluded if that's what you think. Writing for Gnome's fifteen dozen libraries does not turn your application into a multi-desktop one I'm afraid.

Reply Parent Score: 2