Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 27th Sep 2005 10:36 UTC
KDE "As the dust settles from aKademy 2005, the annual KDE conference, it's a good time to take a look at what the KDE developers are working on. Though KDE 3.5 isn't even out yet, developers are already working on KDE 4. Plenty of work has already gone into porting existing code to Qt4, the GUI toolkit upon which KDE is based, and KDE developers are working on projects that could radically change how [KDE] works."
Thread beginning with comment 36896
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: yes!
by molnarcs on Tue 27th Sep 2005 14:02 UTC in reply to "RE: yes!"
molnarcs
Member since:
2005-09-10

Ok, you have a point - and I'm sorry if I offended someone...

I'm just tired of this ... I mean, there are certain topics where you can't say certain things without starting a flamewar (whether it is your intention or not). I think that one of the main characteristics of a troll or a flamebait post is that it makes broad generalizing statements without giving any specific details. I don't think I fall into that category, but I'll shut up (maybe I should have shut up in the first place) if this is such a touchy topic.

As to being offtopic - well, to a certain extent I am. We are talking about the future of one desktop: KDE. Mentioning another one, just to see the different trends, directions, etc that various *nix desktop takes is not a problem (should not be a problem) imho. And that is what I did. I think we can talk about a lot of things in conjunction with this article. Even GNOME, or the future of DE technologies in general. Or Enlightenment - which is quite different from KDE, but they have already shipped exciting new technologies, and at the very least you can't say that they are not visionaries. One cannot help but be excited about the future possibilities of e17. I can't say the same thing about GNOME - I find nothing exciting about its future, I don't see its own developers excited about its future - which is the biggest problem I think.

Anyway, I'll stop here before I cause any more trouble.

Reply Parent Score: 1

v RE[3]: yes!
by on Tue 27th Sep 2005 14:15 in reply to "RE[2]: yes!"
v RE[4]: yes!
by on Tue 27th Sep 2005 14:36 in reply to "RE[3]: yes!"
RE[4]: yes!
by molnarcs on Tue 27th Sep 2005 15:32 in reply to "RE[3]: yes!"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

The problem with longhorn was that nt's infrastructure didn't support the promised features very well. They have to "reset" the hole process, and begin with the code of win2k3 codebase.

The promised interface of KDE4 is not finished - some parts haven't even began. But they are doing things in the right order. QT4 is there - which will support the new things they plan. Many parts of KDE are already ported to QT4 - even some parts of koffice (kexi for instance, I just downloaded the _WINDOWS_ demo of it). Trolltech pays one developer to work fulltime on the xorg side of things - and again, you see the results. In other words the core is there. Work is progressing in almost every area on top of QT that must be there for KDE4. In fact, some of the things planned for kde4 will be available for 3.5 as well. KDE4 is not promiseware, because for some time now, you could (well, if you look for it) see the efforts devs put into it. Many of the "wow this is soo cool" kinda blogs are bout new stuff related to KDE4.

As for trolltech's need for hiring more developers: one of the thing that makes KDE futureproof is the relatively low barrier for new developers - and the apparent joy of working with their tools. That's the most important issue GNOME needs to address. KDE has become arguably more attractive for new developers in the past few years. And that's what makes OpenSource projects tick.

Forget about the license issue - it's GPL! I myself prefer BSD, but then, I can very well see the point (and the genius) behind the design of the GPL license. Not only that, but software companies can actually by a license to allow closed source development. If you take a look at Trolltech's customers - adobe, volvo, European Space Agency, etc. - I'd say they are doing pretty well ;) ) I don't see high-profile software houses catering to gtk just because it's LGPL.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: yes!
by segedunum on Tue 27th Sep 2005 15:49 in reply to "RE[3]: yes!"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

1.- KDE 4 will be delayed or won't have all they have promised.

Quite possibly - just look at Vista! It's a lot of work, but the work has been identified and now it's all hands to the pump. Identifying what needs to be done is all part of the work, and certainly Gnome 3 is a long way from that if you read the plan.

2.- TrollTech will have to hire more KDE developers to work on it full time.

Possibly, and they have realistic amounts of money to do that. But then again, how many people work on Gnome full-time at Red Hat and elsewhere and how many proclaim this to be the right thing to do?

It is dangerous start promoting something that is still far from reality, look what hapenned to lonhorng, delayed and won't have all the promised.

Some, but not all, Gnome devs have been doing this for years, and fortunately, it seems to have died down to realistic levels.

Certainly, at least with the work already done (Plasma, the new Kicker, Qt 4) and the firm basis of Qt 4 there is a realistic chance of getting all these new features done and dusted. GTK 3 hasn't been started yet.

I'm sure the KDE people are very conscious of promising all of this though, and you're right there.

And other thing that will make GNOME continue is simple the license, I can tell you that it is easier to fix GTK than TrollTech change Qt license.

I am very much afraid, not. Here's why, and here's why KDE's usage of Qt is eminently sensible:

To fix GTK and the surrounding Gnome libraries a huge (cannot be underestimated) amount of work will need to be done to optimise, clean and then maintain something new. That costs a lot of money and investment in full-time developers (that's what optimisation and maintenance work is like - unglamorous), and it is something that cannot just be done by people in their spare time.

Now - who's going to spend that money? Red Hat? Novell? Sun? Well, they're not doing it, and realistically, they're only maintaining enough so that it works OK in their own products. And that's fine. They're not going to put massive amounts of unrealistic investment into something that will have no realistic prospect of some payback. Certainly, Red Hat's developers working on GTK and Gnome are overworked as it is, and unfortunately, many fanboys simply take their work for granted. That work is something that will never be finished either, so it's not as if you can put some temporary investment in place.

That's where Qt's licensing model scores. The licenses payed for Qt ensure that badly needed, and mostly unseen, optimisation and maintenance work actually gets done and that it is realistically funded. That optimisation and maintenance work starts with your development tools at the core.

Some people may not like that, but there it is.

Reply Parent Score: 5