Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Aug 2009 10:43 UTC
SuSE, openSUSE SUSE Linux used to be a very KDE-centric distribution. Then Novell came around, bought SUSE and Ximian, and slowely but surely they turned the now-openSUSE distribution into effectively a GNOME-centric distribution with KDE as its sidekick. The openSUSE community, however, doesn't appear to be particularly happy with KDE being a sidekick.
Thread beginning with comment 377247
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Regarding your claim that Darknexus is wrong... please present some evidence.

Try reading. It usually helps. Here's a summary:

1. He claims that Qt doesn't support AT-SPI. It does.

2. Qt 4 supports the newer D-Bus AT-SPI interfaces. This project has been in existence for around three years. Gnome and GTK are still stuck with CORBA usage and haven't done enough work to update to it. I really can't imagine why they'd drag their heels.... This is seemingly a problem when it comes to compatibility between different applications (no surprise there) such as Orca - which is the root issue he seems to be driving at - and he's got the impression that that is all KDE and Qt's fault. I can't imagine why.

3. Simply supporting AT-SPI doesn't mean that you are 'accessible'. You need magnification, developer support, transparent application support, device support, guidelines........ You also need other organisations filling the gap with their own software. I can't imagine where he's got the impression that simply supporting AT-SPI and having it work with some Gnome/GTK applications meets some supposedly hard prerequisite for getting your software used.....anywhere. Puzzling.

Darknexus, who needs and uses these kinds of facilities everyday (and whom I've usually found to be fair on these matters)...

All he probably knows is that his software doesn't work. We need to find out why ;-).

Stop your desktop cheerleading for long enough to actually think for a bit about real users who need accessibility.features.

I realise that it's a tough chew to swallow...... The time for politics over who supports what is finally going to come to a close at some point in KDE 4's cycle in favour of straight comparisons between open source desktops and the proprietary competition. Straight jackets at the ready. I can't wait to be honest. We've seen this incessant crap for nearly ten years now.

Alas, it's probably not a PC thing to say but the userbase coming off the back of accessibility and for applications like Orca is very small and there is limited manpower when compared with what needs doing. Banging on about a single area won't increase open source desktop usage, and it hasn't. You need application and developer support and with that accessibility gets dragged along. That's how companies like Dolphin make a wide variety of add-on accessibility products. Until that support starts happening then arguing about who's more 'accessible' just sounds plain sad.

Reply Parent Score: 2

darknexus Member since:

I've already explained why it doesn't work, but it's useless to explain to someone who is being deliberately deaf. I'll recount it one more time, in terms that you can hopefully grasp.
1. QT4, thanks to Trolltech, at the time of its inception, was programmed to use at-spi over the Dbus protocol.
2. At-spi does not support the Dbus protocol. It didn't as of several years ago when QT4 (not KDE4, but QT4) was released, and it doesn't now, There's a branch of at-spi that is switching to Dbus, but this has only started to be worked on recently. See here:
This means that, as of the moment, QT4 apps still do not work with at-spi/atk although it allows Nokia to claim that they do. It's not a matter of GNOME taking years to switch over their implementation, it's a matter of Trolltech at the time choosing a method they knew full well would not work with the current implementation. Further, because they did such, even once the at-spi-dbus work is completed we face a period of extensive testing because they programmed against a theoretical rather than an actual implementation of the protocol. In trying to future-proof it, they denied us accessibility in the present for years. I don't just know that my software doesn't work, I know why the QT4 software I'd like to use doesn't work. I, unlike you, have followed this very closely for years.
Have I explained it well enough to you, or do I need to start demeaning your intelligence which you seem to want to do to me when you have no counter argument?

Reply Parent Score: 2