Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 20th Aug 2009 17:25 UTC
SuSE, openSUSE On August 4 we discussed the possibility of openSUSE defaulting to KDE during the installation routine. This was raised as a feature request within the openSUSE community, and quickly gained the favour of many, become the most popular request. The openSUSE board and variousother leader within the project have discussed the issue, and have decided that yes, from now on, openSUSE will default to KDE during the installation process.
Thread beginning with comment 379783
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Somewhat odd ?
by bralkein on Thu 20th Aug 2009 20:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Somewhat odd ?"
bralkein
Member since:
2006-12-20

No, I don't think so. I am a big fan of KDE, but if I were selling a Linux distro I would want to make it a nice target for proprietary developers. Having Qt with the GPL/paid licences made this realistically impossible, because how could you justify sending people elsewhere to get a development licence for your platform, for which they would also have to pay £££? No way.

Having a bunch of GNOME developers on board probably helped make the decision a lot easier, but I really don't think KDE stood a chance there with that old Qt licencing issue.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Somewhat odd ?
by KugelKurt on Thu 20th Aug 2009 22:38 in reply to "RE[3]: Somewhat odd ?"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

No, I don't think so.

So you think that Novell+SUSE (and without Ximian) would have tried to ban KDE altogether? Because that's what's actually happened a short while after SUSE was bought.
Do you think that Novell+SUSE would have another MS fanboy like De Icaza who's pushing stuff like Mono?
I really don't think so, especially as openSUSE+KDE doesn't even install by default and KDE is still maintained by the old SUSE team.

The Ximian guys took the lead in Novell's Linux division simply because they were the first in that division. If Novell bought another Linux company first, its managers would've taken the lead in the division.

If Novell bought SUSE first, Novell may never even bought Ximian at all. Hey, maybe Novell would've bought Trolltech or a former "United Linux" partner.

if I were selling a Linux distro I would want to make it a nice target for proprietary developers. Having Qt with the GPL/paid licences made this realistically impossible

Neither SLED nor SLES are primary targeted towards developers. Just count the number of proprietary GTK apps on Linux that are actually distributed.

The GPL is not an issue for internal development, because internal deployment is not distribution (check GPL FAQ if you don't believe me).
And even if Novell+SUSE would propagate GTK for development, that has nothing to do with the default DE. openSUSE KDE installs Firefox by default as well.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[5]: Somewhat odd ?
by stew on Fri 21st Aug 2009 01:26 in reply to "RE[4]: Somewhat odd ?"
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

Do you think that Novell+SUSE would have another MS fanboy like De Icaza who's pushing stuff like Mono?

For a Microsoft fanboy, De Icaza is doing an awfully lot of Linux development.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Somewhat odd ?
by segedunum on Fri 21st Aug 2009 00:09 in reply to "RE[3]: Somewhat odd ?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

....but if I were selling a Linux distro I would want to make it a nice target for proprietary developers. Having Qt with the GPL/paid licences made this realistically impossible...

I never cease to be amused that this reasoning still exists even years later.

How many proprietary developers got on board with SLED because they wanted to develop for nothing? None, that's how many. The first complaint that anyone seems to make is that the LGPLed alternatives like GTK and Gnome's libraries are just totally unacceptable to develop for. The fact that you can develop for nothing never seems to outweigh that observation. If that were the case then Microsoft would have made Visual Studio free years ago to bolster Windows's installed base still further, but they don't because developers are OK with paying for it. There also wouldn't be a developer tools market worth billions either. The second complaint is that any Linux distribution is a PITA to install software on, but that is a perennial issue I'm not sure will be solved completely.

Fast forward a few years and Qt has been LGPLed, but that's not why people are excited. They are excited because Qt is actually half-decent first and foremost. The LGPL license has just been a bonus that will boost Qt's usage, but Qt got to being half-decent by being funded through its dual license. It remains to be seen whether Qt Software and Nokia can keep it focused.

...but I really don't think KDE stood a chance there with that old Qt licencing issue.

Fast forward several years and SLED hasn't stood a chance nor has it attracted any proprietary developers writing applications that would attract businesses to using it. If that was what the decision for SLED was at least partially based on then we can conclusively say that it has failed.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[5]: Somewhat odd ?
by griffinme on Fri 21st Aug 2009 12:03 in reply to "RE[4]: Somewhat odd ?"
griffinme Member since:
2005-11-09

If that were the case then Microsoft would have made Visual Studio free years ago to bolster Windows's installed base still further, but they don't because developers are OK with paying for it.


http://www.microsoft.com/express/

Free.... I even got a copy of Pro for watching a few videos extolling the benefits of Visual Studio awhile back.

Reply Parent Score: 2