Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Mar 2011 12:59 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y If you were, you know, living your lives, you've probably missed it, but old fires are burning brightly once again: there's somewhat of a falling-out going on between KDE and GNOME, with Canonical siding squarely with... KDE. The issue seems to revolve around GNOME's lack of collaboration, as explained by KDE's Aaron Seigo.
Thread beginning with comment 465638
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
What next?
by SlackerJack on Thu 10th Mar 2011 17:26 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

What's Aaron going to say next when Canonical do a dconf code drop he is not doing to like? GNOME have collaborated with KDE but just because they don't like so called standards (not actual standards) just a place where so called standards are added, doesn't mean they have to.

I think Canonical have sweetened the pot by using Qt, yet ironically Aaron doesn't agree with Canonical CLA, which was drawn up without any "collaboration".

Reply Score: 1

RE: What next?
by molnarcs on Thu 10th Mar 2011 19:45 in reply to "What next?"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

I think Canonical have sweetened the pot by using Qt, yet ironically Aaron doesn't agree with Canonical CLA, which was drawn up without any "collaboration".

It's not that ironic - Aaron is quite consistent in his views on cooperation. Basically his view comes down to this: discuss common goals, then work together to achieve those goals - the goals being low level interoperability, while leaving UI design decisions alone.

So in the first case, Aaron criticized Canonical's efforts because they came out with a ready-made solution with a take it or leave it attitude. Put it simply, his problem was that they missed the first few steps of normal cooperation, that is, discuss, code, and implement it together. That is what working with the community is about, not presenting code developed in-house without any chance for KDE to participate, than expecting them to adapt it right away.

In this particular case, however, KDE was just one participant in drafting a specification (Ubuntu/Canonical, Compiz, etc. being others). GNOME developers signaled a willingness to participate, than rejected any idea for obviously political reasons (Mark as well as Seigo points out that the reasons GNOME devs gave for rejecting this spec are plain nonsense).

So there is nothing ironic in his position - Aaron (and KDE in general), for the past few years at least, has consistently supported efforts to collaborate via freedesktop.org on specs and standards that would enhance interoperability between various apps in the F/LOSS stack. GNOME, however, showed a consistent refusal to work on this common goal, diminishing the importance of fd.o through their efforts. This is bad for users and developers alike, that's basically his main point. The latter has nothing to do with his previous critique of Canonical's QT decision. These are different issues (although in both cases, Aaron's point was more or less the same: work together in implementing common specs and framework to improve interoperability between various software stacks.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE: What next?
by segedunum on Fri 11th Mar 2011 23:37 in reply to "What next?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

GNOME have collaborated with KDE but just because they don't like so called standards (not actual standards) just a place where so called standards are added, doesn't mean they have to.

Oddly, this has largely become Gnome's default position over the last decade when it comes to awkward home truths about Freedesktop. I think it's also been established that they haven't collaborated as much as they like to portray to everyone.

You're also missing the point here. It's certainly their prerogative to do that, but when you talk with people and find common ground and come to some agreement about something, and then turn around, do the opposite and then claim that talk and agreement never happened then you can expect to be called out on it.

This crap has been happening for a decade now and it's hurt all of us using free desktop software.

I think Canonical have sweetened the pot by using Qt, yet ironically Aaron doesn't agree with Canonical CLA, which was drawn up without any "collaboration".

Aaron has been consistently critical of Canonical over some of the things they have done, including this, over many years. There is nothing 'ironic' about this nor is there any double standards going on here as you're probably trying to imply.

Edited 2011-03-11 23:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3