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 465656
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: What next?
by molnarcs on Thu 10th Mar 2011 19:45 UTC in reply to "What next?"
Member since:

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 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