Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Aug 2012 00:00 UTC
X11, Window Managers We have some very good news for those of us with a love for the Common Desktop Environment. I'm a huge fan of CDE - I've even dedicated an article to it - so I'm excited about this. CDE has been released as open source under the LGPL, and can be downloaded as of today for Debian and Ubuntu. Motif will follow later.
Thread beginning with comment 529831
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by marcp
by marcp on Mon 6th Aug 2012 09:34 UTC
marcp
Member since:
2007-11-23

It's almost like having Windows 95 or Mac OS 8 open sourced today. No real benefit, just a pile of closed, outdated and buggy source. Open source / free software paradigm is not a magic bullet to rescue dead projects. You can't expect your closed source project will be developed at no cost by others right after you have no more money to develop it / there is no real interrest in it, etc.
I actually find it quite pathetic, though it depends on the reasons this code was made open.
This can only have a sentimental value, not a real one. You could try to build on top of that code, but it would probobly take rediculous amount of hours to make use of that anyway.

Free software is about real benefit to other people: this doesn't bring any real benefit. Open source is all about the method: and here it does apply. But so what? does it even have any sense?

I'm sorry to be so critical, but I just can't see good intentions there.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by marcp
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 6th Aug 2012 09:55 in reply to "Comment by marcp"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Just because it's old doesn't mean it doesn't have good ideas. You reference Mac OS 8/9 - for me, that interface, Platinum, is miles and miles ahead of whatever UI disaster Apple is using now. Platinum was designed with usability in mind, it was consistent and logical. Mac OS X, on the other hand, is Microsoft BOB with garish skeuomorphic crap and incredibly inconsistent.

Old != bad. Platinum > Aqua.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by marcp on Mon 6th Aug 2012 10:17 in reply to "RE: Comment by marcp"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

Well, of course old doesn't mean bad. I myself am a huge fan of many old projects, like BeOS, OpenVMS. But that's just a different thing and different history. BeOS died and Haiku OS was born as an open source [from the start], and OpenVMS ... was never *open*, so there's no real problem anyway.
I would be more than pleased to know why exactly did they open their sources. This would give us valuable information and ... their motives.

Might I add I don't try to take your joy away, CDE users! I can imagine you really love it and I have nothing against it. I'm just being suspicious ... or critical if you will.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by ThomasFuhringer on Mon 6th Aug 2012 12:51 in reply to "RE: Comment by marcp"
ThomasFuhringer Member since:
2007-01-25

This begs the question: What then are the good ideas in the specific case of CDE?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by kaiwai on Mon 6th Aug 2012 13:43 in reply to "RE: Comment by marcp"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Just because it's old doesn't mean it doesn't have good ideas. You reference Mac OS 8/9 - for me, that interface, Platinum, is miles and miles ahead of whatever UI disaster Apple is using now. Platinum was designed with usability in mind, it was consistent and logical. Mac OS X, on the other hand, is Microsoft BOB with garish skeuomorphic crap and incredibly inconsistent.

Old != bad. Platinum > Aqua.


They pretty much all suck these days - for me Mac OS X is the best of the worst and that isn't saying much for any of them to be quite frank. Having used IRIX owns desktop along with CDE on Solaris I would sooner the effort go into reviving and adding functionality to CDE than what seems to be the wasted effort by the two major desktops hauling along the monstrous memory hogging crap they call 'features' or stripping out preferences for the sake of 'ease of use' aka GNOME.

What would I like to see?

1) CDE based configuration tools - networking configuration tools, video card settings etc.
2) Getting the major software titles like Firefox, Thunderbird, LibreOffice and so on to use OpenMotif - get some consistency.
3) Porting it to Wayland but ideally I'd like to see something better than Wayland so that other operating systems aren't left out in the cold - yes, I am a FreeBSD fan.
4) Niceties of modern desktops such as anti-aliased fonts etc.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by tylerdurden on Tue 7th Aug 2012 08:30 in reply to "RE: Comment by marcp"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Platinum was familiar to YOU, that does not meant that it is superior to Aqua.


One could make the case that given the significant increases in user base Apple experienced after the introduction of Aqua, whereas Platinum was stagnant at best, that it would seem that people prefer Aqua (OSX) to Platinum (Sytem 8/9).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by henderson101 on Tue 7th Aug 2012 12:02 in reply to "RE: Comment by marcp"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Hahahahahahaha!! Such a joker!! Did you ever use Microsoft Bob? If you think OS X is like Microsoft Bob, I doubt it.

Please don't mix graphical representations the general of real life in isolated apps with Bob. They are far removed. I find OS X far less offensive than the Crayola XP interface. The default control panel was fcuking insulting. The window dressing actually messed with the physical size of Windows and broke apps that made assumptions about the width of the title bar. For me, Windows 7 is every much as Crayola, and Windows 8 and the UI formerly known as Metro is more of the same. Simply depressing. I'd take the Windows 95/2000 classic theme over the god awful XP/7/8 themes any day of the week.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by marcp
by whitehornmatt on Mon 6th Aug 2012 10:56 in reply to "Comment by marcp"
whitehornmatt Member since:
2005-07-07

I think the main point is that there's so much code out there designed specifically for certain horribly outdated systems that is near impossible to port to something modern. The more older stuff that gets open sourced, the easier it is to manage a transition to running on newer operating environments.

The need for compatibility with one program often keeps entire networks back

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment by marcp
by moondevil on Mon 6th Aug 2012 11:40 in reply to "Comment by marcp"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Free software is about real benefit to other people


Assuming the developers are able to make a leaving out of it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by marcp
by zizban on Mon 6th Aug 2012 12:10 in reply to "Comment by marcp"
zizban Member since:
2005-07-06

Just because it's old doesn't mean you throw it away. There are many fans of CDE. The code is open, who knows what will happen?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment by marcp
by thegman on Tue 7th Aug 2012 09:03 in reply to "Comment by marcp"
thegman Member since:
2007-01-30

I'm not sure what the problem is, it's not "closed", as it's now Open Source. I'm not sure how it's "outdated" as I use it all the time, and I don't know of anything it does not do, that it really needs to. Sure there are features I'd like, but that's the case for all desktops. I don't find it buggy, I use it every day, I see more glitches in Windows 7 and Mac OS X, and I sure as hell see more in Android.

Any real benefit? Maybe not to you, maybe not to me either, even as a user of CDE every day.

With respect, I think you make a lot of assumptions just because it's old. CDE is very solid, and runs quick. It's not a big "look at me" desktop with 3D effects or "dashboards" nobody wants. It does it's minimal job very well and stays out of the way.

In my experience, older software seems to be somewhat *less* buggy. It's probably due to a smaller code base (less code, fewer bugs), longer product cycle for stamping out issues, and pretty much no features added in a hurry because it's in fashion at the time.

By all means, try out CDE and decide it's crap, but again, with respect, you're stating a lot of problems with CDE which do not exist.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by zima on Fri 10th Aug 2012 20:50 in reply to "RE: Comment by marcp"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

In my experience, older software seems to be somewhat *less* buggy. It's probably due to a smaller code base (less code, fewer bugs), longer product cycle for stamping out issues, and pretty much no features added in a hurry because it's in fashion at the time.

Nah, we mostly remember the relatively few positive examples (and those which survived, which still can be used; long-maintained hence, duh, decently debugged) - while forgetting tons of negative ones.

Similar effects with the popular myths about old films and music, or the general "old times were better" ...we just don't remember so well all the crap that was pushed, how the nice stuff wasn't so available and discoverable (a'la imdb or last.fm)

Reply Parent Score: 2