Submitted by “I had the opportunity to speak with several KDE developers recently. Benjamin Reed, Jaroslaw Staniek and Ralf Habacker are several of the many talented developers working on porting KDE to Mac and Windows respectively. They explain in detail what’s involved in making KDE and its myriad of applications boot under Mac and Windows.”
I know some people say that this move will make potential Linux users stay with Windows because the apps are available for that platform, but I disagree. Right now, no one is switching to Linux for the apps – rather, they switch to Linux because they want the reliability, security and freedom that comes with the OS (and, since Beryl came along, its glorious eye-candy). So the argument doesn’t really hold.
On the other hand, the more KDE apps people use on Windows, the more their potential transition to Linux will be easier. And I would *finally* be able to use Amarok at work (and Konqueror) – that is, if those apps can be installed as a simple user, with no Administrative rights…
Amarok could very well prove to be the next killer OSS app if it is successfully ported to MacOS X and Windows as a result of these efforts.
It’s already the Killer Linux app!!!
Edited 2007-02-01 17:51
No, that would be Beryl.
Otherwise, you wouldn’t have so many Beryl “demoscene” videos by the hundreds on YouTube.
Also, I’ve used AmaroK on Kubuntu, and I don’t see the advantage that it has over, say, Winamp circa 2004.
I mean, sure, embedding Wikipedia is useful to an extent, but I just haven’t found a particular use for AmaroK.
Maybe I just have older-school tastes (visualizations, equalizing the hell out of the music, streaming radio through Shoutcast and Icecast), I dunno…
Take a look at the “Context” tab. Every time you play a song, it looks up the song and artist on live.fm, to see the musicians that people who listen to that song also listen to. If you have any music by those musicians, it lists them. The result is that you can browse your music in an organic manner and – much as you can start at one page on Wikipedia, and though serveral links, end up somewhere different – you can literally rediscover your music.
If you want, you can sign up for a live.fm account, in which case it will do even more work to guess what music you’d like to hear next.
The problem with Amarok, as with much of KDE 3.x, is that the interface is very crowded and makes it difficult for users to find what they’re looking for. If they went with an iTunes approach, with the Context bar on the right and the source bar on the left, they’d do pretty well I think.
The argument does hold!
Currently I am forced to use Windows on my laptop because no existing distribution provides a proper support for it.
And I also need to use some software packages that are Windows only like the Symbian SDK.
But all my favorite Linux applications run on Windows as well, so I don’t care that much for the fact that currently I cannot run Linux on my laptop.
this article raises interesting questions. Should we be promoting OSS amongst everyday users? Is
it actually necessary ? the article basically describes the efforts of the KDE developers, which I
commend, and i appreciate. I am not so sure the average user will be hooked to “OSS” as suggested.
Porting KDE onto windows or mac will not increase user awareness of Open Source Software.
You can think of OSS as a “brand”, like windows , Coca Cola, even linux .
People have heard of linux , and they think of it as challenge to windows
dominance but people do not know the relationship between linux and
the software which it runs or Open Source for that matter
the effort described in the article will enrich the windows and apple platform
with a wide range of quality applications ,and is a commendable development
effort but everyday average users will not make the distintion between OSS
and other types of software, becuse the distinction is never made to the user,
( e.g look at the firefox webpage ) and if you think about it doesn’t need to be.
We can take the other group who will be affected , the companies ,
they will happily use the software and create solutions with them (eventually) ,
but once again it will be transparent to the user. The idea of open source will
continue to be an idea dwelling in the minds of the developers,solution
providers and the “savvy”.
Millions won’t get hooked to Open Source. Millions will use it but the distinction
won’t exist in their minds, they just will happily use what ever works better
and is available, whether it is pirated,shareware or bought.whether it enfringes,
extends or removes rights, they will still use what ever works better.
We should be excited by the oppurtunities that this affords computer users
worldwide , our efforts though should be raising awareness amongst the
companies ,developers and the savvy as oppossed to the rightly unconcerned
Joe Doe.
Should we be promoting OSS amongst everyday users?
Yes. Although the source code is useless to most users, it is incredibly useful for the distributors that provide the software and services to them. It also cultivates competition amongst distributors that results in better deals for the user.
Porting KDE onto windows or mac will not increase user awareness of Open Source Software.
I think it will. The key thing to remember is that KDE on Windows (for example) will let users run Windows-only .exe programs as well as OSS applications built as Windows executables. KDE on Windows will also provide a package management frontend similar to those found on KDE for Linux. This will direct users to OSS applications.
You can think of OSS as a “brand”
Brands are marks that represent a cohesive marketing strategy. OSS doesn’t do this. Red Hat and Novell, for example, are very different brands presenting very different messages. Customers will identify with these vendor brands much moreso than with OSS in general.
…everyday average users will not make the distintion between OSS and other types of software, becuse the distinction is never made to the user, ( e.g look at the firefox webpage).
People do make this distinction. In the case of Firefox, the average Firefox user on Windows realizes that Firefox is a free (gratis) alternative to IE and not a Microsoft product. They may not realize it’s “open source,” but they realize a distinction from the Microsoft stack. People will certainly make the same distinction comparing KDE to Explorer on Windows.
…our efforts though should be raising awareness amongst the companies ,developers and the savvy as oppossed to the rightly unconcerned Joe Doe.
I’m not sure the strategy would be very different. In fact, KDE on Windows/Mac is a product with very compelling advantages for corporate IT seeking to standardize their client desktops. If we reach “Joe Doe” in the process, the more the merrier. The Internet news aggregators form a broad lowest common demoninator for accessing the public. Taking out ads in Wired or the Wall Street Journal to target more specific audiences would be a mistake.
And yet, there’s a fatal flaw or two in your rationalization:
Most users migrate to an OS because of the applications available on that OS. Windows has the most applications in quantity, while Mac has the most applications in quality, and both platforms are growing by the day in either regard. This includes free, open-source software written in proprietary, OS-exclusive APIs, btw.
Thus, if KDE ports their applications to Mac and Windows, that will only benefit those platforms, not KDE’s preferred Linux.
In fact, the common case with ported X11 applications (Qt, GTK+, or even XUL) is that they do not enjoy the best reputations or any wide degree of usage on those platforms until someone decides to fork such applications and slap on the native, proprietary API (Win32 or Cocoa).
This happens constantly on Mac:
http://www.caminobrowser.org – Forked from Firefox
http://www.correo-mail.org – forked from Thunderbird
http://www.adiumx.com – forked from Gaim
http://seashore.sourceforge.net – Forked from GIMP
http://www.neooffice.org – Forked from OpenOffice
So gee, I wonder what will happen with AmaroK on Mac!
Most users migrate to an OS because of the applications available on that OS.
I disagree – where’s your proof?
Thus, if KDE ports their applications to Mac and Windows, that will only benefit those platforms, not KDE’s preferred Linux.
A common misperception is that this is all about switching users to Linux. That may be a wished-for side effect, but the real purpose of these ports is to increase the number of users of this software, not Linux. I’d go so far as to say that they would be happy if the number of Linux users went to 0 while the number of windows users using this software went up to 50 million. (OK, maybe not 0, but you get the idea)
In fact, the common case with ported X11 applications (Qt, GTK+, or even XUL) is that they do not enjoy the best reputations or any wide degree of usage on those platforms until someone decides to fork such applications and slap on the native, proprietary API (Win32 or Cocoa).
The new KDE4 apps will be using native widgets just like Win32 or Cocoa apps, not X11 – so they look and feel just like native apps. At least that is the plan, I can’t speak from experience.
In fact, the common case with ported X11 applications (Qt, GTK+, or even XUL) is that they do not enjoy the best reputations or any wide degree of usage on those platforms until someone decides to fork such applications and slap on the native, proprietary API (Win32 or Cocoa).
This is exactly the problem that KDE on Windows/Mac is addressing! The native ports of OSS applications to Windows/Mac were necessary because the OSS applications were too UNIX-specific. The KDE project wants to make sure its applications look and feel native on Windows and Mac. To do this, they are actually providing native build targets from the same codebase using CMake.
Most users migrate to an OS because of the applications available on that OS. Windows has the most applications in quantity, while Mac has the most applications in quality, and both platforms are growing by the day in either regard. This includes free, open-source software written in proprietary, OS-exclusive APIs, btw.
This is only true in a world where most applications are platfrom-specific. The trend in the industry is moving towards cross-platform applications. As this progresses, the usability and capabilities of various operating systems become the dominant factors in choosing an OS.
I agree that both Windows and Mac continue to grow as platforms, and most likely their growth rates are growing. But the Linux platform is growing at a rate that dwarfs both, and absolutely dominates at higher-order growth derivatives!
I agree that both Windows and Mac continue to grow as platforms, and most likely their growth rates are growing. But the Linux platform is growing at a rate that dwarfs both, and absolutely dominates at higher-order growth derivatives!
I don’t get what you’re saying with “Linux platform is growing at a rate that dwarfs both”.
In the number of distributions?
In the number of niche markets?
In the number of hardware platforms (i.e., embedded Linux, server Linux)?
In the number of processor architectures?
Because clearly, Linux, the ultra-portable wonder kernel, already has all of that covered. Doubleplusgood on them.
All of those, plus the most important of all:
Number of developers coding on it.
But not the variety of desktop applications as we currently see on Mac and Windows. I mean, we ARE talking about desktop applications, aren’t we?
As I said on Digg, most of these “Desktop Linux” companies have been pushing the operating system as their main and only product, but have woefully neglected to give as much attention to the applications which are used on their respective desktop flavors.
As a result, the only way by which most people will be exposed to these applications is if they’re ported to either Windows or Mac.
GNOME did that a while back; now, KDE follows suit.
But with the constant barrage of “OMG! This is the year of Desktop Linux!” love letters from Steven J. Vaughn-Nichols telling us that Linux has just gotten one, eentsy-weentsy step closer to Windows-size acceptance on the desktop, doesn’t this most recent development contradict such statements?
There is an evident disconnect here: KDE wants to get a wider acceptance of their application by users, while Linux distributors want to get a wider acceptance of their distributions by users.
If KDE was, until now, so inextricably tied to these Linux distributions for carriage, then what went wrong? Why is the KDE project so compelled to “see other people” if Desktop Linux is supposed to be growing oh-so-substantially?
IMO, this means that the Linux universe of desktop distributions have failed, big time.
They have failed to develop (or take a leading role in the development of) a base of desktop applications that will deserve the attention of people who are seeking for an operating system that will exceed their expectations.
Few of these distributors have succeeded in cultivating a software ecosystem that is equivalent with the brand: Novell (acquired Ximian) and Red Hat (acquired JBoss) are the only two which come to mind.
And they have failed in attracting the amount of developers that Mac and Windows possess within their ranks.
Either that, or we’ve been lied to one too many times by the Linux media.
Most users migrate to an OS because of the applications available on that OS. Windows has the most applications in quantity, while Mac has the most applications in quality, and both platforms are growing by the day in either regard. This includes free, open-source software written in proprietary, OS-exclusive APIs, btw.
To a certain extent, killer applications may draw users to a particular OS, but I’d argue that the lack of applications has a larger, reverse effect by inhibiting platform migration.
People may like iLife, but I’d bet that the availability of MS-Office was a bigger draw for a significant segment of OSX users. By the same token, as much as people may like iLife, the lack of availability of MS-Office could have prevented migration for those users, particularly in work-related environments.
Thus, if KDE ports their applications to Mac and Windows, that will only benefit those platforms, not KDE’s preferred Linux.
Linux isn’t a stated “preference” for the KDE project, they aim to be a free desktop environment and, more and more, a high quality free application framework. The recent migration to Win/Mac is occurring due to Qt’s GPL licensing with the release of 4.x. Prior to that, Qt was GPL’d only for X11 environments.
The intent with opening up KDE to Win/OSX isn’t primarily to lure users to linux, it’s to widen the scope of the project to draw in more developers that will indirectly benefit users of all platforms. If you can’t convince developers to create applications for linux, why not produce a rich application environment and encourage them to develop apps for Windows or OSX that will *also* run on linux.
And when users explore their options for migrating platforms, they’ll find fewer obstacles when the applications they use don’t tie them to a particular environment.
So does it matter if we can’t get users to move from Windows, when we can get the Windows devs to work for benefit of *nix anyways? That’s where the real struggle is.
Did firefox on Windows lead users to Linux? Nope. But those that have since migrated at least have a familiar core application to use, and Windows/*nix users are on equal footing in terms of web experience. A popular firefox on Windows led to websites rethinking html standards and compatibility, which led to an improved browsing experience for firefox users on linux. Firefox on linux only would not have had the paradigm shift on web-standards awareness that Firefox on * did. Firefox/linux users benefited from Firefox/Windows users even if they never realized it.
I know some see this as a heretical act, akin to sleeping with the enemy, but I disagree. High quality free applications shouldn’t be tied to free platforms only as part of some sort of all-or-nothing strategy. They should be accessible to all if the idea of freedom really means what people say it means.
Even in advancement of free software ideals, the best way to counter the impact of proprietary platforms is to diminish the ultimate relevance of those proprietary platforms and place the emphasis on the applications; so KDE is simply advancing the availability of high quality OSS applications to the ultimate benefit of users on all platforms.
That’s not a bad thing, IMHO.
I know some see this as a heretical act, akin to sleeping with the enemy, but I disagree. High quality free applications shouldn’t be tied to free platforms only as part of some sort of all-or-nothing strategy. They should be accessible to all if the idea of freedom really means what people say it means.
I agree. Trying to tie down apps to certain platforms just to force users to switch always struck me as a little bit evil, whether it is MS or the OSS community doing it. It’s one thing to say we don’t have the resources or time to do a port, but another to simply proclaim you want to screw users who don’t use the same OS you do until they “see the light” and convert.
Oh, yes, pointing users to a complete free software stack would be so evil and backhanded.
It’s no different then how MS and Apple try to lock you into their platforms, and everyone complains about that. The only difference is that they’re doing it for money, while this would be more for politics/religion.
>Should we be promoting OSS amongst everyday users?
We should promote Free Software to very user because freedom matters for everyone!. I would never say “your are such a ‘low level’ computer user, you don’t need freedom” etc.
Edited 2007-02-01 17:48
>We should promote Free Software to very user because freedom matters for everyone!.
>I would never say “your are such a ‘low level’ computer user, you don’t need freedom” etc.
Come now
I am not saying THAT .. You know that I agree with OSS.
What I am saying is that you
can promote the “idea” of OSS or you can promote that which makes OSS OSS ,
i.e the software.
Promotion of OSS can be in two different ways, You can lower the level of expertise
for it’s adoption , or
you can increase people’s awareness of what it is
and hope they cross over ,
moved by the motivation of the “cause”.
I would like to see you explain the difference between a free version of ZoneAlarm
on http://www.download.com and , for the sake of argument it’s not a brilliant alternative ,
with a program like for ClamAV. Both are “free” and trying to create that distinction ,
I think is a waste of time. You can promote free software that way.
Or you can promote it by making it easier for the average user to adopt
the software and use it,
like what the KDE port effort is now doing. The ideology , manufacture of the software is mostly transparent from the user.
Not only am I excited about the possibility of running KDE on a windows machine, I think the area where this might really make a difference is the corporate front.
What holds many corporate to windows is the application stack, if you can introduce OSS apps on windows it may pave the way for better adoption of linux later.
KDE Doesn’t need to be ported to windows for Qt, GTK, etc. based Open Source applications to be available for the platform, there are loads of them that already are.
KDE Doesn’t need to be ported to windows for Qt, GTK, etc. based Open Source applications to be available for the platform, there are loads of them that already are.
Yes, there are lots of Qt and GTK applications for Windows out there, but not KDE applications. KDE uses Qt as a base to build upon and adds lots of features and functionality itself.
The KDE desktop as you know on Linux won´t be ported to Windows. What is going to be ported is mainly large portions of kde-base and kde-libs in order to make the porting of KDE applications (not Qt ones) feasible.
However, while I would love to be able to run Konqueror and Amarok – best apps on their respective categories on any OS IMHO – on Windows, I still am not convinced that porting KDE to Windows/Mac is a good idea at all.
While getting the average Joe and Jane Doe to get acquainted with OSS sounds like a lovely idea, I wonder how long the Windows version will keep feature parity with the mainstream Unix version until a point where it will drive KDE development and then the Unix version will have to adopt Windows-isms in order to keep up to speed due to plain pressure from the, arguably, larger audience on the Windows side of the fence.
I foresee this as something inevitable as Windows has a larger developer base that, getting interested on KDE development, will cater to the Windows version better leaving the Unix version (with its unique IPC mechanism, etc, etc) as an afterthought. The KDE developers may have a saying on this, making the API as broad as possible to try to cover all the possibilities and avoid this but somehow I doubt that such thing might work properly.
I am not saying that I am against it, but I will reserve my judgement until the thing is released and we can measure its effects.
Edit: Typos (probably missed a lot of them
)
Edited 2007-02-02 12:35
…everyone knocking Konqueror. It may not be the best browser, but as a file manager I think it is very powerful. I remember when I showed a windows users my Konqueror session divided into 5 panes.
1. The top left pane showed my website I was editing in a browser view.
2. The top right pane showed the same website in a FTP remote view.
3. The lower left pane showed the local file view of the website as I was working on it.
4. The lower right pane showed a remote samba file view of a network share.
5. The bottom section (a fifth pane that stretched across the bottom) was a command prompt view, allowing me to run scripts, compile, etc.
I do not consider that to be a wimpy file manager at all!
Exit soap box…
I don’t remember anybody knocking knoqueror in either the article or the comments, I like konqueror myself, I prefer it over nautilus, and I like it’s speed over Explorer.
I don’t remember anybody knocking knoqueror in either the article or the comments,
Indeed…just in case my comment was misinterpreted, let me state clearly that I really like Konqueror. It’s one of the KDE killer apps, in my view.
If only it could use Firefox extensions, I’d use it as a Web browser too…I’ve just become too addicted to some of the extensions to give FF up, however.
…everyone knocking Konqueror. It may not be the best browser, but as a file manager I think it is very powerful. I remember when I showed a windows users my Konqueror session divided into 5 panes.
Sounds like a bit of a mess to me. Konq is definitely powerful but confusing as hell too. Lots of shiny buttons and tabs.
http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux04/Graphics/KDE-Konqueror-browser_…
I’ll stick with ROX for file management and epiphany for brwosing.
I tend to disagree…it’s just a matter of default setting (for example, the bookmark bar should not be on by default, nor should the side pane, but maybe that’s just me).
I guess it depends on your needs, but I find that the program’s usefulness more than compensates for the apparent complexity of the default Konqueror setup (which, I believe, has been simplified somewhat in recent releases).
well, konqueror IS the best browser…
In the interviewers summary he says I believe that KDE porting their Desktop Environment to Mac and Windows to be a watershed moment for Open Source Software.
The way I read the interview and other kde.org articles on this subject, is that its just KDElibs & KDE apps that are porting to Windows & Mac OSX. Not the Desktop Environment in its full sense.
I am quite OK with this, especially if more Windows developers get interested in OSS and KDE development in particular.
Porting KDE to Mac OS X and Windows is admirable, but I think that the majority of Mac users and my self included would probably take Aqua and the Finder over KDE and Konquerer.
I still find it very cool and would try it.
The desktop environment itself isn’t being ported to the Mac, or at least I don’t think it is. This is just for the apps. Both Mac and Windows would probably be pretty awkward trying to use the DE 🙂
I can’t wait to use Konqueror under OS X! At the same time, there’s plenty of stuff for which I’ll stick to Finder.
Really, I can’t wait for Konqueror, Kate and Konsole to be available on OS X and Windows. Three of my favorite apps from any environment.
I agree, its more about the apps then the entire DE itself.
K3b, Amarok, Koffice, etc.
Porting KDE to Mac OS X and Windows is admirable, but I think that the majority of Mac users and my self included would probably take Aqua and the Finder over KDE and Konquerer.
I still find it very cool and would try it.
Qt/Mac will emulate Aqua so apps will have a native look and feel; there’s no KDE desktop and there’s no requirement for running X. It will appear to be just another Mac app.
Here’s a screenie of Konqueror running on OSX: http://ranger.befunk.com/gallery2/v/misc/screenshots/konqueror-2006…
Here’s one of Konsole: http://ranger.befunk.com/gallery2/v/misc/screenshots/konsole-200609…
not sure porting kde to windows will increase people to linux
i think they will continue to use windows and use the best kde program
like that, people will continue to be able to install the last application they find on the web or store… thing like that
it would be more interesting and productive if they port KDE to other open source OS like for example haiku and AROS
it would be more interesting and productive if they port KDE to other open source OS like for example haiku and AROS
It’s a matter of having some developers having experience with a platform and being willing to test and maintain platform specific portions of the code.
Currently only very few developers work on Windows, OS X or Solaris, most work on Linux or some of the BSDs.
I totally agree and I think there are 2 open source apps on windows worth the try. MINGW + HARMONY
Why the hell port KDE on windows when there is no DevC++ or U++ workspace for OpenCV + Xerces + Firefox + OpenOffice + … and so on. On a windows box with PSDK and mingw we can do a lot of development but the tools are either not mature or people do not care. There is SmartWin already there. But we need a good IDE or at least make Netbeans+C++ , Eclipse-C++, U++, DevC++ and JGrasp work. Let us make first the base work for IDE + Toolchain + Command line. In other words improve the existing infrastructure and make a ports system suitable for the average user in order to familiarize him/her with OSS. And friends, there is WxWindows + TCL/TK + Perl + Python + JAVA + FOX + FLTK , why do we need KDE? Port VSTUDIO apps to MINGW+ Ultimate++ or DevC++ or Eclipse or Netbeans. This is what we need. For example CoolPlayer, improve Infrarecorder + port MONO and improve DotGNU. Why KDE when there is so much work to be done? And for a decent Shell there is a Visual something and the wonderful JDistro.
Why KDE when there is so much work to be done?
Because most of the work is already done for KDE. Qt is a proven framwork on Windows (the majority of the Qt commercial customers develop for Windows), will integrate with Visual Studio etc. Porting the libraries to Qt4 was going to be done anyways for KDE4/*nix, so taking it a natural step further in order to enable platform portability for potentially thousands of apps is a relatively small effort compared to creating an OS-agnostic piecemeal framework from scratch or having to port apps individually.
A better question is why are you so intent on developing and porting everything BUT kde? Particularly since 90% of the framework exists already?
I don’t think it will bring much more people to Linux. Maybe more people will be aware of OSS possibility or of KDE as a trademark, but it will not bring immediate switch. What it will do trough is that it will bring the same situation as on Linux, that is that many usuable desktop environnement will be availlable and will create some confusion among the user base. (I don’t want to bash on all *Box existing, I just think common users don’t want to use them.)
I agree on some KDE apps being the next OSS killer app. Amarok and K3B are good ones. Konqueror, Kopete and KOffice could be one day, but they still lack usability IMHO (still waiting on the next Koffice). KVIrc is one IRC client that could kick bµtts too. Still my best hope for KDE on Windows is more for the ReactOS project. It could do a nice replacement for the ugly explorer clone currently bundled and could be a good kick-start for KDE and ReactOS as a base OS. This would be the kind of OS Wallmart would sell on is cheap computer. It could easily become a good Windows killer. And being open, nothing stop anybody to implement the X Server protocol inside de GDI subsystem of ReactOS and the Unix Domain Socket, thus gaining performance over the standard Windows port of KDE. The big thing on this is performance. If performance are equal or better under ReactOS than people would start to drop Windows. At least gamers. And gamers are THE market. And bring in some usability feature that enterprise need, like domain and other stuff, and you’ll get business too. Who would buy Windows if you could get a good desktop for free (in the corporate world I mean)? I still believe Windows is doomed. ReactOS and Mono will be the killers
And being open, nothing stop anybody to implement the X Server protocol inside de GDI subsystem of ReactOS and the Unix Domain Socket, thus gaining performance over the standard Windows port of KDE.
Why would an application running on an X server implemented on top of GDI be faster than running the same application on GDI directly?
Many people here seem to be mixing KDE libraries, KDE applications and the KDE desktop. Only the first one and some of the second one will be ported to Windows and Mac.
Even if porting KDE apps to Windows doesn’t cause anyone to switch, it will still help users of KDE on Linux. Take Konqueror for example. If it’s pitched as a relative of Safari, it could get some people to try it out. If more people use it, more websites will have to take it into account, which would make my browsing experience with Konqueror on Linux that much better.
Getting those apps ported and widely used if possible would be great. It isn’t really imperative to get anyone away from Windows, it would be far more helpful to push for open standards, so it won’t matter what platform someone is using. Better web standards adherence, adoption of ODF etc would make life easier for users of anternate OSs even if the vast majority of people stay with Windows.
Bennie is my buddy. He’s a smart dude with a pony-tail and a freshly waxed beard.
How cool is that?