Countless things have been said from both camps about the changes Red Hat did to both Gnome and mostly KDE for their upcoming OS, Red Hat 8.0, codenamed “Psyche”. Read more to vote if you favor the UI changes needed to make a desktop OS to look and feel unified troughout the whole spectrum of applications it comes with, or you are favoring the idea that… Red Hat just tries to hurt KDE, possibly on purpose, just for the kicks of it… Let the community of users decide!Note: The poll is now closed. Thanks everyone for voting!
There are these who say that making the necessary changes is ultimately a good thing when targeting desktops and these who say that it is a violation of ones creation and respect towards them (KDE project’s in this case).
Another interesting point is that many argue that to have a successful and fully consistent desktop product, you should only offer, support and endorse a single desktop environment. Red Hat already said that they are mostly a Gnome company, so would you agree if Red Hat would only offer Gnome with their products, but with the Qt/KDE libraries and apps already included (so people would be able to run KDE apps too, but not run the KDE environment itself). On the other hand, purists will say that Linux is all about choice and the more Desktop Environments are included, the better.
I would like to know the changes they actually made. I know:
1. Created a common theme or two themes that look the same, one for KDE, one for GTK+.
2. Changed from single click to double click for KDE.
3. Configured both to act similarly, no code changes just configuration.
Any other changes.
If the changes they made are only as cosmetic as the above ones then I don’t know what the big deal is.
It is important that both environment do not only look the same but behave exactly the same. There’s nothing worse for usability than things that look the same but act differently.
This might require code changes, as not everything can be done in themes. For example, despite what many people say KDE can not be made to 100% mimic the MacOS 9 UI, e.g. drop down fields look the same when not clicked, but behave a lot different.
I Favor polls and articles that aren’t designed to garner page hits.
On direct issue I completly back Redhat 100%. Its free software. If KDE didn’t want their software to be free and customizable they should have made is propritary.
Your coverage of this issue does nothing to help. Posting inflamtory polls and articles and then gathering people to argue can hardly be called journalism.
>Any other changes.
Shortcuts are now the same between GTK+ and Qt apps. I also hope they fixed drag n drop between them too.
> I Favor polls and articles that aren’t designed to garner page hits.
If you were a more frequent reader over here, you would know that UI used to be my job and now it is my hobby. I CARE about these things. And this is why I endorse these conversations and articles. Because it is about how to make people understand what is good and what is bad about Linux on the desktop.
> Your coverage of this issue does nothing to help.
How could I help? I don’t work for Red Hat.
> Posting inflamtory polls and articles and then gathering people to argue can hardly be called journalism.
You called me a journalist? You…
I am a semi-newbie to the linux scene and everyone has been talking about this Redhat Null, so I thought I would try it!
I am liking it, I was using a Suse 8.0 install before this. I like the features of Suse, But I have to hand it to Redhat that they have made UI changes to the best! I have never really gave Gnome any thought. I saw the eye candy of KDE! With the libs and such for KDE, you can do just about whatever you want with it!
I thought the idea behind Open Source software was that you can modify it to your liking? Only RedHat’s distro is using this modified KDE package right? It’s not like they’re trying to impose on the usual developments of the KDE team.
If I’m not mistaken, RH removes all the “about KDE” boxes from the kde applications.
That is so unrespectful for kde developers.
On the other hand this is reduntant information for the user. I am sure my uncle computer user doesn’t give a flying monkey as to what KDE is. The credit information should be in the about box, but if EVERY Help submenu has that “About KDE” thing, it is just way too much to be on all menus, and it is plain propaganda for the KDE project. (take that from a mostly KDE user) Think about it for a second, think the other side…
The KDE credits and KDE About box should be in a central place, along wiht the gnome ones and the linux kernel or whatever. A special app or window that has all the credits together. Not linked from every damned app…
I am using Red Hat 7.3 right now and I generally use KDE simply because I have never figured out how to configure the Gnome console to work they way I like it (80×52 lines and to remember that setting!). I prefer the look and feel of Gnome to KDE, but I also like the choice of desktop.
What is strange to me though is that when I install 7.3 on my machine with both KDE and Gnome installed, the KDE install has tons of apps installed and ready to go on the start menu, while the Gnome install seems to be a bare minimum installation. I would very much prefer a unified system with one set of apps available via either desktop.
Of course if they fixed the Gnome console so it was much more configurable I would probably just used Gnome instead 😉
I’m using 7.3 myself with KDE as my primary environment. I never got Gnome to customize as I want with KDE. If Gnome can extend beyond its present capabilities, I’m all for it. Just give KDE it’s credit since RedHat is using their stuff. If they can’t do that, then just remove any KDE stuff inside their future releases.
You use KDE simply because you can’t configure one GNOME app to display the window size you want? Why do you need to use that particular terminal when there are so many others out there? My personal favourites are Multi-Gnome-Terminal (IMHO the best terminal out there) and RXVT (it is fast and light), and KDE’s Konsole also works well in GNOME.
” I would very much prefer a unified system with one set of apps available via either desktop. ”
Debian and Mandrake do this.
” Just give KDE it’s credit since RedHat is using their stuff. ”
Red Hat uses GNOME’s stuff too, but I don’t see any “About GNOME” boxes anywhere. Why should KDE get any extra credit? Red Hat are just making things equal and consistent between GNOME and KDE.
There are some issues I’ve found:
1) Removing KDE branding is an insult to KDE
I remember these people were the same ones who publicly trashed Stallman for the evil he put them through, and no doubt make fun of “Gnu/Linux.” 0 pity. Redhat releases source. When Alan Cox leaves, then I’ll take notice.
2) Integration is where it’s all at.
Redhat is losing KDE’s insignificant integration for an integrated Redhat. It will take some time, but a good product takes time to produce. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not a programmer.
3) Redhat is destroying developer communities!
My ass. If this is destruction for KDE, it wasn’t a worthwhile project.
4) Redhat is a bullshit company for having bero quit
This is my point, and the only one I agree with. If a company can’t handle internal dissent, it’s not worth bothering with. Redhat is probably just like Sun.
Here’s something from Michael Tiemann, CTO of Redhat:
5) Single desktops rule! Go one but not two
Why? What if Redhat is taking a good risk, and is investing the time it takes to get there? Of course the two desktops are not good right now. Why destroy all their knowledge of KDE when they can keep working with it for negligible money?
6) Bad financial decision for Redhat
They’re not marketing to linux weenies. They’re looking at normal humans, non-geeks with work to do. Normal people don’t care about two below-average GUI systems. When KDE gives MacOS X a run for its money, then I’ll worry.
change something and people complain. don’t change anything and people complain. use windows and people complain. use mac and people complain.
what exactly is wrong with changing the look of a resulting binaries? if (i don’t remember well enough) the GPL or LGPL states that an application must retain recognition, wouldn’t this be better done by leaving the names of the original creators inside the sourcecode? doesn’t the GPL allow the changing of code? isn’t RedHat releasing it’s changes to the community?
frankly, i hate apps that have to much “about” information. i don’t need “about” information. i need “help” information. instead of complaining about something as anal as removing the “about” screens, why not build a better help system? or build something that flickers less? or make the web browser a little better at rendering (example, use konqueror, go to mail.yahoo.com. look at the username and password dialog boxes. under ie and mozilla the length isn’t that different, just a little.)? or maybe stop using your file manager as the default tool for opening all files!
yes i am complaining. as much as i hate complaining, it’s the only way to get people to listen.
If I’m not mistaken, RH removes all the “about KDE” boxes from the kde applications.
That is so unrespectful for kde developers.
So? If they were interested in getting credit for their hard work they wouldn’t open source the project, and they especially wouldn’t have GPL’ed it.
Ask any Linux user, what is the most important thing they as Linux users have?
They will all say, source code, so they can change anything they like or don’t like (although 99% never did that).
RedHat did that and what happens, everybody’s complaining how can they change anything in GPLed code.
I would be concerned if they don’t give that modified code back but that is not likely to happen. So, why all those complains?
Very simple – a lot (not all) of people in the KDE community have a thing about RH because RH dont worship at the altar of KDE, and HORROR were the only commercial distro that supported Gnome when no-one else did (1.04 shudder – but G2 sweetness probably would not have happened without their support)
As anyone shoiuld be aware from reading any talkbacks here, LT or Slashdot, Gnome people are not ecstatic but appreciate RH’s reasons, the flames come 100% from the KDE side
Sorry – just thought it needed to be said
I like GNOME because I found it more customizable and so far I have not been able to duplicate my preferences in KDE. However, I like some of the KDE apps and prefer to use them. I see blending GNOME and KDE together as a positive step towards creating an environment where the non-technical/average user will be comfortable. They represent the majority of users and RedHat is smart to cater to that market. As long as I can customize the UI to suit my whims I do not care what the box UI looks like.
I dont think people understand the nature of the problem here.
I am all for Redhat wanting to make KDE and Gnome look like eachother. That is NOT the problem. Hell – I am even for them having the same basic apps (even if they are GTK apps – and not the default ones for KDE).
What people dont understand is that REDHAT HAS EFFECTIVELY FORKED KDE. Yes, the KDE you get with Redhat is NOT at all the same as what you get off the net. They have changed the way the underlying system works.
They have taken things out – and added things in – all in the name of making more “Gnome Like”.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM. This is bad for the community because now when there is a problem with someone running an app in KDE on Redhat the KDE team can’t debug it. Bugs that are submitted might only be for the Redhat version, and so on.
This is just plain wrong. THey should not break compatibility with what is available in the wild. That is ultimately bad for linux.
All people that voted “Go for it” on the top pole are clueless. They need to understand the nature of the changes instead of calling us KDE developers “whining bitches”.
There are some real things to be upset about here.
“What people dont understand is that REDHAT HAS EFFECTIVELY FORKED KDE. Yes, the KDE you get with Redhat is NOT at all the same as what you get off the net. They have changed the way the underlying system works.”
So? Isn’t that the whole point of the GPL and the requirement to release source code? So others can take the source and change it or make it better? What’s so special about KDE — are they above the law? Isn’t Red Hat releasing the source of their KDE? So what’s the problem?
Kudos to Red Hat for trying to improve the Linux desktop experience.
I praise the kde project for writing such an awesome
product. Still thought, one must remember than the
majority of apps in the opensource world are written
in C, not C++, hence this is why GTK/gnome (C) are more
popular for programmers than KDE (C++)
“RedHat has effectively forked KDE”.
Oh, really? What about Lindows? Haven’t they done the same thing? Or Lycoris, with its drastically revamped KDE 2.2 (an outdated version no less)? Or the upcoming Xandros? Why is none of this “KDE has been altered” bile being directed at them?
Perhaps, in fact, KDE will consider some of the changes for the better. I doubt it, though. I love KDE, and I have great admiration for the developers who created it. I never noticed the “About KDE” on every app before, but now that I’m made aware that it is gone — I’m glad. The credits are still there for KDE, such as in the Kontrol Panel. Why does every single app require it? Isn’t simpler better sometimes?
But will KDE consider this? Or does it suffer from too much hubris to admit that RH may have some valid contributions to give back to KDE?
KDE already contained a configuration option to disable “About KDE” being appended to the Help menu of every KDE application. Red Hat simply changed the default to not display the menu item.
It’s not about denying KDE developers credit, of course. It’s just a configuration option that makes sense to be turned off.
“They have changed the way the underlying system works.”
I keep hearing people say stuff like that. Why, I tried it and really did not see any ‘real’ changes.
I think I got the first post. Those were the only changes I detected. If they change the code I really would like to know where, what, and why they changed the underlying code. If they did I could not really detect the changes, although I have not used it extensively.
Right now I think it is a major over reaction.
>Shortcuts are now the same between GTK+ and Qt apps. I also hope they fixed drag n drop between them too.
If thats all I really don’t get what all the fuss is about.
“Why is none of this “KDE has been altered” bile being directed at them? ”
I have never looked at the source much of those others. But it seemed to me while they added programs – to add functionality – there was not a place where I could see that they changed the underlying infrastructure of KDE itself.
Basically what those other Distros are doing is something more like Ximian Gnome. They add stuff on top of Gnome/KDE without actually changing the libraries underneath.
Redhat has modified an extensive portion of KDE’s code – in order to make it use more Gnome code (especially in the font rendering area). The problem here is that they are altering KDE without community feedback. As in there was no discussion on kde-devel as to whether or not the new gnome font stuff would be merged into KDE. Maybe there were people already working on it – and doing in a much more KDE like way.
The thing is – RedHat has gone OVER the community of developers – and made KDE something of their own. Instead of respecting the large community that has put thousands of hours into creating the project, and atleast asking them what they think about the patches, or asking the KDE team for the features, they just go ahead and do them and say “Tough, we don’t give a flip if we have taken your blood sweat and tears and turned it into something you don’t agree with – eat our pants”.
This is not good for opensource – we are supposed to work together to a collaborative end, not undermine the efforts of thousands of people.
This is OPEN-SOURCE software. RedHat is free to do what they like to whatever they like. This is the design of the license and development model. Surely this is all an isue of pride. The developers of KDE had to have been aware that a distribution is free to do this. Certainly they were aware the definition of open-source. So rather than be upset about RedHat modifying open-source software and packaging it together as a complete OS, be thankful that while the BigHat has decided to do this MANY other distributions have not chosen to. Be thankful that if worse came to worst you could compile the whole damn thing on damn near any hardware anywhere in the world.
Somewhere long the way.. someone forgot the point.
“Liberty is the great parent of science and of virtue; and a nation will be great in both in proportion as it is free. ” –Thomas Jefferson
I hope someone can help me. I wrote a program and licensed it under the GPL. I gave it away for free with the source so anyone who wanted it could use it and modify it. Then this big guy in a red hat started telling me that he wanted it to be different. I said, “If you don’t like it, then you write your own – and F**K OFF.” Then, he went and used my GPL’d code to write his own. Do you believe that?
I told him I wouldn’t do his work for him, and then he went and did it himself! What a jerk!
KDE _SHOULD_ be different than GNOME… otherwise what’s the point of KDE? I think that’s the real problem here. It’s not the altering of KDE’s look & feel, other distros do that. What RedHat has tried to do is make KDE indistinguishable from GNOME. As Eugenia has said, the user should not be able to tell the difference.
But by making KDE the same as GNOME, RedHat has eliminated the reason that KDE exists… as an _ALTERNATIVE_ to GNOME. And I think that’s what really irritates the KDE guys. Suddenly what they’re trying to do doesn’t have a point. If RedHat wants everything to work like GNOME, then why don’t they just ship GNOME?
It seems like no GNOME guys are complaining about this change, but that’s cuz KDE acts like GNOME, and the GNOME guys (naturally) think their way is better. I think that if GNOME suddenly was indistinguishable from KDE in the largest Linux distribution, there might be a bit more complaining from the GNOME crowd.
>>>The thing is – RedHat has gone OVER the community of developers – and made KDE something of their own. Instead of respecting the large community that has put thousands of hours into creating the project, and atleast asking them what they think about the patches, or asking the KDE team for the features, they just go ahead and do them and say “Tough, we don’t give a flip if we have taken your blood sweat and tears and turned it into something you don’t agree with – eat our pants”.
>>>>This is not good for opensource – we are supposed to work together to a collaborative end, not undermine the efforts of thousands of people.
It’s much more likely that RedHat (rather than KDE) has the money to spend on consumer testing on what a friendly GUI should look like. It’s also much more likely that die hard open source coders would say “we don’t give a flip” on “user friendliness” — we are coding it this way because we like it and the users be damned.
The “efforts of thousands of people” are paid for by weekly paycheques from RedHat.
From the screen shots that I’ve seen, RedHat also does quite a bit of customizing on Gnome2 to make it look the way they want it (sure looks quite a bit better than it does on Debian, or Gentoo). RedHat is attempting to do something that is totally different (and more ambitious) than Lindows, Lycoris, Xandros, etc. etc. They’re trying to deliver a consistant desktop environment for their distro that doesn’t really distinguish between KDE and Gnome. Like KDE? You’re going to start off with what RedHat gives you. If you don’t like it, change it. Like Gnome? You’re going to start off with what RedHat gives you. If you don’t like it, change it. Install Ximian–whatever. It’s that way now, and it’s been that way for a long time.
Still, this seems like sour grapes all over again; that there’s festering animosity between RedHat and the KDE folks. If that’s at the root of it, as I suspect, people need to grow up. Still pissed at RedHat? Okay, so don’t buy and use their distro. Use Debian. Use SuSE. Use Mandrake, but be quiet.
Use Mandrake, but be quiet.
The Bluecurve theme is great. I wish they would implement it for mozilla and openoffice. Even having a same-looking theme available for KDE and GNOME is a significant step forward for UI consistency and itegration.
I hope they take it even further, and make window decorations and icons consistent accross environments as well.
Making file dialogs appear and behave similarly would also be great. KDE’s is the most full-featured, and also the most efficient. I’m not holding my breath though.
For information – RH has used mods on both stock desktops so they work with XFt2 – not just KDE
If mods have been made to QT (and it should be at that level) I would imagine that those patches have bneen released back.
Though I did hear somewhere that QT3 should be capable of using Xft2 anyway.
Andrew: 3. Configured both to act similarly, no code changes just configuration.
Code changes were made in KDE, creating some incompatiblities, especially with the service renaming.
Eugenia: You called me a journalist? You…
Calm down, Eugenia. Look at the bright side, you would get to go to Iraq to have coverage on Gulf War #2…. 🙂
redtux: As anyone shoiuld be aware from reading any talkbacks here, LT or Slashdot, Gnome people are not ecstatic but appreciate RH’s reasons, the flames come 100% from the KDE side
While I notice most KDE users bitch about the looks and the behaviour change in RH’s KDE. However, all KDE developers is bitching about the incompatiblities caused by RedHat’s version – they made changes whom most of them don’t make sense yet cause incompatiblities (the XFT2 is a example of a good addition, but services renaming isn’t). Wonders of wonders, this didn’t happen to GNOME.
Derek: All people that voted “Go for it” on the top pole are clueless.
I think YOU are clueless, the “Go for it” button is for the UI changes, whom you support, BTW.
Anonymous: So? Isn’t that the whole point of the GPL and the requirement to release source code?
Red Hat, in Null, still called it KDE. They still called kdelibs the same.
reduz: Still thought, one must remember than the majority of apps in the opensource world are written in C, not C++, hence this is why GTK/gnome (C) are more popular for programmers than KDE (C++)
Wrong. C++ is the most popular language right now. It is GNU apps that is normally written in C. BTW, there is IIRC C bindings for Qt.
John: Oh, really? What about Lindows? Haven’t they done the same thing?
Lindows’s underlying libraries is practically a carbon copy of KDE’s version, perhaps with their own patches and Corel’s patches.
John: Or Lycoris, with its drastically revamped KDE 2.2 (an outdated version no less)?
Same thing as Lindows.
John: Or the upcoming Xandros?
Same as Lindows and Lycoris.
The two distributions you mentioned changed the UI, which KDE developers are okay with. But Red Hat changed more than the UI.
Andrew: I keep hearing people say stuff like that. Why, I tried it and really did not see any ‘real’ changes.
Hmmm, did you tried it with apps that comes on the CDs, or did you go scotting on apps.kde.com and trying to install those apps?
Derek: Redhat has modified an extensive portion of KDE’s code – in order to make it use more Gnome code (especially in the font rendering area).
This area, it uses XFT2, not Pango. And it didn’t cause any incompatiblities, except for stuff really integrated with QFonts. Besides, the fonts is better, which is probably the biggest reason why I would use Red Hat 8.0 over other distributions.
Besides, they also did the same to GTK+.
sam: It’s much more likely that RedHat (rather than KDE) has the money to spend on consumer testing on what a friendly GUI should look like.
Read Derek’s posts again. Read it yet again. He isn’t complaining about the UI.
Disclaimer: Used Null before, love it, except the incompatiblities with KDE apps.
Matt Wilson wrote:
> It’s not about denying KDE developers credit, of course.
> It’s just a configuration option that makes sense to be
> turned off.
It should never be a configuration item in the first place.
Having people who know what they do choose good settings instead of providing condiguration items for everything (this example really is one of the dumber ones) is one thing I think the Gnome people got right with Gnome2.
I was whining a lot about the loss of some things when Gnome2 was released, but it forced me to rethink my way of working with my computers and I am at least as effective now as I was with my super-configured desktop.
I don’t see a problem with a distribution changing the look and feel of their own distros. But I firmly belive that freedom comes with responsibility, and free software comes with respect.
This mean that even if it is free and you can use it and change it in any way you want, it is not your work and you should have respect for those who have freely given you countless hours of work. The changes for each distribution should be done together with the KDE team, and the ability to run a vanilla KDE should always be an option (that shouldn’t be harder than a Red Hat/KDE look question).
This is one of many reasons why I don’t like plain vanilla open source / free software. I like the idea of having the source, I like the idea of sharing and helping each other in a friendly community. I don’t like FSF nor GPL.
Given all this, one must remember that Red Hat has a LOT invested in gnome, and if nobody wanted gnome when they installed Red Hat they would look VERY stupid to investors and partners. This has nothing to do with open source and Red Hat will have to play by the rules set by the big boys or they will perish. They are on the same turf as Microsoft and will have to do as they do to survive.
And, as a last statement, I don’t use Red Hat, and I will never willingly do so unless absolutly neccessary (if my work demands it).
I think the next 2 years will tell us
if the current decisions made by Red Hat
are bright enough to expand or not.
My personal opinion is that UnitLinux
will receive a tremendous growth. Why ?
Cause it is united and it is based on the
number 4 (companies). As numerology will
tell use the number 4 is very stable, a number to
build on. Have you ever wondered about
KDE vs. GNOME. Look at the names look at
K which is 11 and look at G which is 7 and
these numbers will tell you a lot.
You can see my screenshot of my KDE desktop on Red Hat Null here (I did run an up2date with the limbo channel on it):
Some things to notice:
The BlueCurve theme is default, but if you wish you can change it to Keramik. The default icons are those of redhat, but you can pick chrystal if you want.
The About KDE menu has not been removed from the Help menu. It’s there in Konqueror, and it’s there in Arson.
Talking about Arson, I compiled it. I downloaded it from arson website, ran ./configure, make make install, and tada! It works. What’s that about source incompatibilities?
I wonder why the KDE folks are complaining.. They obviously never even testen Red Hat Null and ran an up2date reguarly.
jbmadsen: Having people who know what they do choose good settings instead of providing condiguration items for everything (this example really is one of the dumber ones) is one thing I think the Gnome people got right with Gnome2.
I think the only thing GNOME 2 got right in this regard is their preferences. It is clean, well explained and not cluttered and overwhelming. Other than that, one must really wonder if the default UI is really tested for usablity, or was it just picked cause it looks nice.
No offence, I also think KDE’s default is too cluttered, overwelming and outright ugly 🙂 I wish they redo their UI ala KDE 2.0 where everything is clean and nice – only it must be future orientated. Because KDE 2.0’s UI was only good before feature release came after it and destroyed it.
J.S.: My personal opinion is that UnitLinux
will receive a tremendous growth.
Well, I don’t share the same opinion that you. Maybe SuSE makes a great desktop distro, or Caldera/SCO makes the best one that ever been released, the fact remains that only 1 out of 4 UnitedLinux companies have a target to get the desktop market, which is Conectiva.
UnitedLinux was built because they want to target the enterprise. Companies like Oracle only build their software to work with Red Hat Linux, cutting off access to smaller companies like Turbo Linux. By combining market share to make an product whom software would work right accross different distributions, they open themselves to a lot of apps, and therefore a larger target audience.
Bob: Talking about Arson, I compiled it. I downloaded it from arson website, ran ./configure, make make install, and tada! It works. What’s that about source incompatibilities?
50% of the apps I downloaded from apps.kde.org worked, which itself is an bad number. Sure, if you apps works fine, go ahead, use Red Hat. My apps also works fine, I’m choosing Red Hat. But the fact remains that Red Hat introduced incompatiblities into KDE’s libraries without any reason.
Bob: I wonder why the KDE folks are complaining.. They obviously never even testen Red Hat Null and ran an up2date reguarly.
I have tested Red Hat Null. Never ran up2date, but I’m still an tester who submited around 10 bug reports.
Other than that, one must really wonder if the default UI is really tested for usablity, or was it just picked cause it looks nice.
Sun did some user testing, as did MIT I think. Other than that, there are alot of general rules in UI design. You don’t have to test everything with real users, others has done that before you, and published their results. It would be somewhat stupid to throw their research away.
I’ve voted no in the second poll, because i consider that changes that broke funcionality and iteroperationality shouldn’t be checked on any distro.
That kind of thing is more in the realms of the inominable company…
The correct answer for the second poll would be… yes, if the funcionalities wheren’t broken…
Some of the above posts mentioned that Lycoris also changed KDE (albeit KDE 2.2.2) and then some others stated that Lycoris only changed the UI.
Well, according to many reviews of Lycoris, they did indeed change about 1000 lines of code and their KDE is “heavily modified.” I have tried both Lycoris and Null and IMHO, Lycoris made *MANY* more underlying changes to KDE while I can’t find any in Null (other than UI changes).
Guys, this actually pretty much sums the attitude from KDE.
Most, if not all of Lycoris changes it to fix bugs or to change the user interface. I could run any KDE 2.x application on Lycoris without ANY problem.
The reason is that Lycoris makes the changes to *enchance* it, not to change things that could break compatiblity.
While, yes, Null did less changes with KDE. However, the little changes it makes causes it to be less stable and causes some applications to break. The difference is this, I take my car to two workshops. One takes an hammer, and breakes the radiator, while the other one add in a lot of accessories and fixes a lot of glitches. It is easy to say the latter did more changes, but it doesn’t make it bad. The prior did less changes, but broke something along the way.
Bob: Sun did some user testing, as did MIT I think. Other than that, there are alot of general rules in UI design. You don’t have to test everything with real users, others has done that before you, and published their results. It would be somewhat stupid to throw their research away.
Yet why does Solaris’ version of GNOME and Red Hat’s version of GNOME acts differently from the default, especially since the default is soooooo good? Besides, ther usablity test done, it only fixes the problems with the UI from GNOME 1.4, it doesn’t really fix the UI choosen for GNOME 2.0.
There are many aspects of GNOME that makes sense astesthically, but not from the usablity point of view.
I’m not saying GNOME to throw away their research 🙂 GNOME does have a better default than KDE right now. However, I’m not sure, but it may be in the same path as KDE 2.x, from simple and uncluttered to overwhelming and cluttered. Who knows?
If you’re upset about them excercising their freedom to modify UI’s, don’t go look at what the hat has done to the kernel.
OMFG THEY’VE CHANGED THAT TOO
Don’t “say” people are allowed to do what they want with open-source software and then complain when they do it.
Yet why does Solaris’ version of GNOME and Red Hat’s version of GNOME acts differently from the default, especially since the default is soooooo good? Besides, ther usablity test done, it only fixes the problems with the UI from GNOME 1.4, it doesn’t really fix the UI choosen for GNOME 2.0.
Don’t know about Solaris, but Red Hat changed the default Gnome because KDE doesn’t have an equivalent to Gnome’s menu panel.
Besides, ther usablity test done, it only fixes the problems with the UI from GNOME 1.4, it doesn’t really fix the UI choosen for GNOME 2.0.
Uh, the usability test for Gnome1.4 brought up problems that were fixed in Gnome2. That was pretty much the intention of that usability test I think 🙂 There is no reference to “Applets”, there is only one Clock applet, redundant references to Gnome are being removed. Better descriptions for menu entries. Better tooltips with less technical jargon. And a bunch more stuff.
Gnome 2 is a significant improvement with respect to usability in comparison with Gnome 1.4. The Sun usability testing has been used during the drawing of the Gnome Human Interface Guide, but also other researches and guide lines. (Check the links in the resources page at usability.gnome.org). There is still room for improvements offcourse, and more applications should follow the HIG, but it is a significant improvement, and not just something that “looks pretty”.
Redhat is trying to become a main business OS supplier. In order to do that, you need good marketing, a unified look and feel, support, stability, performance etc. (and for the zealots among us, sorry but YES, the better M$ OSes and to some extent OSX do offer those and that’s who they’re up against, not Debian or Slackware or Gentoo or etc. etc.)
Many businesses are afraid of Linux due to the sheer number of choices one is presented with – “WHY have several GUIs to choose from?” “Why have 25 different file managers?” “Why have 10^(n+1) different Linux distributions to choose from?”
For their business model, they are doing the right thing.
Don’t forget people, open source is nice and all that but companies like Redhat look for the bottom line, and believe me, they’re doing pretty well so far, even if we don’t always ideologically agree with what they do.
Standardization is a double-edged sword of course, since often it means the end of innovation. Therefore, enthusiasts all over the world can keep using whatever is cutting edge etc. and they can leave Redhat to the corporate world. Believe me, Redhat won’t mind.
If it is incompatible it’s not KDE. It might be good, hell it might be better but it is not KDE.
It’s GPL so forking is allowed, but they shouldn’t sell it under the name KDE. They should call it RDE (Redhat desktop environment) or something and stop pissing people off.
BTW I think this looks pretty nice so I’m at least going to try it out.
For all of you idiots who voted yes for the unification, either go look up some of the origins and original purposes of Linux (such as options and the ability to chose – one desktop is the same damn thing people said they disliked about using Windows and prefered in Linux), or go back to Microsoft with your stupidity where you belong…
Being able to choose a distribution which has this unified desktop stuff is just another choice. You don’t like it? Don’t use/support it. But don’t fault Redhat for giving you more to choose from.
Redhat is giving you _more_ to choose from, not less.
The second question really begs for a third option:
RedHat should not include any components of KDE.
I think that that’s the reason it tended towards a more even (50-50) result: there is a category of people uncertain which of the two options would describe their feeling that RedHat should “keep away from” KDE.
No, see, you are the idiot here.
The whole point of this exercise is to try and woo people from Windows to Linux. You have to take baby steps with most of these folks. When I mention to someone who is a non-computer geek that Linux has different desktop environments, they’re like “oh, you mean like different themes.” So I say, “no, thre are different themes too, but what I mean is different desktop environments — in one, you click here to do this and in the other you click there to do that. In one a shortcut is called a shortcut and in other it’s called a launcher. In one you have a file manager that does X and in the other you have a file manager that does Y.”
AFter explaining, that I get a blank stare. Then: “Maybe I’ll just stick with Windows.”
Another lost soul.
Anyone reading this board is relatively expert at LInux and knows enough about what to do that they can easily modify RH’s KDE or Gnome back to the way they like it. But, to the typical clueless customer, you start explaining why there are differences in desktop environments or why you have different sessions and they’ll say forget it. So, we bring them along slowly. What RH is doing makes it easier. Once those clueless souls get comfortable with Linux, you can say, “ok, now, if this particular desktop environment doesn’t work for you, you can try another. Here’s how.”
Insisting on keeping two desktop environments totally separate and distinct *will* make it harder to get clueless Joe Schmo to make the switch.
So, before you start calling people “idiots” for wanting to make things easier for the computer newbies out there, think twice. I know perfectly damn well how to make the changes to my DE and I’ll do it to RH 8.0 when I get my hands on it. But, I’ll be able to take those same isos and install ’em on my wife’s computer (who is as computer illiterate as they come) and she’ll be just fine. RH’s “unification” will make that transition for her that much easier.
Isn’t that the whole point?
I install GNU/Linux servers for clients in the UK.
I have never had any interest from clients about installing DESKTOP systems until I showed them the RedHat null installation. Now I’m filling up an order book for clients wanting this desktop to replace Windows (generally although one guy uses a couple of old Mac’s at the moment).
Now my business isn’t going to take over the world, but I have demonstrated many different versions of KDE and GNOME from several different distributions to clients with no takers. It doesn’t take much to see why in my opinion.
Business users don’t want to be swamped with choices galore or have fancy screen candy all over the place. They want a solid, reliable, good looking desktop that they can tailor to their own corporate style.
I’m happy with the RedHat move because my customers are happy with it. If you don’t like it – don’t use it. Don’t bother criticising it either – just don’t use it. Business users will use it, and that’s all that I (and RedHat probably) care about.
I would have preferred that RedHat follow the Ximian route of polishing Gnome rather than creating a whole new look. I think they should have provided matching KDE themes for their Gnome themes so KDE apps look like Gnome apps, but I don’t see any reason for tweaking KDE behavior. KDE apps aren’t that prominent in the RedHat installation anyway. They should have picked Gnome as their preferred desktop and allowed the user the option of switching to a vanilla version of the KDE desktop.
That said, I’m certainly not upset with what RedHat have done. They are doing what they think their customers want. I happen to disagree slightly, but in the end, the market will show whether or not they are doing the right thing. RedHat is a corporation. They aren’t out to destroy KDE. They are trying to survive. If they don’t make money, they die. I hope they survive, because the Linux community certainly benefits from the work they do.
Well, there is a lot of things to think about.
1 – Good – Unifying the user experience is a good thing. I think everybody agree;
2 – Bad – If you work hard and give away your work you deserve credit, a lot of. I can’t see only one reason to justify the omission of that;
3 – Bad – Create a bloated code. Why to slowdown the machines with lots of code that do almost the same thing?
4 – Bad – Create incompatibilities and instabilities forking the code. Lets go guys, we saw this history before. Do you remember Unix in many flavors and the hell was try to support more than one of them?
What we need are:
1 – Improved stability. That’s why (the nonexistence of that) we blame and laugh at Microsoftilt;
2 – Improve interoperatively. Yes, lets more applications talk with each other in more harmony and unleash the synergy of that;
3 – Improve response time. Bloated code doesn’t help it for sure;
4 – Make things easier to the final user and also to the developer. Doesn’t need any comment.
So, the RH move is in the correct direction but, perhaps, it must be planned, so that we don’t break things instead of improve them.
I’m inclined that they use one or the other – that is my basic feeling – and refine it, not because of GPL or anything, but because of consistency, UI, etc.
However, it has occurred to me that, if this Redhat DP environment is wildly sucessful, then it, in a sort of backdoor way, would become *the* desktop and the whole paradigm would change.
>RedHat should not include any components of KDE.
This is not an option. That is suicide.
Well, a think the
1º “About KDE” suld stay, in fact if you have seen some KDE apps they have you were their original programers.
2º A union of the Kde and Gnome whuld be a big creation because they are both great deskops and their union whold make them almost perfect…..
3º If i’m not in error we are in the OPEN SOURCE COMUNITY so RH is not doing anything ilegal (like Micr$soft), like thy are free change the souce……..
If from this project born’s a great open sorce desktop, Congratulations……
If not well they are only human’s……
We can’t be blamed for that…..
Keep up the good work RH!!!!!!!!
One distribution that has repeatedly not given a damn about usability issues screwing over a desktop project that has repeatedly not given a damn about usability issues.
It’s almost like watching an episode of Celebrity Deathmatch. It’s somehow fullfilling no matter how it ends.
I like the idea of having Gnome and KDE (and other Window Managers for that matter) be able to interoperate and use the same themes etc. But it should be something that grows out of cooperation between the projects, not something done by RedHat.
If it’s going to do anyone any good it has to be a “core” thing in both KDE and Gnome so that it bennefits all Linux distros using those desktop environments – not just RedHat users (besides, I think RedHat’s unified desktop is less than pretty).
im imagining robin hood and the merry men on a “rob from the rich and give to the poor” type escapade through sherwood forest… then friar tuck reaches over.. punches will scarlet and bloodies his nose.. and takes his lunch
guess we know now how the gpl can be used to its own detriment
I don’t get it? If the problem is that businesses do not want to figure out wich desktop to go with then why give them a choice. If I understand correctly, Redhat still has 2 desktops to choose from, but they look basically the same. To me that is a more confusing choice. Why not just make the default install use gnome. If gone is kde and kde is gnome, what is the point of the choice.
Also, Is normal KDE still a choice. I don’t care what they did with gnome or kde to make the blueballs desktop. I just want standard, unmodified kde. And, I don’t want to spend the 10 hours compiling it or digging up packages from the net to install.
If you ask me RedHat (since it is considered the number one linux) should offer more then one choice when it comes to buy Linux. First have RedHat Server 8 (which has no GUI or just something small maybe just TWM lots of GUI configuration tools, as well as console configuration tools. Next is RedHat Developer 8 which has Gnome only in it, more then one internet browser, mail, and so on. Next is RedHat Home Gnome, which has just Gnome in it and one program for everything, one mail, one web browser and so on targeted to the Linux Home user. Next is RedHat Home KDE, which has just KDE and has more of a Windows feel to it for Windows convertors simular to a Lindows project. Next have RedHat Collection for Workgroups, which basically has everything in it for a workgroup center for users to choice what window manager they want to use, internet browser and so on. I try real hard to get my install down to 500 meg but I can’t seem much or less getting it down to 900 meg with out something being wrong with it. Thats a problem. I can still get my Windows NT down to 200 meg, my WIndows 2000 down to 400 meg, and so on, of coarse not to mention BeOS, is what 20 meg . Of course all products that would just be there default install, which you can download anything else you want with Web Find (which by the way mine hasn’t worked right in about 3 weeks even though I formated).
Understand UI consistency and usability is more important than any ego or open source BS. Half of the “room” understanding is better than it used to be.
As for just taking one desktop environment instead of two… well, I guess you can’t do that if you want apps made for one or the other, right? I’m not a Linux user in any respectable amount, so I don’t know for sure.
> Understand UI consistency and usability is more important than any ego or open source BS.
That might be true for you, but not for many. For me, consistency is a “nice to have”, but free and stable are “must have” for me. As an admin, I deal with many interfaces (config file formats, cmd line options, etc) all day. It would be nice for them all to be consistent, but not the most important thing.
> As for just taking one desktop environment instead of two… well, I guess you can’t do that if you want apps made for one or the other, right?
No, you can run kde apps under gnome with kdelibs and gnome apps under kde with a bazillion gnome libs, but you do not need the actual desktop installed or configured.
Actually, you can run Gnome apps under the KDE desktop and KDE apps under the Gnome desktop. All you need are the libraries. That is why I don’t understand RedHat’s move here. I don’t understand why they bothered providing the option of a KDE desktop. Maybe it isn’t a very prominent option (I haven’t used null). I haven’t used Linux in a while. Is there really that much of a non-aesthetic difference betweeen the two desktops? By non-aesthetic, I mean stuff that themes can’t change. I figure most of the differences lie in the apps and configuration utilities.
Now, here’s my piece of mind for all you guys
a) For those saying something like “They shouldn’t change KDE’s look, otherwise where’s the choice”…… I notice NOBODY here is bashing Red Hat because it changed GNOME’s looks. There is more to a desktop that the looks, MUCH MORE THAN THE LOOKS. When i use Null, I find myself using KDE more than GNOME, even though they both LOOK the same, for somethings they ACT the same, but this isn’t the main thing here.
b) For those saying “They should bundle KDE if they like GNOME so much”, well, they bundle hundreds of applications, many of them competiting ones. I see nobody here bitching on why they bundled those. The main thing here is KDE isn’t installed by default, same with those thousands of redundant apps. if Red Hat were to follow a policy of just bundling what they place as default, they would only need one CD. I may agree with this, but a lot of people buying Red Hat boxes buy it for the extra apps you get.
c) For those saying “It breaks compatiblity”, this is mostly minor, even though I bitched about it alot. MOST apps works, ESPECIALLY commercial apps. If you want uncrippled KDE, I don’t think so you are in RH’s target market. RH’s target market DON’T care about most apps.kde.org alpha apps not working properly in RH.
d) For those saying that KDE shouldn’t bitch about Red Hat – why shouldn’t they? We see emacs and XEmacs flamewars, yet nobody told emacs to stop bitching about xemacs. It is what I call freedom of speech. For Null, they may have a legitimate argument, and Red Hat promptly realize that and in the final release, it is no longer KDE, rather forked KDE.
Did I missed anyone?
Now, for KDE fans, why not you guys group up and make a distro similar to Red Hat’s only using KDE instead of GNOME and fixing all its short comings. There are issues with Red Hat whom problem they would never fix
a) I just want something that is small and functional, not something with everything in it. That means I want a distribution with Linux+ some servers and daemons for desktop stuff+ XFree + KDE + Motif, GTK+, etc. libraries built in. Learn from Red Hat’s good points and fix their bad points. For example, all Motif, GTK+ etc. apps would look exactly the same as the KDE desktop.
b) I want something that changes the theme of the entire UI. Sure, I can change the GTK+ theme and the QT theme, but I want to do it once. For example, if I install a new theme, I want all my applications to follow that look. The theme format can be new, as you please.
Enjoy your day.
I think the argument from the RH side is, “it’s open source, we have the right to change it and make our lives easier with configuration control” That makes sense.
On the KDE side, everyone is pissed because they have forked the underlying code, and because it is RH, this fork will cause confusion and chaos for them to deal with, also understandable.
What Red Hat should have done is this: give it a new name. Call it RH DE, a KDE 3.X based UI. Something completely new. Look at Mozilla, Netscape, galeon etc etc. Those products are closely related, yet they are still fairly distinct. RH created this almost KDE beast that conflicts with the “real” KDE, and that’s where the true problem lies, IMHO. Give the users the right to choose an unaltered KDE, but also let RH innovate and make the UI as they wish.
Because of who they are, RH has an unwritten, implicit responsibility to the linux community, and even though they should be allowed to modify KDE, they’ve just killed it by making they’re own fudged version.
Just my two cents and then some