The KDE Group – a group of KDE and/or Debian developers with a dedication to and interest in both projects – have written this detailed proposal opposing the decision to go with GNOME as the sole UserLinux GUI. Our Take: On Friday I emailed Bruce Perens on the issue, but he didn’t reply. Following is my short email to Perens, trying to suggest a solution that might become acceptable by both camps.
Hi Bruce,
Regarding your response here: http://userlinux.com/GUI.html where you state
that you want only one toolkit included in the distro: I think that’s a very limiting decision for your potential users.
Many apps out there are Qt (in fact, more apps are QT/KDE than Gnome-gtk). But instead of not including KDE, my suggestion would be to include Gnome by default because its usability is better than KDE’s, BUT to also include the KDE libs/Qt libs needed to run KDE apps (but not include Kicker and the KDE-desktop packages). This way the users get a *single desktop* — for a clean experience –, but they still get the ability to run more Linux apps if they need to.
I don’t believe this will be difficult for developers either. The whole GNU/Linux OS has many APIs, two graphical ones instead of one, won’t make the situation any worse. Mac OS X has two APIs too (but a *single desktop*), and that was never a real problem for its userbase. Windows also has many APIs, from MFCs, to Win32s to .NET, but a *single desktop*, and that never a problem either for anyone.
Please take note that I am primarily a *gnome user*, but thinking the situation from a “business point of view”, I absolutely recognize the need for KDE/Qt *applications*, simply because they are there, they are many, and they can serve users at their request. It is just a unbiased practical thought and I think I make some sense here…
Please consider this alternative (two toolkits, but a single desktop). I think it can work for both camps, and most importantly, for the users. And as the work at freedesktop.org continues to better interoperate Qt and GTK+ apps, things will only get better with time.
Best Regards,
Eugenia
An additional reply of mine here.
It really has little to do with KDE’s community, or which DE is more structurally sound. All that matters is licensing fees – to companies that sell or create private in-house software this is a rather important topic. I realise in the free-beer community license fees come second or don’t exist at all but in the corporate world they are a way of life and thus something that Bruce’s distro is going to have to come to terms with. If QT’s license allowed for kind of flexibility that the LGPL did I’m sure that KDE would have been used by Bruce. No where has he stated he doesn’t believe KDE to technically superior – its merely the license that he has complained about. Historically he has not been anti-KDE.
As an aside, your english is quite functional – its nice to see people making an effort to learn our language. More interesting however is that in a completely unrelated topic in a language that isn’t even native for you, you still managed to bash the US. Congratulations. It had been about 5 threads since I’d seen someone attempt to depict us as brain-dead nuke-lobbing she-devils that lived on the ass-end of the planet
“Don’t forget that Red Hat has dropped their Desktop plans and created the Fedora community project.”
Yes, And I just looked at the Fedora dev tree. And it does include everything KDE. But historically Redhat has been GNOME centric. Mabye because SuSE is KDE centric.
“Don’t forget that Hewlett Packard jumped off of supporting GNOME.”
I did not know that. Thanks. Does that mean they’re supporting KDE? Link?
“All major Distributions have some sort of KDE as default don’t forget Lycrosics, Lindows, SuSE, Mandrake, Conectiva etc.”
I wouldn’t include SuSE asis because I think Novell is going to nuture their Ximian (GNOME) investment. That leaves Mandrake of major players – a Redhat derivative. Who knows – maybe their second coming and chance to come up from the red.
From what I’ve seen casually trying out distros, KDE seems to have a large lead in being default/primary/only DE installed on the majority of linux distros baring Red Hat as the big hold out. Gnome seems to be underrepresented in my opinion…
The way I see it, KDE is trying to be pragmatic and get all the features just like Windows as fast as possible, while Gnome seems to be taking an “Apple-like” approach by going slower and focusing more on getting little things right….
Frankly another “all Gnome” distro is nothing special by itself…realize right now most of the “commercial” distros pay something to Trolltech because they heavily modify their KDE installs. One or two Gnome only shouldn’t hurt anything…
Is that project the most important project? To me if the user doesn’t like the GUI they will just avoid that distro. Not necessarily KDE will die because of that. If there are good application available for the user, they will stick to KDE/Qt, doesn’t matter what the window manager/DE are.
I’m currently in the process of migrating my office PC/server to Gentoo from Fedora. Why? Because Fedora just making thing hairwire, linking one application to other application that I don’t need, and provide a “different” KDE that required other unneeded library which lead to the demand of extra disk space etc. Well I’m not blaming Fedora since they preferred GTK, Mozilla etc. but that didn’t suit me so I’m saying by by Fedora.
To Userlinux I might not even get introduced.
what does that mean? that means that if a company used GTK+ they do not have to worry about buying a license from another company or giving their software away for free.
Most “commercial” companies are already buying licenses for their toolkits (those who develop for Windows and Mac). Qt has one big advantage over GTK: it is truly multiplatform. As such, encouraging QT actually encourages both the free software model, and the commercial model. Plus, the actual cost of the license is quite affordable when compared to others, especially when you consider all that it provides.
I have a lot of respect for Bruce Perens, but I think excluding KDE is a bad idea. Rather, the project should support freedestop.org and contribute to making the two toolkits share common themes and other resources, so that the end user is oblivious to the differences. This whole obsession with desktop uniformity is overrated anyway, and the license issue is a non-issue.
Are there only idiots out there? I mean, why should you care about UserLinux, when you want KDE? There are SO much distros around, all with KDE. Should I whine because Xandros doesn’t support Gnome? Ok, they have the gnome libraries. But that’s not the fact, what i’m talking about. Why is there so much arrogance out there? Why should it all be like you want it? It’s UserLinux’s decision, so you don’t have any right to abuse them or even to arrogate KDE into UserLinux. Did the freedom of choice make you blind? You always claim that it’s good to have the choice, but now you don’t accept the choice of some other.
Well, i’m ashamed that i live in the same software world like you …
[i]All that matters is licensing fees – to companies that sell or create private in-house software this is a rather important topic.[…]If QT’s license allowed for kind of flexibility that the LGPL did I’m sure that KDE would have been used by Bruce.”
Well, companies that create private in-house software can use the GPL license, since the software is not meant to be redistributed. And companies that sell software will factor in the license cost, which is pretty negligible when you consider what you get for your money. The beauty of it is that if an in-house app built with the GPL toolkit is good enough to be sold eventually, it can be relicensed commercially since the GPL toolkit and the commercial one are the same (as long as it doesn’t contain other GPL code, of course).
Remember, distribution of GPLed software is optional.
Sorry for the missed closing italics tag.
Keep it cool, man. They’re just DEs. Now, I believe the reason people are complaining is that UserLinux aims at becoming a leading business distro, and that KDE users and advocates feel that they would like to participate in this. Truth is, the One True Linux Desktop is a solution in search of a problem – in other words, it’s not a real problem at all. That isn’t what is keeping Linux on the desktop fringe (or, better put, it’s not stalling Linux’s growth).
Rather than put all efforts behind one desktop (which won’t happen anyway), it’s better to work at making apps made with both toolkits to better fit in each other’s desktop, until users cannot tell the difference. Hey, you have multiple toolkits in Windows, right? And you can pretty much theme GNOME and KDE to look the same? So, tell me, what’s the problem, exactly?
I think it’s a silly argument. Who cares? I know I don’t… There’s already a lot of distros out there that don’t include Gnome yet they include KDE, so I don’t see why them going with Gnome over KDE is a big deal?
I think it’s far easier for anyone to pick just one desktop enviornment. Think about it… Less to support and they’ll be able to pour all of their deveopement work into Gnome. and in the end put together a better enviornment for the user.
Perhaps the current slow adoption of Linux by “average” users is due to the fact most distros come with KDE, Gnome, and a bunch of window managers? Choice is good yes… but it can also be downright confusing to the “average” user. So I think their focusing on just one desktop is the right way to go.
And if someone really wants to run KDE, download it and install it!
I see this as a case of people being upset because they didn’t get picked. The Gnome people seem to handle it better when they’re not picked.
This arguement is about politics, not choice. And KDE doesn’t have a “right” to be included. By the way some people have been talking here, it sounds like they believe KDE has a constitutional right to be included?? I find it very odd…
They keyproblem nowadays is PUBLIC RELATIONS. Ximian after they got bought by Novell made a lot of noise in the public with all kind of weird announcements. Announcements that even made GNOME hackers look like they are clueless. Making noise indeed has a lot of effect in the public. If you stay calm and see how competition is winning floor step by step then you may wake up one day realizing that you have lost. I think the same way de Icaza is making ‘noise’ in the public about GNOME as much the same right should be given to the KDE people. It was about time that the KDE people start doing some PR.
> Did you see the GNOME folks cry when Lindows chose KDE? No. How about Knoppix?
Lindows and Knoppix include both the GTK and GNOME libraries.
…as I understand it, is not whether KDE is included or not, rather that the libraries required to run KDE/Qt apps aren’t included. This is, as Eugenia points out, really quite unnecessary and limiting. Why deliberately block users from over 50% of the OSS desktop apps out there ‘out of the box?’
Sure, you can apt-get or whatever method you prefer to install the required libs, but it’s an unnecessary hurdle and if done incorrectly, potentially damaging to the rest of the system (speaking from past experience
.
Personally, the more I use Gnome the more I like it, but there are some k-apps that I can’t do without (K3B being an obvious example).
Are you honestly believing what you write here or are you writing it only for the professional attempt to kill something ?
Yes, I firmly hold to the opinions expressed in my previous post. Out of curiosity, how would KDE not being included in one distro kill it? I’m just curious since Gnome is excluded from several distributions, yet it survives.
There are a lot of technical problems around GNOME that hardly can be fixed with simple patches.
And there are a lot of design problems with KDE that can hardly be fixed with simple patches. Your point?
But I seriously doubt that you use Nautilus for anything else than copying a bunch of files from your directory to other places.
Then you would be wrong.
Not of personal preference or personal bias.
What are you talking about? Personal preference and bias is EVERYTHING! People use what they like and what’s familiar to them regardless. Windows is a prime example.
They need to offer things that have less problems and less bugs.
Are you seriously trying to convince me that KDE is less bug ridden and quirky than Gnome? Having used both, you’ve got a hard sell here.
If GNOME as is now…(Gratuitous Gnome bashing scene)
You go on quite a bit here, without so much as a personal anecdote to back up your assertions. Care to expound on your insults?
I consider KDE to be a poor desktop because it offers too many configuration choices (many which don’t work as expected). I also find it sluggish and ugly to look at. I provided you with some examples of what I dislike about it in my previous post. Please do the same regarding Gnome. Throwing out unsubstantiated insults like “alpha” don’t do anybody any good.
You need to offer them things which are still familar to Windows, which they need less of time to get into
That was exactly my point with Nautilus. It uses a notion that people are already familiar with. KDE on the other hand tries to make Konqueror manage files, surf the web, do the dishes, take down your trousers and wipe for you when you are done. This is what I’m referring to by “big-bang programming”; an explosion of diverse ideas splattered across your desktop. This design is very poor in my opinion.
And I can tell you that there was NO serious usability tests going on before this decision has made.
And you think “serious usability tests” were run by the KDE guys? Then please explain why in spite of all that valuable research they did, they still decided to release things like Konqueror?
I after all the years haven’t seen a clear roadmap in GNOME
I guess KDE’s roadmap is better since it points in all directions and is determined to be absolutely everything under the sun, all in one convenient, lickable desktop interface.
Some are talking about PR, Marketing, India, Ximian/Novell while the majority of people do not even know what the hell they are talking about. There is so much PR bullshit going on.
I don’t think it’s PR, it’s reality. Look at Sun and Novell. These are two companies who have been around a long time and have a large customer base. For Gnome to be the desktop of choice for both of these companies speaks a lot more in favor of Gnome than your tirade does against it.
Anyway, I’m not going to argue about it any more. I’ll make you a deal. When you make your own distro, you can exclude Gnome if it will make you feel better.
What is wrong with developing a distribution around the GNOME platform/technology? First we bicker about the absence of a unified Desktop experience/solution in Unix.
Then, at the very first instance of creating a Unified Desktop experience, we criticize it, even before its inception. The annoying thing about all these, is that the people who are the most vocal, are the people who are the least involved, or have the least/little or no experience with project management or development.
So what qt/KDE are not going to be part of UserLinux. Does that automatically decide the fate of a project? Does that mean the UserLinux will fail because qt/KDE are not going to be a part of it? Does every Unix user need qt/KDE applications? Are their qt/KDE applications users absolutely cannot live without?
While I’m against a Unified Desktop environment, I can’t help but observe, some people who raise the false alarm of fire, when we can’t see any smoke. I am totally indifferent as to Mr Perens projects and/or it’s ambitions, and I do not necessarily believe in it, but why do people think their propositions are the best, but fail to implement their supposed solution? And instead, prefer to instigate much ado about nothing.
Apologies for double posting.
Are there only idiots out there?
Calling all those that disagree with you idiots? Good beginning.
I mean, why should you care about UserLinux, when you want KDE?
Because it is born with the goal of being the standard for corporate desktops, and the KDE developers and advocates rightly feel they should, based on technical merit alone, be allowed access to that segment.
There are SO much distros around, all with KDE. Should I whine because Xandros doesn’t support Gnome? Ok, they have the gnome libraries. But that’s not the fact,
No buddy, that’s exactly THE fact here, that’s exactly why we are having this whole conversation.
what i’m talking about. Why is there so much arrogance out there?
You tell me.
Why should it all be like you want it?
As opposed to, why should it be as YOU want it? Well, for one, because the KDE camp has a reasonable point in this debate.
It’s UserLinux’s decision, so you don’t have any right to abuse them or even to arrogate KDE into UserLinux.
Ummm… so we get to the “rights” issue, private property and such. I knew it would come to this, at a certain point, when all other arguments are exhausted, but I think it doesn’t do the OSS good.
Did the freedom of choice make you blind? You always claim that it’s good to have the choice, but now you don’t accept the choice of some other.
Including the Qt libraries and other stuff necessary to run KDE applications is entirely consisten with the spirit of freedom of choice. Even the lawsuit against Microsoft has been won on this argument.
Well, i’m ashamed that i live in the same software world like you ..
Way to go, dude, the closing words of a brilliant post.
I do know that I get iritated using Gnome (things crash), so I switch to KDE. Then KDE gets on my nerves when some applications start crashing, so I switch to XFCE4, but it doesn’t have menus set up, so I start setting them up but it takes too long. So I jump back to Windows for a while until it gives me the irrits.
The short story is that NO desktop does what I want the way I want it. I tarted with Slackware and have used all the major distros (and some minor ones) and it looks like I’ll be going back to Slackware. At least it is consistent. Pity I cannot say that about DEs (I speak as a user and don’t care about technical issues).
Let Bruce P. choose what he wants to put into his distro and stop the arguments. I want you DE design and coding gurus to concentrate on making the perfect DE. Don’t worry about who wins the DE war. We are not in a commercial setting here. I, and a lot of others that I know, will use the best desktop. Its that simple because of the GPL. Since I have no financial investment into a Linux Desktop, I will happily switch the the “winning” DE as soon as I find it. So will a lot of other people and companies.
In short:
Free software makes it feasible to switch DEs as soon as a better one is found. If Gnome becomes the perfect desktop, I’ll use Gnome. If KDE becomes the best, I’ll use KDE. If FVWM2 becomes the best I’LL USE FVWM2!!! My Desktop choice is based on the merits of my user experience. Remember that!!!
Thanks.
Yohn
if a company was to use QT, the application would have to be NON COMMERCIAL , i.e. FREE, or they would have to pay Trolltech for a QT license.
False. QT is GPL, so your application can be commercial like any other GPL application, like the Linux kernel. GPL does not mean free, it means not proprietary. But you can still commercialise your application.
However, if you want to make a closed-source application using QT, then you need to pay for the closed-source licence.
The best development tool out there, Kylix, uses QT. Borland has made the best tool for developers on Linux. Why drop KDE and QT now? It is crazy. Include them all.
I’m curious what kind of ISVs Bruce Perens is going to attract with this approach. It looks like he wants to focus on individuals and very small companies who can’t afford Qt developer licensing. But what about the likes of Adobe, Macromedia, Intuit, Steinberg? I’m 100% sure they would prefer Qt, since toolkit licensing would be a tiny fraction of overall costs while allowing them to be more productive. And it’s the lack of this kind of mainstream applications that hinders Linux rise now (we hear it every day: “Until I have Cubase/Quicken/Photoshop/whatever for Linux I won’t switch”). So sharewareniks won’t help here
> that KDE has decided to bundle all their applications into one big package.
I am pretty sure someone else has put that straight already, but this is complete nonsense.
Your _distributor_ may have decided to package it that way, some distributors like Debian create packages for single apps, libs and meta packages for all apps elonging to a certain group.
I’ve started thinking about GNOME and KDE. Why do people refuse using KDE if it’s superior over GNOME, technically?
IMO, the strength of KDE is also its weakness: the framework. Some opensource developer don’t feel comfortable within a framework, independent of how good it is. That’s about freedom. Freedom to choose the framework, the libs, the programming language. From the java camp I can tell you that there are half of dozens “framework” for doing MVC, OR-binding, etc. Why do people “waste” their time just to invent the weels over and over again? That’s, I believe, is human nature. You can’t force other to do things the way you like.
Last but not least, a framework can only ease programming a little bit. It’s boring to have 100 text editors or image viewers. To write killer app you need domain expertise plus some math 😉
The freedom is largely being cut the last couple of years. Freedom you had 5 years ago when the world of open source and free software was still in good shape. Nowadays everything is competing between GNOME and KDE the other stuff is basically unimportant for longer timeframe. Seeing how GNOME is influencing Kernel (HAL, DBUS) and various other libraries definately takes away of freedom. Freedom is when I can fully decide what to do and not have others decide what may be good for me.
>The freedom is largely being cut the last couple of years.
>Freedom you had 5 years ago when the world of open source
>and free software was still in good shape. Nowadays
> everything is competing between GNOME and KDE the other
>stuff is basically unimportant for longer timeframe.
That’s not true. GNOME and KDE are just 2 opensource projects. There are millions another out there 😉 Just to name a few “DEs”: eclipse, emacs,…
>Seeing how GNOME is influencing Kernel (HAL, DBUS) and
>various other libraries definately takes away of freedom.
As far as I know, HAL and DBUS belong to freedesktop.org and not to GNOME.
>Freedom is when I can fully decide what to do and not have >others decide what may be good for me.
That’s exactly my point, too. So you mean GNOME “framework” is more restricted than KDE’s one?
if it’s really about lincensing, then they should just start and write a QT-clone under the LGPL or BSD license.
UserLinux is just another stupid distribution no one needs. it will fail.
> That’s not true. GNOME and KDE are just 2 opensource
> projects. There are millions another out there 😉 Just to
> name a few “DEs”: eclipse, emacs,…
It is true depending from the view of things. If I see GNOME material moving in projects which are in no way related to GNOME then it is cutting freedom.
> As far as I know, HAL and DBUS belong to freedesktop.org and
> not to GNOME.
No shit, and the owner of freedesktop.org is Santa Claus himself. Get real its the playground for GNOME developers creating their own standards. Trying to convince others about their advantage and have them adopt this technology.
Ok, not all they do is wrong. No doubt but I hardly believe it’s a good thing spreading even more GNOME stuff around in open source projects and have them somehow TIE to GNOME.
>No shit, and the owner of freedesktop.org is Santa Claus
>himself. Get real its the playground for GNOME developers
>creating their own standards. Trying to convince others about
>their advantage and have them adopt this technology.
Please tell us what is so bad about HAL and DBUS? The fact that more GNOME pepole get involved is due to the ignorance of KDE folk. IMO, KDE people are for competition, not coorperation. I can remember some diss about this issuse and the standard argumentation of KDE is something like: We have DCOP, a superior tech; GNOME tried to hold KDE back, etc. See my closing words at the end.
>Ok, not all they do is wrong. No doubt but I hardly believe
>it’s a good thing spreading even more GNOME stuff around in
>open source projects and have them somehow TIE to GNOME.
Don’t take it more important than it really is. Please remember GNOME and KDE are just 2 OS Projects. Both will not save the world.
Good bye.
oGALAXYo, your bias is showing.
> Please tell us what is so bad about HAL and DBUS?
Well I don’t say there is something bad about them. I only question whether it’s a good idea pushing desktop specific things into the Kernel.
“Get real its the playground for GNOME developers creating their own standards.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is wrong. freedesktop.org is a communication platfrom where all interested developers can and do participate, including projects other then GNOME. It’s not like GNOME developers dicate things there. Just have a look at their mailing list archives to see that non-GNOME developers too have a hand in shaping the specifications there. Take dbus for example: the handsign of KDE can not be overseen. But of course… most people here have no insight on specific code and development and don’t know about such things or take time to follow discussions on such mailing lists. It’s easier to repeat a 1000th time a wrong statement like “freedesktop.org is GNOME”.
From Eugenia’s email:
>Many apps out there are Qt (in fact, more apps are QT/KDE
>than Gnome-gtk). But instead of not including KDE, my
>suggestion would be to include Gnome by default because its
>usability is better than KDE’s, BUT to also include the KDE
>libs/Qt libs needed to run KDE apps…
As UserLinux is a subset of Debian, that means that a full KDE will only be a few clicks away (or an “apt-get install kde”) for those who want it. More importantly, it also means that if someone wants to install any particular KDE or QT application – the needed libraries will be installed automatically! That’s the beauty of apt.
In other words: this is a tempest in a teapot.
“As UserLinux is a subset of Debian”
>>>>>>>>>
Bruce Perens said that User Linux will do things which would never be accepted by Debian, how can than User Linux be a subset of Debian? A subset of Debian can only contain things which are in line with Debian policies, right?
Also I doubt that User Linux will come preconfigued an such a way that a ‘apt-get konqueror’ will succeed.
How about this, you make KDE the standard desktop and include the GNOME and GTK libs and headers for compatibility. Being as tho more apps are available for KDE. That means that a full GNOME Desktop will only be a few clicks away (or an “apt-get install gnome”)
Also I doubt that User Linux will come preconfigued an such a way that a ‘apt-get konqueror’ will succeed.
Oh yeah, that definitely won’t work, because you should do ‘apt-get install konqueror’.
And why you doubt it will come preconfigured? That’s a very easy task, there’s no reason it won’t come preconfigured.
What the hell, i don’t know why i’m wasting my time replying to this post…
Victor.
It probably won’t come configured like that because installing unsupported software like KDE would be a support problem for the ISV. Individual ISVs that support KDE might allow it, but ones that support only the base UserLinux probably won’t have konqueror, or any other non-standard software for that matter.
>How about this, you make KDE the standard desktop and
>include the GNOME and GTK libs and headers for compatibility.
>Being as tho more apps are available for KDE. That means that
>a full GNOME Desktop will only be a few clicks away (or an
>”apt-get install gnome”)
Can I point out that almost _every other_ Debian-based distro currently in the pipeline defaults to KDE? I’m talking about Mepis, Knoppix, Lindows, Xandros… And I’ve yet to see the Gnome people get their panties in a bunch about this. Certainly not to the extent of the KDE-hysteria we’ve seen surrounding UserLinux, complete with vicious personal attacks against the project’s organizer.
Lindows and Xandros don’t support Gnome at all, because they don’t pull from real Debian repositories. But the first two do, and Gnome is indeed a mere “apt-get install gnome” away.
So, for once, with UserLinux, we have a Debian-based distro that goes the _other way_. Gnome as the default, with KDE available thru Debian. Big deal.
Again: tempest in a teapot. Sorry.
>Bruce Perens said that User Linux will do things which would
>never be accepted by Debian, how can than User Linux be a
>subset of Debian? A subset of Debian can only contain things
>which are in line with Debian policies, right?
I have no involvement with the project, but from what I’ve read on userlinux.com and the mailing list, you’re dead wrong. The idea is that all of the software work will be done within Debian, and the UserLinux set of packages will be a subset of Debian. See the whitepaper.
Picking that subset (i.e., sane defaults – or at least, one interpretation of sane defaults) is a *huge* deal, and something that Debian will almost certainly never do. The non-software things that UserLinux will do that can’t be easily done within the Debian project include getting certifications from standards groups, certification for products from ISV’s, etc.
>Also I doubt that User Linux will come preconfigued an such
>a way that a ‘apt-get konqueror’ will succeed.
Because UserLinux is just a custom version of Debian, the worst-case scenario is that you’ll have to add a line to your sources.list to make this work. Best-case scenario is that it’ll work out of the box, and I see no reason why that wouldn’t be the case, and lots of reasons why it should be (it simply makes sense for any Debian subset to take advantage of the Debian mirrors).
I’ve been calling UserLinux a “Debian-based distro” in my posts, but a more accurate term would be “Custom Debian Distribution” – as is currently being discussed on the Debian mailing lists. Because all of the packages in UserLinux will be Debian packages. This isn’t a Xandros type situation.
Love it or hate it, this decision is being blown WAY out of proportion to the reality. If the KDE guys want (another) Debian-based distro that defaults to KDE and is highly integrated with KDE, that’s fine and I wish them the best of luck. They’re already working on this. And guess what? Since all of the work UserLinux is doing will be fed back into Debian, they’ll be able to benefit from the work done by the UserLinux folks as well. I hope the various groups can work together on the non-GUI and cross-GUI stuff as much as possible.
…has to deal with the license. The purpose of UserLinux (which is a poor name) is to allow vendors an OS they don’t have to pay royalties or license fee’s on. They can simply install as many copies as they want, and develop for and on without worrying about paying things for.
With Qt, if you wanted to develop an application for UserLinux, and then sell it, you would have to buy a license from Trolltech, or else release your app under the GPL (which is not what many of these companies want).
So, I don’t see what the argument is? Perens had requirements, and Gnome/GTK met those requirements. Everyone recommending/demanding KDE/Qt over Gnome are like recommending a 18 Wheeler for a Formula 1 race.
“With Qt, if you wanted to develop an application for UserLinux, and then sell it, you would have to buy a license from Trolltech, or else release your app under the GPL (which is not what many of these companies want).”
Someone made the observation ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=90123&cid=7783008 ) that the Licensing may influence an app going Open-source.
“If you paid attention to the last couple of replies you have figured out that Perens made the decision without even taking into account what the partitcipants of the Mailinglist want. They were in the middle of a conversation both sides raising points about pros and cons and in the middle of that he backed out and decided for GNOME on his very own. The Mailinglist had nearly 30 subscriptiants from KDE developers willing to help, answer and do all the techtalk and on the otherhand there were only 5 GNOME people most of them regular users not even knowing a difference between a GNOME-Application window and a BonoboUI window who slammed a lot of bullshit in the ML. ”
I should point out that that’s part of what it means to be a leader. Making decisions, not necessarily popular decisions, or even wise ones. Now you know why it’s lonely at the top.
>It probably won’t come configured like that because
>installing unsupported software like KDE would be a support
>problem for the ISV. Individual ISVs that support KDE might
>allow it, but ones that support only the base UserLinux
>probably won’t have konqueror, or any other non-standard
>software for that matter.
I’m sure Microsoft isn’t very happy when I install Firebird and OpenOffice on all my XP setups. But it doesn’t prevent me from installing them. What you can install, and what your service provider will actually support, are two seperate issues.
And to actually install Konq, at worst you’d have to add a line to your sources.list file.
Of course, if you plan on rolling out KDE desktops enterprise wide, then it doesn’t make much sense to use a distro that defaults to Gnome and whose support providers will likely support only the defaults. If that’s the case, then there are plenty of other distros to choose from.
Somehow, that has allways been my objection against KDE: it just looks a bit childish (“My First Linux”). Looking at the reactions here, i start to understand where that is coming from.
Bruce Perens chose GNOME as the default for one specific Linux distro, not for *all* Linux distributions.
you want a kde debian? get off your high horse and install knoppix. i dont even like kde that much, but knoppix rocks.
the issue here has absolutely nothing to do with which one is better. that issue has been beaten to death about a million times on hundred of message boards and mailing lists. choice was based on a descision to go with gtk liscencing rather then qt liscencing.
one thing to keep in mind, you arnt paying for this stuff, developers are giving it to you.its a gift. dont throw it back in their face with gnome sucks or kde sucks. kde needs better HIGification, gtk needs to catch up to some features in qt. they both have their own strengths and weaknesses, and its one thing to talk about them in a civilized way, its another thing to rant and rave.
the only war between kde and gnome is by the zealotous users on both sides who have little to nothing to do with actual development. while discussions between the two groups can get heated, it doesnt go beyond debate, and the results are benificial to both sides.
With Qt, if you wanted to develop an application for UserLinux, and then sell it, you would have to buy a license from Trolltech
Yeah, a whopping thousand bucks. Whoop-dee-doo. If a company plans to make money by selling their software but can’t shell out the reasonable amount of money Trolltech asks for the Qt license, perhaps they’re in the wrong business. After all, other commercial toolkits cost more, and yet they are widely used.
Also, as I’ve mentioned before, Qt is truly multiplatform, and GTK is not. That alone makes the investment in a Qt license worthwile, and the exclusion of its libraries from UserLinux a bad decision.
Never thought I’d agree with Mario from Nokia at the same time as Roberto and Rayiner, but there you go!
Moral of the story:
1) User Linux: A community distribution where your voice matters.
2) KDE made a serious professional proposal, which was denied. KDE moves along and does an enterprise initiative without Perens’ support and they have already actual code and specifications. Very promissing.
>the only war between kde and gnome is by the zealotous users
>on both sides who have little to nothing to do with actual >development.
That’s usually the case, but if you really wanna know, I suggest you dig into the UserLinux mailing list. A lot of prominent names who really _should_ know better saying a lot of stupid stuff, complete with really disgraceful personal attacks. That’s mostly why this discussion seems to be spilling out all over the web; petty flamewars between user partisans aren’t news.
The good news is, most of that seems to be behind us. The parties involved are getting back to work. The KDE camp is going their own way, with some abitious plans, and I think in the end we’ll all benefit from it.
“A lot of prominent names who really _should_ know better saying a lot of stupid stuff, complete with really disgraceful personal attacks.”
>>>>>>>>>>
But to be fair these attacks were not only on KDE’s site. And it wasn’t really nasty either, just a little bit headed here and there 😉
“I’m curious what kind of ISVs Bruce Perens is going to attract with this approach. It looks like he wants to focus on individuals and very small companies who can’t afford Qt developer licensing. But what about the likes of Adobe, Macromedia, Intuit, Steinberg? I’m 100% sure they would prefer Qt, since toolkit licensing would be a tiny fraction of overall costs while allowing them to be more productive.”
If the bigger ISVs want to run Qt-based apps on UserLinux, they can
1) Use the Qt from the Debian stable branch. (UserLinux development versions are based on the unstable branch, but releases on the stable branch.)
2) Get Qt direct from Trolltech and install it in /path/to/program/directory/local-qt-x.yy
3) Compile statically against Qt.
The latter two approaches may be more attractive anyway, since the version of Qt from Debian stable may not be the most up to date, and the latter two approaches will probably be necessary anyway on the platforms where Qt is only a third party add-on, namely Windows and OS X.
so userlinux users will be able to apt-get
antique versions of kde to be installed
on antique x11?
desktop debian
minimum start point
priority #1
latest xfree86 release (soon to be 4.4)
priority #2 latest kernel release (2.6)
then worry about your wm