David Faure Interview

[vmlinuz] writes: "Linux UK has got an interview with one of the key KDE developers - David Faure. Interesting reading, particularly with all the press that KDE/Debian is getting."

Comments

Thinking right about KDE2.0

[chandler]

I've noticed several wrong impressions of KDE2.0 here. First of all, throw out all notions of KDE1.1 and whatever you think of it. Secondly, go download Konfucious (the 1.9 beta) from the KDE site. Here's what's different:

• QT2.1x is a different beast than QT1.x or even QT2.0. It's faster, more stable, and less ugly. The theming support is great. It's just a more capable toolkit.
  
• KDE is now structured differently. There is no more kpanel (RIP). It's been replaced with kicker. There is no more kfm. Half of its functionality was inhereited by kdesktop (which puts icons on the desktop and sets the background), and the other half by konqueror.
  
• Konqueror is not just a file manager. It's a file viewer, as well as a file viewer for the network. The combination of these two functionalities means that it's also a web browser, but it does other cool things like embed a KOffice part to be a KOffice file viewer.
  
• KDE is no longer just a library that you need to run. While there are kde libraries, there is also a dcop server that handles interconnections between programs. Running a KDE2.0 program requires you to have an active instance of the dcop server, or else the application will bomb.
  
• The KParts technology is a beautiful thing. While it may be superficially similar to M$ technology, in reality it's much more cleaner and useful. Microsoft's technology starts to look like a horrible kludge compared to the elegance of KDE2.0. KDE2.0 also implements enough of the M$-like ideas (KOM, etc.) that major commercial ports of traditionally windows-centric applications (e.g. project Kylix) can start to happen.
  
• KDE2.0 does not look anything like KDE1.1. KDE1.1 may have looked like the illegitimate offspring of CDE and Win 9x, but KDE2.0 has an elagance of its own, particuarly with the System theme, though you can theme it any way you want.
  
• Best of all, it's modular, so you can replace any single component with another and have it work fine.
  

Re:Is this different from Microsoft?

[SurfsUp]

Oooh, this is going to cost me karma as trolling, but...

How is this all-inclusive, single-source applications/OS environment any different than, say, Windows and Office?

You may be surprised at how much support you get. Disclaimer: I *use* KDE every day and I think it's great. I use lots of KDE mainline applications and lots of what I'd have to call "3rd party" applications. (though I probably use even more Gnome/GTK applications, running them from the KDE desktop.)

I have some experience compiling KDE out of CVS, have done a small amount of KDE/QT development and have participated in the KDE mailing list. My intention was to become a regular KDE contributor.

This was short lived, however, as I quickly found that the KDE mailing list, was being run as a sort of private fiefdom by this same David Faure. Any comments of the form "KDE mainline applications development should be opened up to more developers" i.e., not just be restricted to the main CVS tree, were met extremely aggressively. I didn't want to press the point because I thought "maybe he's right" and all the core applications *do* have to be tightly controlled by the core developers in order to have the highest possible quality.

But now, 6 months later, I know he's wrong. KDE development has slowed down *a lot*, and especially KDE core applications development. I've been putting up with the same bugs in kmail for almost a year now - it hasn't changed a bit, because kmail development has been inextricably bound into the main KDE CVS tree, and it's all oriented towards KDE 2 now. So if you're not compiling out of CVS, you're out of luck. The bottom line is that KDE users have to wait and wait and wait for bug fixes.

Now, I'm a developer and I should just be able to download the code, make the fixes and send them in. But in the case of kmail, you have to download practically the whole tree, and let me tell you, it isn't that easy to get it to build. I would have done that anyway, except for the agressive reception I got on the KDE mailing list. Anyway, I'd still have a problem with it, because suppose I put in a bunch of great features - It would still be months and months before anybody gets to use them, because they have to wait for the official release of KDE 2. One of the reasons developers develop for free is to see their stuff get used *immediately*, and this just doesn't happen with KDE development.

I did what open-source developers are famous for doing - I moved on to other projects that are more to my taste (e.g., Freenet!!). Now, I'm not bitter - why should I be, I'm still getting KDE for free and it's still darn good - but I am concerned that a certain prima-donna mentality is hurting the KDE development, and because of that, hurting the entire open-source movement. I wonder how much of this is due to the fact that some fulltime, paid developers (Faure is one) don't feel compelled to play by the traditional, unspoken rules of the community. OK, I've said my piece, and I'm posting this without my +1 bonus because I'm not sure whether this is a flame or a troll or constructive criticism.
--