Slashdot Mirror
When Volunteer And Commercial Developers Don't Mesh
An "Anonymous" but easily identifiable
person submitted a commercial about a story at LinuxPlanet about
what happens when Volunteers and Commercial Developers have different goals over what is good for the Linux Community.unity and how it
might affect code. The article is largely about KDE and Corel. Please keep the flame turned down on this one, as it's a critical issue that still hasn't been solved.
Alright, I have several issues with this article, chief of these is the way the author goes on and on about not having beef with Corel then going out of his way to demonize them. Now ever since MSFT crushed Corel's Wordperfect with Word the Corel people have wanted revenge on MSFT one way or the other. Corel's current CEO is constantly criticized by business magazines for his foolish obsession with getting back at MSFT and their current involvement with Linux is simply part of this obsession.
Now Corel is paying designers and developers to work on turning KDE into a Windows-clone (i.e. a Windows beater), there's nothing wrong with that. What gets on my nerves about this article is the way the author trivializes the role of the KDE developers in this article. Corel does not pay any of the core developers salary nor does it contribute significant code that would die without their involvement. So basically the scenario is "Corel makes suggestions, KDE developers either like it or forward it to dev/null". If Corel really gets pissed off, they can fork the codebase (after all even Open Source developers have irreconcilable differences vis a vis Emacs and Xemacs) but if they realize they can't all they can do is keep making superficial changes and turning in bug reports.
Thus my question for the author is "So what's the big deal?". In any large project it is impossible for everyone to agree or have the same ideas and vision, simply because people have different goals doesn't suddenly mean some impending disaster will destroy the project. After all, IBM and the Apache developers have different goals but this hasn't stopped IBM from being one of the company's that gets it nor have their contributions been trivial. This article seems like a storm in a teacup to me.
Just my $0.02.
For example, I'd like a real active desktop. I'd like to have icons that change or move around based on relevant events. I want a screen background that has my Slashboxes and tips about what I'm doing in windows. I want a graphical shell interface (at least this one I'm doing something about...).
He asks Stallman about the issue and Stallman says he is the wrong person to ask. Then, instead of feeling like a complete goober and going off to ask someone else, he quotes Stallman saying he should not have been asked.
In addition, there's the initials thing. I think I've heard Stallman referred to as RMS nearly as often as I've heard Raymond referred to as ESR.
pornking
Please get this post to +5 (Informative) ASP.
BTW the parent is not (Redundant). It is an insightful comment that restates some previous comments.
1000 SlashDot sigs
I agree there can be a benefit if the UI guy and Corel. Though I'm not one who wants a dumbed down desktop, the example of the ability to change file type w/ a right click could end up with a compromise to simply have an option to have an 'advanced' or 'normal user' desktop, and allow the user to decide which they want... if the item gets discussed by all parties. As for the comment in the article re: the lawyers of corporate world, I think at some point we may see how open source will survive or evolve by a case or two. As it stated, the corporations have some big money in there, and if they take something the make small alteration and make it proprietary, suits could ensue. However, it forgets to mention that OTHER open source proponets are also companies with lots of $$ and laywers. An example, should a Corel do this, it'd be interesting to see if the IBM's of the world, now linux proponets, would step up to the plate and to insure open source remained just that.
"To be honest, EVERY SINGLE PERSON who works on KDE is subverting it, in a sense. They are working on "...
The problem is one of centralized control. Corporations (and Entrepreneurs generally) seem to have an inherent need to control the process, and to make decisions that should be made on engineering (programming) grounds on other grounds. E.g., how does this fit with our product line-up. This tends to strengthen the corporation at the cost of weakening the product.
Good and bad are, of course, relative, and subject to decisions. I tend to consider it bad for a small group of people to be able to control a larger group of people. (Well, I also consider it undesireable for a large group to control a small group). The problem is weigh various trade-offs, and of course that gets quite complicated quite quickly (degree of control x number of controlled), and who is exerting what amount*kind of control is something where one can expect different individuals to have very different opinions.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Get out!!!!
If they are making decisions like that for the web site, what are they doing for the rest of the company?
I mainly use MS products for web sites, but even I wouldn't rock the boat like that. I think you can see it coming and it isn't going to go smoothly.
jas
http://packetnexus.com
The misuse of the term is unfortunate. If functionality is not removed, then it is merely smooth interface design (or, sometimes, not - so - smooth). It is when functionality is removed that the term "dumbing down" becomes appropriate. As, e.g., when the system is shipped without the tools needed to rebuild it. This has nothing to do with a Win32 mimicing GUI (I see no reason for it, KDE's current with smaller ICONs would be perfectly fine, but it's not "dumbing down").
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I strongly disagree that Kde seeks to look as much like Windows as possible. There are some common features such as the "taskbar" and "start menu" because these are useful features. But in other ways the Kde desktop is very different from Windows. For one thing, built in use of multiple desktops requires a different style of working regardless of superficial similarities. Not to mention multiple users.
It's better for user interfaces to evolve. They do evolve - nobody innovates. Innovation is a MS buzzword. In the real world those involved in coding and designing user interfaces stumble upon improvements in design - often in the process of coding rather than by using top-down design specs. This also seems to work better - evolution in a natural way. Such "discoveries" then are worked back into the design specs to allow yet another level of evolution.
Contrary to another myth, experts in UI design who do not code and do not understand the code are of little value to a project. All users have feature requests and respond to ui changes at various levels. So-called design experts can contribute little to this process of give and take that an ordinary user cannot contribute. Of course feedback from users is of great value, but the key is to get feedback from a wide range of users, not just the user interface "experts".
Very often such consultants and staff in commercial software development have rigid or preset notions of how things are "supposed" to be and try to dictate specs to coders without making an effort to understand what is required to implement such changes or how something similar might be better accomplished using what is already available in the existing code base. All too often these project planners get the ear of management because they specialize in office politicing while coders are too busy writing code to consider politicing important (and all too often change jobs before work on current projects are anywhere near complete). Paradoxically, because staff involved in spec writing and project design have less marketable technical skills, they tend to stay at companies longer and have more influence than coders who come and go.
So long as those who hire programmers tend to punish age and experience and reward those who move from job to job to boost their salaries without ever staying at one place long enough to learn any useful skills or finish what they start, the situation will not improve. To say that there is any relationship whatsoever between marketability and value is a bold faced lie in the software industry. It's 90% hype. Ouright lying about one's qualifications is expected. Nevertheless somebody has to do the work. Usually the real work is done by less marketable employess who stay with an employer longer and do not make a career of lying and hype because they really ENJOY coding and development work. In other words, knowledge, skill and noble personal qualities like loyalty are punished. It's almost a miracle that software is as good as it is these days.
Many free software projects are not so much affected by this because developers work on them mainly as a labor of love (even if they are also paid) and tend to stick with projects longer. Just the opposite of commercial work, loyalty is respected and quitting a project when the going gets tough and blaming others is not rewarded. But it is rewarded in the commercial software world, where they key to success is to take responsibility for nothing and to remain a moving target for those who are more adept at passing the buck, which is the only thing which is really rewarded in the commercial software industry.
For this reason, Kde is very, very different from MS Windows at very many levels including the user interface, if one gets beyond the most superficial aspects of it.
~ $
everything else is just chrome......
As long as the code remains publically forkable, then there is little gain for a corporation to take their copy private. This is the BSD position. The GPL position is more, but they shouldn't be allowed to do it anyway.
I tend to lean more to the GPL position, but feel that the BSD position is also feasible. But it requires much more altruism on the part of the contributors. I feel that this would slow development.
OTOH, just for security it would be a good thing if every important project had two separate development trees (like KDE and Gnome for the Window manager project).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Well, in some ways that is what Linux and the GPL are all about. We're going to develop software that is free of the tyranny of the corporate strongarm. We are going to develop an OS that has everything we want, how we want to, and when we want to. We are going to develop applications to go with it! We aren't going to let some company tell us what should and shouldn't be included for features, or how we should write the code...
But...
There is one minor problem here. What about "everyone else"? Besides the great hope of being saved by Mac OSX, what does Joe or Jane computer user/putz do to save themselves from these big old corporate meanies? Well...unfortunately they can't.
The nice thing about open source is that we are free of restriction. The bad thing about it is that without restriction and limitation, we have chaos. Is uniformity always good? No. Can it work to our benefit sometimes? Yes. When some company is working with volunteer developers and trying to set rules for the development, that is not always a bad thing. Someone has to set the goals and define the paths to accomplish them. As a group the linux development community could accomplish tons more if they were willing to accept some strictures in project development that allowed them to program a bit more in concert.
I do not mean to downplay the need for freedom to innovate here. Please, innovate your ass off, all you like! But we need to do it with some guidance. Maybe not the guidance of Corel, but we need it from somewhere.
Not to mention recursive conflicts... :-)
It's not funny till someone gets hurt.
Heh. If, for some reason, one were into difficult, yet incredibly geeky T-shirts, I like this for a quote: ;^)
"... I am not a supporter of the open source movement"/Richard M. Stallman
If your brain isn't completely turned on, and loaded with the difference between merely open source and truly free software, that one can really confuse things completely!
main(O){10<putchar(4^--O?77-(15&5128 >>4*O):10)&&main(2+O);}
It is perhaps important to note that the Corel Linux distribution seemed to have garnered a lot of praise for the ease of installation of their release of Linux - if they submit a whole series of GUI related 'bugs' to KDE then they should at least get a hearing, even if a number of the bug reports are trivial.
One of Corels objectives is obviously to ensure that KDE turns into a GUI that more people can use, and thus increasing the number of people who might buy Linux from Corel.
Developers of software products tend to be very insensitive to GUI related issues concerning their products, and the most trivial of problems at the User Interface can prevent normal, non-savvy users from using KDE. If KDE (and other Desktop Environments, for that matter) wish to seriously give Windows the kicking it deserves, then attention has to be paid to these issues.
The writer of the article suggested that Corel wanted to 'dumb-down' KDE in some areas. Even this should be possible provided power users have access to the full might of all KDE features if they wish.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
I totally agree with you, but software companies always have to factor in that people are dumb and they have to make their system as easy to use as possible. Corel is trying to make money. That is it, end of story. In order for their product to appeal to the masses it has to be as close to what they are familiar with as possible. Matt
I understand peoples need to have Linux not go down the road to being closed software. I say this is not an issue. If a company makes big changes so what. If I like it I will use it, if I don't I will not. As long as I have a choice I can choice free software. The issue to me is will they make it hard to make my choice or remove that choice all together. We need to focus on design changes that protect or remove our ability to choice free software not on where the File type menu option is that is just immaterial
YES, KDE developers are very grateful for Corel's input ! :-)
I can even prove it : I've digged up the best cvs comment about that: look at this one and this one.
The truth is not always well written in a nice article linked from Slashdot, it's sometimes hidden in CVS logs
While "QA Linux" may have gone about their constructive critisism in an a a more constructive fasion, rather than posting gobs of bug reports, it is tempting for the KDE team to then ignore them, this would be a missed opertunity to glean knowledge from a respected source.
Another thought I had was that while not all the suggestions are good for your average KDE user, it is probably worth considering how to make these ideas more feasable to implement as part of the packaging of KDE, that is, configurability.
In the article Dennis asked:
If a developer is "misbehaving" then they can have their CVS rights revoked, can't they? It is in Corel's best interests to do things the KDE way. The alternative is to branch, and I don't think that would help anyone.To be honest, it sounds like a lot of a fuss about very little. At the end of the day, its open source, and if it goes in a direction that any given group doesn't like, they can split off, but its in everybodys interests to keep things amicable, so the chances are, they will.
Thad
Thad
Thad
One of the big steps the free software community has taken was to make things usable, and I think E, Gnome and KDE have done this. I'm not going to say outright that the user interface in Windows is unusable, because it's not bad, but they should really look to design something that works better and looks different. I don't think people will be scared off if there isn't that little start button down at the bottom. I mean hell, even Microsoft didn't take the safe approach when they ADDED the Start button. How many people knew how to use that when it first showed up?
-- The unsig...
If a commercial venture like Corel can get Linux onto lots of desktops then it's a win for the open source movement. It may have to hijack KDE to do so, but would it really be a loss? Isn't the real goal of the KDE project to "dumb down" Linux anyway?
Exactly! The goal of KDE is to put a Windows-style desktop on Linux, just as the goal of Eazel/GNOME is to put a Mac-style desktop on Linux. Both will help Linux gain more desktop users, and their existence will not prevent the current Penguinheads from using either a text console or their current favorite IncrediblyBloatedXWindowsManager, so I wholeheartedly support both efforts (by buying the retail versions, since I'm not a coder).
Information wants to be free -- but informants want to be paid.
The main trend I have noticed from this is that the number of RFC's produced has increased dramatically, and there are now competing RFCs and drafts sponsored by different commercial interests that are intended to handle basically the same problem. This is in part because some of the companies in question use the fact that there is an RFC for their implementation as a marketing tool.
The upside is of course there are a lot more resources devoted to working on problems. I would imagine that the situation with Open Source software will be better than that in the IETF because GPL is not (yet?) a sticker that can be put on something to make it more marketable.
That could only happen if the current set of core developers were happy to accept Corel people. Again, there's no way Corel can force KDE to accept its developers on the core team.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
First you start rattling on about dumb users, then finish up saying Corel should have gone into the server business. Are you saying client software is only for idiots? Because that's what it sounds like to me.
Why do you wish that they "fail big time", when you've already stated that you don't care. It's obvious that you *do* care, and care passionately about what Corel does. It seems to be a personal insult to you that some company doesn't include you in their target audience. BFD. Get used to it cuz the world don't revolve around your butt.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
If Corel reads ESR then at least they will understand where some of the hostility from the open source projects comes from.
The commercial developers will make what they want, and, if it helps the free software developers, good. If it doesn't, at least their code is under the GPL, in case we want anything from it.
If it doesn't help, though, we are (as always) free to work on our own. And we are free to make KOffice and to ask Corel for their filters, just as they are free to say no.
|/usr/games/fortune
I am in the envious position of being a QA engineer in a company and culture that *respects* QA. But occasionally we get a new hire developer that smarts off to QA, so I understand that attitude you're describing. It's even worse with Open Source projects, since the developers have higher ego levels.
I've long since stopped submitting bugs to Open SOurce projects. They invariably get closed as "not a bug", "not our problem", or "submit it to that other project".
It's doubly hard since there are no specifications whatsoever for any of these projects. This is just insane. If there's no specs, then it's only a bug if it crashes the application (if it crashes the system, it was someone else's fault). Those bugs you quoted may or may not be real bugs. Without specs there's no way to know. He wrote "What here isn't working as designed?" and I'll answer "nothing because there is no design."
I hope that the KDE developers don't listen to this turkey, and trust the bug submitter that there might actually be a correctable defect.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Yeah, uploading them would have been worse, but was the "chance to discuss" the changes any better? Did they do this out of the goodness of their hearts? Or are they trying to turn KDE into the product Corel wants, but unwilling to do work? I see this as another case of a company that thinks they can get the Free Software (KDE really isn't libre, but oh well) community to do their work for them so that they don't have to foot the bill for the product they sell.
Corel is a company that has contributed to the free software community more than others, and it's not as bad as a lot of other "mainstream" companies that have "contributed." But, please! You aren't the only people working on this project! Your idea of UI bugs is not everyone's!
it's green.
I fear that this has upset the balence.
it's green.
Of course there will be problems. Corel is trying to make a product that is easy for the end user to understand. Like the line in the article about making their distribution look as much like Win95 as possible. There is nothing wrong with this. I do think that Corel should not be sending 100+ asthetics(sp?) issues to KDE.
I also don't think that there is anything wrong with Corel trying to "dumb down" their distribution. There are plenty of distributions that are fairly hard to install and use unless you've had unix experience. Some people don't care how the video card and the x server communicate, they just want it to work.
I apologize what I meant to say was: "I understand peoples need to have COREL Linux not go down the road to being closed software. I hope this makes the post more clear".
The dialogs aren't consistent? Well who gives a fuck! They work, don't they? Ship it!
Yeah, but do the dialogs work to spec is the sort of thing you should be looking at as a tester. Unfourtunatly, even for the few OSS projects that do have some form of design roadmap and full specification details behind them, how many people know where to find them? How many people would bother to read them if they had them?
If the people submitting "bug" reports generally don't know and don't care about the diference between a "bug" report and a "feature request". In order to make the testers aware of the distinction, OSS projects need to start making specification documents available for people to check against before they submit either a bug or a request.
Oh btw, not the least because QA is staffed by typically less-educated or -skilled individuals.
You're knocking me (and yourself), surely? I wouldn't consider myself less skilled than any of the neer-do-well coders we have in my place; they can't even find their own bugs...;)
Syllable : It's an Operating System
This guy seems to have missed it big time. His whole premise seems to be that production of shrink-wrap, for sale at CompUSA software (like Corel Products) is what most Companies do. I've been working in the corporate software development world for almost 10 years now, and I've NEVER produced a shrink wrap product. I don't know anyone who does. MOST software development exists to add content to services; commercial/industrial data collection, process control, stuff like that. The myth that corporate development of shrink-wrap software is what employs programmers is just that - a myth. The problem for the shrink-wrappers is that free software will soon replace it; if a few years, noone will be making shrink-wrap software. And if free software doesn't web-apps will. Its doomed. BTW, several people in my office use Corel, and they really like it -- seems if you use Windoze, its easy for you. Corel may be successful as a Linux distributor, but they WILL NOT BE AS A REPLACEMENT FOR M$. Noone will. The sooner they wake up and realize that the value they provide people is in an easy bridge from Windoze to Linux, and not as a provider of Office Apps, the sooner they will make money. Its the service and knowledge you have, NOT the fact that you have the magical program that noone else does.
--Rich
Free your mind and your Ass will follow -- George Clinton
Now someone levels a similar criticism at KDE and everyone says "That would be dumbing it down!" Fact is, if you were responsible for systems and an endless line of stupid users kept changing file types because they didn't know any better, you would be complaining because it was too easy to do so.
You can't have it both ways...either all OS GUI functions should be made as dummy-proof as possible, or they should be designed to be as efficient as possible for someone who knows what they're doing. Or maybe, there is actually a level of compromise somewhere in between which is exactly what the Corel GUI designer was trying to suggest???
It's not funny till someone gets hurt.
This happens within commercial companies too, BTW. What we do, when that happens, is move that person off that part of the project onto something else where he can't hurt the development process. I know that I find it irritating when some dude we hired off the street, who doesn't have any experience in our industry, starts telling the two seniormost programmers in the company "how it should be" without listening to a bit of our input as to what functionality the GUI needs. Unfortunately, the KDE team can't move this Corel guy to another part of the project, all they can basically do is "fire" him by putting him in their kill filters.
I don't know what the solution is, other than have people with experience in the free software community be the ones who the commercial companies hire to do the work. I don't think anybody has had any objections to the way further MTX development has taken place, for example, even though EST paid me to do the work of bringing MTX up to date to work with the latest/greatest tape libraries. On the other hand, people with experience in the Linux industry or with Open Source are rarely in the job market -- I know, we've been trying to find some of them to hire, and finding people who have the skills we need, in this industry, has been difficult.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
This was bound to happen some time. There is an inherent conflict within every linux lover - they want to see it succeed commercially but they don't wan't it to go commercial.
That comment should get moderated up.
There are some good people working at Corel, and Corel has had to support a large customer base. To them, KDE looks like a well-intentioned class project that needs someone to come in and crack the whip. Most garage bands could use a producer when they record, though they'll insist their own artistic judgement is good enough. But it usually isn't, which is why producers exist in the first place.
Corel is making comments that push KDE toward being tighter and more polished. The KDE developers would rather play at being midnight developers, in the same way that junior high kids like to play at starting their own virtual game companies (by designing logos and websites and making announcements about engine features). KDE is on the right track, but it's still crusty. It needs some help from people who aren't blind zealots.
- Open up Microsoft Word. Type a few words. Select and copy two words. Note that the selection includes the space after the words. Now select another word, including the space after the word. Paste. It works; there's only one space after the word, but that's what you'd expect.
This is subtle, but right. Notice that it's not a "feature" in the usual sense. It's just "the way it works". You've probably never noticed this, even if you use Microsoft Word regularly. That's what UI design is. Go read The Inmates are Running the Asylum.Now select another word, without selecting the space after the word. Paste. It works right; there's still only one space between words.
Now put the cursor between two words and press the space bar. You now have two spaces between words, but you only get that if you explicitly ask for it.
It's hard for feature-driven software development, be it commercial or open-source, to get interactions like this right. It requires mockups and detailed observation of users.
They've also contributed significantly to the WINE project, yet the author COMPLETELY missed that aspect. Hmmmmmmmmmm.....
Personally (and hold the flames, this is my opinion a concept many slashdotters have a hard time dealing with) I feel that WINE is a giant waste of resources. I don't think we should try to promote the user of the Win32 interface on top of Linux. Win32 is well known to have problems even running on it's native OS, why do we think we will make it better by putting Linux under it. WINE runs things just like they run on Windows. There is this persistant crashing problem that programs under WINE exibit (just like under Windows). Why do we want to turn Linux into a clone of Windows? I thought the whole purpose of Linux was to be an inexpensive alternative to proprietary Unix. If you don't think I know what I am talking about, feel free to email me (my real address is right there) and tell me what an idiot I am. I've heard it before and it still hasn't changed my opinion. Win32 should stay in Windows land. It was something I tried to leave behind, yet even under Linux applications are dragging it along.
I loved Corel when they had a real Unix/Linux version of WordPerfect, why did they have to use the Win32 version for WordPerfect 2000? Just another attempt to use Windows software under Linux, and it will make Linux look once again like a cheap (and bloated) Windows clone. Why?
Bite my yammer.
It's reasonable to say that software that has no bugs would comply to the specification. It's however unreasonable to imply the because the software complies with the specification that it has no bugs, unless the spec is intentionally vague. The only way a spec can take into account all the unexpected user inputs that the user may try is to include vague specifications such as "will not crash due to unexpected input" or "will operate in a user friendly manner", both of which I've seen in specifications.
In reality, you can't use complience with the spec to determine if something is or is not a bug. Someone needs to look at the issues, determine if they are worth fixing, and assign some sort of priority if they are worth fixing.
This sounds so familiar to me. And it's really too bad. Businesses now don't do things that make sense (what, hire someone that actually knows the job?) they do things that save them money or make them money right now (let's get some idiot off the street, give them a fancy title and no money). That is the way to quickly save money. You can hire any idiot to take care of computers, because Microsoft says that they should just take care of themselves. I know, I've seen this mentality at many businesses, and the last one I was at was a prime example.
They hired a person that was an egineer to be the "network administrator". Since he was the only one there that knew how to hit the power button, he was elected when it was decided they wanted Windows instead of basing everything off of the AS/400. Not that that part was a bad decision per se (but I would have chosen another solution) but they picked someone that had a computer at home (he must be good because he knew how to change the toolbars in Word) to be the computer expert for the company. Oh well, in twenty years that company won't exist anymore, and niether will the company that I am at now (they are doing everything they can to be a clone of the previous company) because they make stupid decisions. Unfortunately, that is the way things are now. No one thinks in terms of long range goals. They look at something and say, "We need something quick, we need it cheap, and we want it NOW!" and forget all about trying to make something that will last. But that's what America is devolving into, a cesspool of stupidity.
Yeah for us....
Bite my yammer.
Commercial programmers coming into the Open Source world have two basic problems: 1) lack of face-to-face communications. EMAIL is quite limited compared to face-to-face and it is easy to give the wrong impression -- or get the wrong impression -- when all you have is flat text to go by. And 2) Lack of knowledge of the basic "culture". Part of which is "what have you done?" rather than "what is your position?", something especially confusing to commercial software project leaders and managers who are accustomed to coming in an "managing" a project. If you try to "manage" an open source project, the programmers will simply add you to their killfile and you can rant and rave as you like with no effect -- something extremely disconcerting to these types.
'Nuff. Time to get back to work (took this break 'cause I was getting frustrated with the program I'm working on, which will write, read, but won't do both during the same invocation...AGH!).
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Have you ever seen the movie Braveheart? The scene at the end where Wallace says they need the nobles (after spending so much time basically opposing them) and his friend tells him he is being an idiot (basically). Well, we could end up in a trap too. And I think that is why people are being cautious. We need interest, but not every bit of corporate interest is necissarily a good thing.
And before I am corrected, I already know that scene in Braveheart is not based on reality. Most of the movie wasn't. I've read several books on the subject of the real William Wallace, and the movie was more based on the legend of Robin Hood mixed with some of the actual story of William Wallace mixed with a little more of the word of mouth legends of William Wallace that developed over time. The movie itself alluded to this as they showed scenes with people talking about things after the fact and making the stories "larger than life".
OK, sorry about the off topic bit.
Bite my yammer.
An insightful article, raising many valid concerns for the future of both "free" and "open-source" software. I am personally convinced that the ESR quote was correct, that the current paradigm of software development is not going to be sustainable for long. Companies that develop software in all but niche markets will sooner or later have to open their source or they will get overwhelmed by others that make use of the benefits of open-source development. Corporations are of course ultimately in it for the money - they have no other reason for existence - and therefore every penny they spend is in some way intended as an investment that should show some kind of return, financial or otherwise. Every product they produce is intended to be a revenue stream. The problems described by the author are all derived from this fundamental problem, that if the ground rules of software development are to change in this way then companies are going to have to find some other way to generate revenue streams from their products.
Lets look at this for a moment.. Do you see anything wrong with a company turning a profit from their work? I sure dont, if the guys I worked for didnt profit from that work I'd be broke too. This means that open-source/free software has to show a profit of some kind for a company to want to buy into into it - So how can they make that work? The main "profit" from companies working with open source software is the help they get from folks like us - the guys that not only submit bug reports saying "its broken" but go on to say "heres how I patched it..." Thats really great for the development of better software but a nightmare for a company that wants their product to be the one folks use and preferably pay for. They dont want to GPL anything they can safely keep to themselves and sell... So how about they sell the current version, without source but with all their support services etc.. but MajorVersionNumber-- is available as source for you to compile, use (and support) yourself if you're happy doing that and dont need all the bells and whistles of the current version. There'd be enough new code in the new one that the company keeps its competetive advantage (or at least there damn well SHOULD be) but enough similarity between current and previous that the tweaks by the open-source community can be useful to the in-house development team even if the patches cant be directly applied to the in-house code. When a new version comes out on the commercial side, the source for the previously current version is released and the cycle starts again.
Before you all start flaming that this perverts the nature of open source, Yes, sure it does, but will it work? It carries many of the benefits of true open source for those of us that dont need all the bells and whistles of the latest version (How many windows users do you know who actually use features of office2k that werent in office97?) and it gives the companies what they need to survive as well. Plus its an arrangement the company cant renege on, since if they do theres the previous versions source out there ready to spawn a new open development tree if they try to back out and close up the source again. I bet neither RMS nor ESR would like it though :)
# human firmware exploit
# Word will insert into your optic buffer
# without bounds checking
I had a
After reading the article, it seemed to me that the real issue was in the definition (real or perceived) of "bug".... I always thought that a "bug" was an actual problem in the code that crashed the program or created actual problems. I thought that a "wish" was something you would like to see in a program. By that definition, the Corel-supplied "bug reports" would seem to be wishes rather than bugs. If Corel doesn't like the UI in KDE, then write code and see if it flies, don't claim that UI aspects you don't like are bugs....
haha reject it ? will you reject big $$$ ? NO you won't!
"....submitted a commercial about a story at LinuxPlanet about what happens when...."
Sounds like one too many layers of abouts to me.
No way he could have submitted the story instead of the commercial about the story?
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
If you think you don't need functional abstraction, then the system you use has been so successful you're ignorant of its real complexity.
Linux could still be a lot easier to use, especially if it want to be on normal desktops. Microsoft, whatever its failings, has implemented a lot of good interface ideas in Windows. Using them will make it easier for users to switch away from Windows. (You know, embrace, extend...)
If a commercial venture like Corel can get Linux onto lots of desktops then it's a win for the open source movement. It may have to hijack KDE to do so, but would it really be a loss? Isn't the real goal of the KDE project to "dumb down" Linux anyway?
I bragged about my Karma at a job interview but I didn't get the job.
I think you are confusing a problem with a solution to a problem. If a user sees a problem, it is perfectly valid for the user to describe the problem. Depending on the user's viewpoint, the severity assigned to the problem may vary.
What you are talking about is a solution to a problem. That is upto a designer / implementer. If they choose a poor implementation - that is their problem. Sometimes, (as in the case you described), any solution is a bad one. So what? Nobody loses if a user describes their problem anyway?
There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.
Neither for that matter is Qt.
Kerebos was developed by one of those cumbersome collaberations supported by UNIX vendors which were so popular in the late '80s.
Kerebros is almost unique among these groups in coming up with a succesful and usable product. Other examples are the ubiqutious but plodding Motif toolkit and KDEs commercial ancestor CDE. Most of these comercial collaborations however produced real turkeys like DCE.
This may seem off-topic -- BUT -- the whole reason that M$ has been able to hi-jack kerebros software is that they don't have a GPL type licence. I always though the GPL seemed like paranoid overkill, but, it turns out that RMS was right and everybody is trying to kill us ;-).
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
That is a very valid opinion, from an engineering and design perspective, but in Real Life there are a lot of apps out there that are Windows-only, and more coming out every day. Many of them have small enough user bases that they are not worth porting individually, so being able to run an emmulator "for that one app" is a valuable asset.
Linux and Mac cheerleaders need to keep this in mind. There are a lot of users out there that find themselves saying, "I would use $SYSTEM all the time, except I need to be able to run $APPLICATION."
If and when Linux starts showing up on a large percentage of desktop machines, all developers will feel the need to produce Linux versions of their programs. Until then, WINE and TWINE are critical to winning users over, and ushering in a time when they are no longer needed.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
No. One. Can. Hijack. A. GPLed. Product.
I wouldn't be too sure. Talk to some of your brothers in the righteous fight against copyright and MP3. If they win, and copyright laws are greatly weakened, that breaks the teeth right out of enforcement of the GPL.
There is a styleguide, and it says that the label should be "OK" (although I seem to remember it called for the label to be "Close" in past editions *mhm*).
That doesn't mean that the styleguide can't be changed (after due review) if it is inconsistent or broken in some aspect (and some sections aren't finished yet).
-- KDE programmer and computer science student in Klagenfurt, Austria.
Sorry, I forgot the URL: KDE Standards
-- KDE programmer and computer science student in Klagenfurt, Austria.
So if I report bugs, or give suggestions, I'm just another person who is "unwilling to do the work"? Corel's ideas about UI bugs might not match up with the KDE team's, but they still should be considered. It's called 'feedback', and it is what any software project needs in order to grow.
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
Very good point. Maybe "The Cathedral and the Bazarre" should be on the required reading list for all corporate types who are planning on getting into Linux and Open Source/Free Software. If nothing else, it will help Eric's book sales out now that VA's stock valuation is back down....;-)
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
The right way to resolve the conflict is to
insist that *EVERYTHING* be open source.
Selling support contracts or other services
is ok, but creating 'commercial playgrounds'
for software is just bad.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Socialist are most definately not libertarians, and anarchists are certainly not democrats. Also, corporate welfare does not really adhere to capitalism; free-market capitalist purists despise all corporate subsidies. You are confusing "capitalism" with "those damn Republicans".
Let us begin with socialism. In a nutshell, it means that the state owns all property. No private ownership is recognized. Or, as Webster put it... 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Now for anarchy, which means the absense of recognized rulers. Each person is responsible for protecting their own rights, including property rights, because there is no govorning authority. Again, turning to Webster... 1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government 2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER
In short, the post you were responding to is correct. You can't have state ownership of property if you do not have a state which governs that ownership, and you can't have total freedom from governing authority if you allow all property to be controlled by a governing state... therefore socialism and anarchy are entirely mutually exclusive. QED.
How some people choose to define themselves is irrelevent. If you do not believe that the state should own all property and control the economy, you are not a socialist, just a Democratic Party member with a Karl Marx T-shirt. If you consider government to be a "necessary evil in some situations" you are not an anarchist, just a kid who likes calling himself that because it sounds cool.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
You mean this hasn't happened already? :-)
Say a large company starts using Linux or some other GPL software internally. They do some modifications that fit their needs and help the code mesh with their infrastructure. If the company keeps this internal, are they required to provide the source to anyone that asks? Or do they only have to provide source for something they are distributing?
Somebody has already mentioned not to confuse the opinions of the author with the opinions of KDE authors, but you have a point.
What is different here is that the developer has been brought to the project from a non-open source background. Open source developers have previously come to write stuff because they have an itch to scratch - they want to help develop the software so much that they are happy to do it for nothing, in their spare time.
There is bound to be some conflict when you bring people to a project who are there because they are paid to be rather than because they really want to be there, although sometimes the two will happily coincide.
Open source projects are usually run as a meritocracy, so if the people that Corel is paying to work on this are not doing anything useful, their code won't make it into the main CVS tree. This is one of the great things about open source development - qualifications and experience count for little compared to the ability to produce quality code.
Isn't something similar happening aboutthe inclusion of ReiserFS in the 2.4 kernel?
Reiser want the advantage of being the first journaling file system in Linux. If they don't make it for 2.4, IBM's JFS and ext3fs (?) will catch up and be competition.
__
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
I think this discussion is overly focussed on how volunteer developers should deal with corporate influence. A better question is how the corporate guy should interface with the volunteers.
To use this case as an example, to the extent that Corel really is getting 'something for nothing' from the KDE developers, it is in their best intrest to try to steer the project while rocking the boat as little as possible. Basically, the guy coming in and making a bunch of demands before he proves his worth is a total bonehead.
I'd like to hear more from some of the volunteer developers what type of support they _do_ want, and how corporations could interact with them more effectively.
I for one am very glad to have corporate involvement in open source projects such as KDE.
Corel's modifications to KDE (if given back to KDE) are perfectly legit, but these same actions have the potential to bite KDE hard.
I have always envisioned Open Source as a sort of "free market" darwinism where changes are jockeyed about and dominate features eventually replacing weaker features. Some where along the way then, the project inevitably forks and multiple versions emerge as "viable" in the environment either for a long term or for a short term. I'd like to believe that normally forks are short term events and the project merges back together. These are the kind of forks that serve the project best (by not splitting the codebase in the long term).
But now with deeper pockets backing one vision, a fork can be carried beyond what it should have because money can keep bad code alive. It will become easy to let weaker visions live longer. I'm not saying it's happened, but the potential is there.
On a different note, I'm not a fan of Corel putting Copyright notices in KDE distributions. The integration of proprietary and nonprorietary pieces inside a product like this is a clear rode to Hell. We go from being a "licensed open" free people to "lawless pirates" overnight because the typical user doesn't review every license in his or her distribution before they install it on dozens of machines.
And in closing, I'm ok with Corel wanting to simplify the look and feel for users assuming:
1. We don't lose advanced user functionality that is easily accessible.
2. We don't assume that a mirror image of win9x is the best a UI can be.
meh.
I'm not sure that is entirely accurate. Linux UIs have been designed in the past, therefore they must have had a designer (we're assuming that KDE code isn't evolving on its own yet). Maybe not a professional designer, but a designer nonetheless. I understand the assistance that a professional UI designer can bring to a project, but you can't just say that no Linux UI design has occurred in the past just because it wasn't done by a professional.
That aside, I think the article did unnecessarily vilify Corel. If you're going to set up an open source project, you have to be willing to accept comments from anyone. You don't have to act on those comments, but it would be a mistake for the KDE team to tell anyone, whether Corel or a total Linux/KDE newbie, that their comments aren't wanted.
One point that the article didn't touch on very much was that you have a greater chance of your comments being acted on if you provide patches that implement them. Then it's easy for the user base to try them out and come out in favor of the changes. Just tossing out suggestions, especially in a field like UI design that a lot of coders admittedly don't have as much experience with, may not arouse a lot of interest. Submitting a patch and saying "hey, look how much more understandable this dialog is now" is almost always better.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Corel have years of experience of real end users who have spent real money on their products, and the priorities and perceptions will be different to those of hackers. Rather than a source of conflict, this should add another viewpoint to the peer review process, though posting 142 bugs in 2 days is not a good way to introduce yourself. This will make the KDE cake bigger in the long run.
On the subject of filters for KOffice, Corel would make a lot of friends just by publishing a specification of the internal formats of the various products which import into Corel office. This would start us down the road towards making commodity file formats rather than proprietary and closed ones. The competition for Corel office isn't KOffice, and won't be for a year or two yet, it's MS Office. They can't win by playing closed and proprietary file formats, the way for them to win is by making WordPerfect the best engine for manipulating documents. If we had open formats from Corel, Sun (Staroffice) and IBM (Smartsuite) to go alongside those of KOffice, Abiword, Gnumeric etc. then we can begin to talk about commodity office software rather than extend and embrace.
Oh, and Sun should make StarOffice libre as well as gratis.
Dunstan
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
Linux needs commercialism to help in its development and help the OS to grow. I want to see Linux on 90% of the world's computers in the future, not doze!
This won't happen unless industry gets into it. Period.
No, you do not (I hope not, at least). You're an adult (or close enough, at least). You can just change the code. If Corel wants to change KDE's interface to conform to their expectations, they should do it themselves instead of trying to force the world to change along with them.
This isn't feedback. This is Corel trying to get KDE to change their opinions to match Corel's by reporting where the KDE team's opinions differ from Corel's as problems that need to be fixed. This is Corel trying to get the KDE team to do what they want instead of just changing the version of KDE they distribute to do what they want. There's already a Corel Explorer. Why not just make the rest of a Corel KDE instead of telling the KDE team they need to do it? If the KDE team likes it, they can change the main version. If Corel wants to tell the team what it thinks KDE should be like, they should suggest not consider it a problem that the KDE team needs to solve.
it's green.
I think the author of the artice is one of the few
who has problems with Corel submitting bugreports.
The UI of KDE and the usability of KDE are very
important for KDE. We have a KDE user Interface
style guide which describes how we would like to
see KDE applications behave. If an application,
_FOR NO GOOD REASON_ does not behave like
that then that's a UI-bug which we would like
to correct.
Corel does quite a good job in finding such bugs
and I think that that is good thing for everyone
(developers and users) involved with KDE. Corel is
not the only one btw. which reports such bugs, we
have a lot of dedicated beta-testers who also make
us aware of UI inconsistencies.
I can understand that, after twenty years of Microsoft
software, people seem to consider software that
doesn't crash bugfree, but KDE tends to put its
standards higher than that.
Cheers,
Waldo Bastian
bastian@kde.org
(Employed by SuSE)
--
Make way, KDE/Linux is coming to a desktop near you!
The specific issue seems to lie in the question of "What is a bug?" - i.e. the waterline below which a bug report is a waste of space. I think a lot of the time this is more a consensus thing than spelled out, and it sounds like the consensus on what is worthy of a bug report was violated here - in the name of a corporation driving the project toward their interests. A breach of trust.
Some preventative maintenance could be to define what makes a bug a bug more clearly - just to close that door in the future. At the same time, cooking up a lot of non-critical protocols/definitions/etc adds friction to the process of working on the. So that's not really a great solution unless there's consensus that it's critical.
I've recently been involved in putting together the NetBeans open-source IDE project for Sun, and I think there is a valuable lesson here on what not to do. I intend that we learn them well.
If I remember right, the IETF *requires* that there be two different implementations in order to ratify the RFC. (And incidently, they strongly frown upon anything based on patented technology.)
The GPL has similar requirements, so I wouldn't worry.
>If your opinion is that KDE should have the
>right-click menu attached to the middle mouse
>button instead of the right one, is that a bug?
>Do you report it?
>No, you do not (I hope not, at least). You're an
>adult (or close enough, at least). You can just
>change the code.
So the definition of an adult is now "you can just change the code"? Hmm... gotta check my ID...
It might just happen that not everybody who uses a computer wants to be an adult in that case. It might just happen that not everybody who uses complicated software wants to be a computer scientist... that's good: it helps bring hardware prices down. A lot.
>If Corel wants to change KDE's
>interface to conform to their expectations, they
>should do it themselves instead of trying to
>force the world to change along with them.
And therefore they would be seen as forcing their GUI concepts down the throats of their users... I'm not sure it would even be because they are a Big Evil Corporation.
If I were in a team designing a product, I would find it a major problem if all the other members of the team duplicated and constantly replaced the user interface because of differing ideas. User interface happens to be a very important part of anything: it's the link to actual functionality. If you can't agree on a UI, you can't agree on the finished product, therefore it is never finished (or worse, it is said to be "finished" and sold that way).
Schizophrenic GUIs are BAD GUIs, better no GUIs at all (and then what would be the point of KDE?).
Maybe GUI consistency is not that important if you view the software as a hobbyst's toy or a free hack, maybe then all the sophisticated users can code their personal preferences in; but if you want Linux et al to be used by more people, it is extremely important.
Maybe you don't want other, uneducated, non-computer savvyy people to use that software, but I suspect KDE was created precisely for that reason. It would be oxymoronic to consider that "dumbing-down" the system.
On the side, I'm no GUI guru (or anything guru for that matter) but some of those remarks actually seem like bugs to me: inconsistent menu buttons are as much a bug as I would imagine in GUI design, it certainly shouldn't be deliberate. Other remarks, of course, belong elsewhere, but they still should not be implemented until discussed and agreed upon as a "desirable change" for the GUI.
Bodrius
"I can't understand how some people that consider UIs superfluous can complain so much about idiosyncratic APIs." - Related comment from unrelated event, about unrelated people.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
The corrollary to this is the transition of Linux from being almost exclusively a gearhead playground to an inclusion of a more general class of user. Lots of us tend to forget the kind of idiot mistakes and assumptions that anyone makes when starting out, much less those of people who don't have that way of modeling things that got us into this buisness in the first place.
There also seems to be a belief that such conflicts are a problem. Conflict is one of the primary jumpstarts of evolution, in this case that of KDE (and it's cousins like GNOME). What we do seem to be lacking as a community are the patience and wilingness to be civil to each other. It's not as trivial a concern as you think either. Somone once said one measure of a society is the upkeep of it's public bathrooms which depend on the civility of those use them.
Civics used to be a fundamental part of beginning education. Sometimes even I need a refresher course every now and then.
make for good neighbors.
When people know where the boundaries are there is less chance of conflict over where they should be. The impression I got from the author is that he has trouble with Corel pushing the UI in a particular direction. But there would be no need to push in any direction if the software development counterpart to fences, design guidelines, were in place.
A bug report says that a dialog should say 'Close' vs. 'Dismiss'. Why isn't there a design guideline for this? If there was one, the report could be answered succinctly; either, 'you're right we'll make it conform to the guideline', or 'RTFG' (read the **** guidelines). The more detailed the guidelines the fewer the 'issues' over silly issues.
I haven't been involved with the development of KDE, so I don't know what they have set up. But it sure does sound like they need to stop coding and develope a complete set of UI guidelines. That move will make the UI ready for end users faster than anything else they could do.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
He is saying, "This hasn't been a problem so far... but think about a scenario where Corel suddenly hired the core KDE dev team or provided them with 'valuable considerations'"
Two reasons why this is not an issue.
a.) The KDE developers are talented programmers that are working on an open source project because they want to. Programmers like them can easily find jobs if the job they are currently in violates their conscience. So even if they were hired by Corel and asked to compromise their vision, they would not.
b.) Secondly even if the entire KDE team somehow decided to sell their vision for corporate $$$, the code is GPLed and can be forked by any number of willing and able developers. A project as large as KDE cannot and will not die because it affects way too many people.
PS: That said, there are many instances of scare mongering and Corel bashing in the article.
But here a company that, for perfectly good business reasons, wants its Linux distribution to behave as much as possible like Windows has hired a UI designer with no Linux or open-source experience to be a "UI designer for KDE."
At GeorgiaTech (where I go to school), there exists one of the premier Human Computer Interaction programs in the country and I interact with several people in this program. Now from my understanding, it is simply not possible to be both a UI designer and have Linux experience simply because until the past year there was no Linux UI design experience to be obtained by a professional designer. After all, most of the UI designs for Linux were/are done by coders and hackers , not a UI design team. So it is rather unreasonable to expect to find an experienced UI professional with Linux experience. If anything the first generation of them are just about to start.
Even greater in number are the items reported as bugs but that are internally listed as "wishlist" items
This attempts to trivialize the Corel teams bug reporting when in truth it should be thankful for them. Linux users are always hollering about world domination but once someone offers suggestions that contradicts the developer mindsight they are jumped on. Now here are two truths from MSFT: Of the 65,000 bugs or issues reported for Windows 2000 at least 20,000 are considered UI or wishlist issues. For professional shops...wishlist or UI issues are almost on par with bugs depending on the amount of functionality they add. Secondly it would surprise most people but from a reliable source MSFT studies showed that almost 90 per cent of developers hate the dancing paper clip while a majority of users like it, guess who won?
Without companies like Corel providing the much needed real (l)user feedback that OSS projects need then this talk of world domination will be just that, talk. They should be thanked for their input not vilified.
Is there concern about a project being taken in a direction that might benefit one company over others?
Red Hat has lots of developers working on the kernel yet no one asks whether the kernel will be optimized for Red Hat but yet Corel that merely makes suggestions and bug reports is in danger of hijacking KDE?
Even uglier, one could imagine--and this example is entirely hypothetical--a situation where the top people in a development effort accepted what lawyers call "valuable considerations" in exchange for looking the other way as a project got steered in a way that benefits a particular company. Nothing illegal about it.
This one was just to offensive not to miss. I work as an intern for an e-bussiness firm and already am being remunerated more than most of my peers will be 5 years after they graduate. If I worked on an OS project, no one could offer myself (let alone several people as talented or more talented than me) enough money to sell my vision. To assume such is to miss the very spirit of Open Source. Open Source developers code because they want to and not for any financial remuneration, that's what the 9 to 5 is for.
This is pretty much what I was trying to point out.
Just because Corel is a corporation doesn't mean it can't scratch it's itch. Pretty much every OSS project in existence has started because somebody wanted a program that did 'X'. And pretty much every person who develops for said projects does so because he/she wants 'X' to do 'Y'. However, usually people don't see that it is 'subverting' 'X' , because usually everybody is in agreement over features and such.
However, sometimes different people want different things. Corel wants certain things, and so they've hired a guy to help enumerate this. Sure, he doesn't have OSS experience. But like I said, if the KDE team doesn't like the ideas, it doesn't have to listen. If nothing else, having a second (informed) opinion on something can only help. At best, it will bring you new insight, and at worst you will just have to say 'no' to it.
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
Does the Kde project itself have any kind of formal organization? Is anyone in charge?
It appears not to have one. But I could be wrong. Any comments from Kde developers? It appears that developers just submit code changes through a kind of democratic process in an informal way. This seems to work exactly the way open source should - those who do the most work and submit useful code and ideas get listened to and get their work included, and gradually assume leadership in an informally organized team. I do not think it matters much to the team whether or not a particular developer has corporate sponsorship.
This may work for Kde developers but gives the appearance to those outside that group that Kde is an easy target for corporate and other "steering" or for outright assault because it lacks a spokesperson and an organization.
No doubt there is a significant conflict of interest with Corel Office and KOffice. I mean, Corel Office is their main product. KOffice is in direct competetion with it. It would seem that Corel has a need to sabatoge KOffice.
I would also take with a grain of salt their UI expertise and numerous "bug reports" on UI issues. While Kde has, loosely speaking, many design features in common with Windows, it is very different from Windows in other ways and the main goal of the development team is NOT to make Kde as much like MS Windows as possible. Again, Corel has different ideas about that. Kde is a unix project - Corel is a Windows-centric company trying to also compete with MS on a platform where MS has no presence (so far).
All of Corel's products for "alternative" operating systems have just been, to date, bad ports of MS Dos and MS Windows products. Further, Corel and Word Perfect have not done a good job in the past of maintaining these ports, letting them wither on the vine much to the consternation of Amiga and Os2 users of Word Perfect. They just abandoned these ports to "return to their roots" in the Wintel world and contributed as much as any other single factor to the decline of Amiga and Os2. It's no different with Linux.
Kde may learn too late that the best development talent in the world and the best of intentions to meet the needs of users cannot make up for a lack or organization. There is a need for Kde not only to deal with corporate "steering" in a firm and decisive fashion, but also to better present its product to the world.
For example, the kde.org web site does not in any way reflect what a great product they have. In particular the "applications" section is a disorganized jumble and does not adequately describe the many fine kde apps available or where to download them or where their home pages may be.
Compare this mess to the apps section of the Gnome site which is well organized and further gets regular artistic facelifts from time to time to keep visitors interested at many different levels of experience.
Development news is also lacking. It does not in any way accurately reflect the current status of kde development and often has dead links. When releases are late, no explanation is offered. Persons who visit the site and who are not already very impressed with Kde do not find much at the site to give them a positive impression. In what ways is the current Kde 2 effort different from the existing, stable Kde 1.x product? These things are not explained to non-technical persons in a clear and understandable way that would help to better define what Kde is to new or potential users.
In spite of all that Kde has done well and is the most popular desktop for Linux and unix among users because of word of mouth and acceptance as the default in many distributions of Linux and BSD. But that may not be enough. Active, organized efforts by Kde to define its goals to the outside world and to meet challenges and threats are also needed, just as they are needed with any project with such a large scope.
Ed Avis:
BTW anyone know how many copies of Corel Linux, WordPerfect and so on are being sold?
Point datum: The local Frys stores say that they can't keep Corel Office for Linux on the shelves, and the channel seems to be dry.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I'm conflicted about Corel and I think Corel is conflicted about open-source/free software.
I have remained a Wordperfect loyalist even when it created problems in exchanging files with colleagues on a project.
I bought Corel Linux 1.0 and applauded their effort. I think they are doing a good job of trying to make Linux a viable alternative for businesses that want to get away from Microsoft but want their software to work "out of the box" without having to ponder over numerous, technically complex HOWTO's to make things happen (like printing and Zip-drive support) that they expected to be ordinary.
On the other hand, I was horrified to look in detail at some of the Corel click-wrap licenses I had "accepted" in the past and find that Corel has some of the most egregiously bad software licenses around. Corel's licenses include restrictions on the kinds of documents that can be created with their clip art (they can't be "scandalous"), a choice of law and forum in Ireland, and such a severe restriction on reverse engineering that if it were generally used and enforced it would result in killing Linux altogether. (Linux is heavily based on reverse engineering.)
I was also horrified to discover that Corel is a key member of the Business Software Alliance, which is one of the major proponents of UCITA. Taken together, UCITA's provisions on use restrictions (such as reverse engineering) and warranties (for example, see the statements by RMS on this issue) appear intended to kill (or at least seriously chill and restrict) the future development of Linux, GNU, Samba, Apache, and other free/open-source software. That DeCSS-type or Kerberos white paper cases could be brought in the future under UCITA give a few examples.
I think that companies like Corel need to decide "what they want to be when they grow up" and to carefully think through their positions in the intellectual property debate. I don't think they can straddle the fence and try to play hard on both sides. I also think that the free/open-source community needs to come to grips with how it is going to act when its creations are "not just for nerds anymore" (which I think is now), and how it is going to get participating businesses to join in defending its interests.
Run the whole thing through ispell, for that matter.
If anybody has a copy of Rhapsody for Intel to give away, drop me an email.
Clearly, Mr. Powell does not understand how the GPL works to protect the user community. Corel will be able to steer KDE for precisely as long as its changes are welcome to the community of KDE users and developers.
If they make changes the community doesn't like, the changes will be ignored by the community. If they fork KDE and make their own version with their changes, no one has to use it. If they add good stuff to their version, it has to be under the GPL, so the community can take what they like, put it in the free version, and leave the rest. They don't even have to reverse-engineer it.
If they close their source in defiance of the GPL, the community doesn't have to muck around with a lawsuit. Righteous outrage will decimate Corel's customer base, and the community will clone any useful features in the closed version. Users will be able to choose between a costly proprietary product and a free one that works just as well. Not a very difficult choice.
The Kerberos analogy is nonsense. Nothing under the GPL can be embraced, extended and engulfed as Microsoft tried to do to Kerberos. The derived-works provisions in the GPL are intended precisely to prevent that sort of thing.
No. One. Can. Hijack. A. GPLed. Product.
Period.
------
------
You are in a twisty little maze of open source licenses, all different.
Of course they are. This is nothing new; it's implicit in ESR's Bazaar model of open software development. The conflicts under discusssion right now are with corporate interests, but if every corporation on Earth went dark it wouldn't change anything because conflict is the heart and soul of creative collaboration.
The tug of war between conflicting interests is what makes for careful scrutiny, the "many eyes" that we're so proud of. Attempts to resolve conflicts are often the seed of brilliant innovations which make previous trade-offs moot.
By all means suspect Corel's UI suggestions, but keep in mind that many of them (such as deprecating inconsistent dialog button labels) are derived from very sound UI principles. We will need to provide Win-flavored UIs as learning aids, if nothing else; if this is anathema to the purists (perhaps including myself) then let's find a way to gracefully theme the problem away.
Peace and harmony are BOR-ING!
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
This was bound to happen some time. There is an inherent conflict within every linux lover - they want to see it succeed commercially but they don't wan't it to go commercial. Till the linux community resolves this within itself (like by defining a core that is open source and let the rest be a commercial playground), there can be no real commercial progress that can satisfy both the communities.
Experience would suggest that anyone, whether corporate or individual, who gets involved with a project and makes suggestions; if that person/individual makes good suggestions and especially offer to implement them they'll be accepted. But if they are not particularly good suggestions they won't. Free software projects don't tend to accept patches if they are a hack just to solve some pressing corporate strategy.
Now Corel or whoever can go ahead and fork either the entire KDE or individual applications inside KDE. And the user community will either accept it or not. Most probably they won't because corporate maintained software doesn't tend to get maintained. So any sensible company should be desperately wanting to show a bit of diplomacy and get their changes integrated into the main project.
First Choice: Linux is the defacto Geek operating system, not intended for the average user. Fine for the technically savvy, but for the average user, just not worth it.
Outcome The average user will just use Windows, much as they have been doing. Linux will be perceived as what it is.....something for the IT people to use and for the Geeks to use, but not for them. What does this mean to the community.... It means Windows will continue to lead in software availability. it means that windows will continue to lead in numbers. like it or not folks, when someone holds the largest share of the market, THEY ARE THE STANDARD. You can yell all you want, written standards don't really mean a damned thing. If Windows = 90% of the market and Windows does it one way, forget what is written or recommended by whom, the remaining 10% are the ones who are different, the "non-standard". Basically it comes down to this. Linux stays a geek operating system, then feel free to maintain your air of superiority regarding your OS of choice, but DO NOT EXPECT THE WORLD TO CHANGE TO MEET YOUR NEEDS. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
Second Choice: Linux goes mainstream. Changes are made to make it configurable by Joe Average and intuitive for Jane Q. Public to use.
Outcome Linux development projects need to have human interface and GUI specialists working on them, not just programmers. Not producing what programmers and geeks think is cool. Not producing something that you configure to do what you want. It needs a CONSISTENT GUI that the community gets behind and supports, be it based on GTK or QT. It is not enough to say "It might not have 100% of the features, but its free". Who cares. The average user does nto pay for the QT lisence. They do not care. They want a systemt aht works, period. they want one that is familiar and intuitive. They want one that is easy to learn and requires little or no configuration just to get "up and running". This means in places "dumbing things down" if you are a true power user, there is always the CLI and there will always be projects like GNOME, but the average user wants to turn the machine on and have it work. and if they ever do have to install something. They want to put the disc in, click something and the next thing they know, they are running their program.
Now....everyone here can say that these people should learn to use a computer. That is not the attitude that is going to get anywhere. If they are required to learn to edit the conf files to make something work (even if it is customizable) and if this is not the same as when they get to work, they will use something that is, namely Windows, and once again, you are back to scenario one.
The choice is for the community to make. scenario one = status quo, scenario 2 at least allows the Linux community to set the standards for a while, and still allows for the flexibility for the power users and geeks to do what they want with their box.
If scenario two is going to happen....who is going to bring this about? Will the geeks of the world code simplified, dumbed down versions fo software for Joe Average. No. They are going to write software that fits their mindset. The folks who are going to write software "For the Masses" are going to be commercial businesses. If they can latch on to existing projects that are already headed in that direction and try to help out, they will. It only makes sense.
Basically the community needs to wake up. Realize that you CAN NOT be elitist, maintain that by making your world so hard to enter, and then expect the rest of the world to see your superiority and want to be you at all costs. Again. This will nto happen. You want a linux world???? make a linux the world can use, or at least support those who are trying
I reject your reality
What's the problem? Even if Corel (for example) did become boneheaded and started submitting duff code for inclusion in KDE, the core developers could just reject it.
The article does make Corel sound a bit silly, but that must be because it's being selective. The KDE developers are free to ignore any 'bug reports' from Corel; OTOH, even if only one in ten is sensible, that's still a lot of useful bug reporting.
BTW anyone know how many copies of Corel Linux, WordPerfect and so on are being sold?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I bragged about my Karma at a job interview but I didn't get the job.
Of course there are bound to be conflicts when the commercial and open source worlds come into conflict. And it's going to happen a hell of a lot more as Linux becomes a more viable platform for corporate ventures. And, as a professional IT consultant, let me tell you that more and more companies, even some of the more staid ones, are becoming more and more interested in getting a piece of the open source pie.
The fact is that large corporations like what they see when they look at open source software - a lack of restrictive and expensive licenses, generally stable software and the kudos that comes from running this kind of solution. But what they don't like is the anarchic, socialist and often anti-corporate views held by the people that write and promote this software.
So their solution? "Collaboration" in open source projects, a method that allows them to "guide" the project in the direction they want - a marketable product. Unfortunately, whilst Linux hackers are quite willing to accept corporate backing when they need to pay the bills, at the slightest hint of a request for a change they immeadiately turn around and bite the hand that feeds them, as this whole KDE-Coral incident has shown.
In the long run it seems as though this dichotomy is going to force conflicts again and again, as commercial interests come up against the socialist ideologies of hackers. The only method I can see for this to change is for open source projects to incorporate themselves, allowing them to become their own masters.
If the KDE developers don't want to use the suggestions Corel gives it, they don't have to.
To be honest, I'd say the guy has a lot of valid points. And if he's been doing UI design for a while, I'd say he could probably bring a lot to KDE.
Contrary to popular belief, UIs are NOT easy to design so that they are intuitive for average users. The KDE team is working on it, I'm sure, but it can't hurt to have somebody help out. Christ, I'm sure there are some OSS projects that would DIE to have a professional UI guy helping out, especially one paid for by a major corporation. But instead of showing some gratitude, they write an article about how Corel might be subverting the KDE project.
To be honest, EVERY SINGLE PERSON who works on KDE is subverting it, in a sense. They are working on it because they want it to work in a way that will please THEM. Corel is no different than your average KDE developer. They want certain features, and they're going to try to get them done.
If they'd wanted to, they could've just started uploading changes to CVS, but they didn't. They filed reports about them, and gave the community the chance to discuss them. And to be honest, I agree with most of the ones listed in this article as being 'bad'. They make sense, especially considering Corel wants KDE to be ready for normal users.
Anyways, just thoughts.
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
Apart from what has been mentioned by many - that KDE should be very happy for this input and that they follow up on the suggestions if they like - I would also like to add that there is no reason to complaint that the suggestions are "trivial". One of the major remaining issues whith Linux-desktops compared to commercial alternatives is POLISH. And there is no other way around this to take all those little things one by one. Toghether they make a very important difference, and KDE should be extremely grateful that an outsider - who sees such things better - takes the time and effort to do it. The premise of the article - that what Corel is doing may be inappropriate - is endlessly flawed and I sincerly hope that the KDE-developers don't develop an antagonism towards Corels efforts. This is exacly what what they need. Asking Corel to contribute to something that undermines their financial income (filters/CorelOffice) is naive and and unneccessary, when they are willing to do a major effort elswere.
Actually, there are times where unexpected behavior is simply a result of the problem-space being addressed. I can't think of any examples at the moment because I'm too tired, but I've known situations where something was done strangely, and it turns out that the data being manipulated must be manipulated strangely.
Sort of an issue of you don't want people who know nothing, you want people who can solve the problem that the software is aimed at manually. Of course, for something like a word processor, that is just about everyone.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Witness the LOVEBUG problem - users wanted it to be easy to run scripts, so MS allowed doubleclicking to run a script, probably just like the user request was worde
Did the demand come from users. A publicity machine like that at MS is very good at confusing the issue. Even if this was a user request who in their right mind decided it should default to "on". More likely this was something someone at MS dreamed up as being "cool"...
Where do I download the Windows version?
from the same place you've always been able to get it from...
Al.
Stallman says: "I think that corporate contribution to any particular free software development activity is always welcome, but corporate influence in impeding the extension of free software to do an additional job is obstructionism."
Raymond says: "I'm not worried. What I see is corporations realizing that if they want our results, they have to buy into our process--and if they don't, they'll be eaten by a competitor who does."
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
It's frightening, the idea that Linux and its applications could fall victim to its own success. But wherever there's money, big money as there is now in Linux, there is someone very clever who will try to take it away.
Corporations and open-source development are for the most part diametrically opposed as to organization and goals. Neither is bad; indeed, neither is better and both can be abused. But when the two come together, it's oil and vinegar--it needs a little shaking up before it can go onto the salad. And these are indeed the salad days of Linux.
It's not difficult at all, though, to imagine the companies that make commercial software for other platforms looking upon Linux as some kind of odd little brother. And, with a smile, saying, "I'm very idealistic. I want to make the world a better place for me to live in."
I think that this is fairly accurate. Personally, i don't believe Open Source can exist so much with current corporations, but with some work and some, "pardon me, can we do peaceful business sometime," truly powerful things can come out of opensource development.
all i know is that i agree
--drach out
2^3 * 31 * 647
The objective of the distrobutions is not necessarily to produce comercial software (as part of the distrobution), but to give and identifying characterstic to the distro. For example, Corel's identifying characteristic is their file manager. (BTW, did the source ever show up for that?) Mandrake features DrakConf. Redhat pioneered kudzu in a distrobution (but it was also adopted by others). Everybody wants to have their distrobution be identifiably different from the others, and Corel's method is through customizing the file manager.
Corel's objective is not necessarily to produce a closed-source distrobution. They want to help the KDE project out, but in some respects they need to provide a different set of features to their customers than KDE does. Also don't forget that Corel's custom modifications to kfm are specific to how they have set up their distrobution in regard to samba support, where the filesystems get mounted, etc. They have a greater freedom to customize because they know how they have the system set up. KDE is distro-agnostic. Corel's desktop is a distro-specific hack of KDE. Is it their objective to fragment KDE or to destroy KDE? No, because they'd be biting the hand that feeds them. Remember that.
If anybody has a copy of Rhapsody for Intel to give away, drop me an email.
What particularly ticked me off in the article was the statement that because their UI designer was submitting all these bugs, one of the possible consequences for KDE would be a dumbing down. The users, it was claimed were good enough at determining what a good GUI was.
My question is : what user group is being talked about? Are we talking about the same user group that understands the X-protocol, and knows what to do with netstat, and thinks 'vi' is the best editor (it is, but there is no denying that it is hard to reach an intuitive level with 'vi'? These are not the same users that Corel is trying to win over. As long as the acknowledged goal of any software product is to increase its user base, I dont see any problems with a commercial company with the same goals filing such defects.
There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.
One of the reasons that I moved to GNU/Linux was that I prefered it to Windows. I choose GNOME because it gives me something new and exciting. I enjoy using the desktop. But I'm sure that there are others who enjoy KDE in the same way.
Commercially, KDE makes sense. Businesses want something their users know (and possibly love?) So KDE tries to be a better Windows than Windows. But then I think that this is missing the point. If everyone wants a desktop that looks like Windows, why not give them Windows? Why bother re-inventing the wheel? Why not invent something that will make the wheel obsolete?
What worries me is that if we can only immitate, how can we ever innovate?
Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.
Actually, Socialist and anarchist philosiphys are not mutually exclusive. Although as a result of a fluke in History (by which im referring to the Bolsheviks ceasing power) socialism has now come to be seen as Marx-Leninist, heavy handed control by the majority of people. It does not mean it is so. The majority of those who claim to be socialists are social-liberatarians in that they do not believe in state interference in people's personal lives. But as far as the economy is concerned, it is necessary evil in some situations to prevent economic dictatorship (as they view large corporations) and still have the resources to acomplish certain monumental tasks (ie NASA requires alot of resources that small decentralized organizations would not be able to adequately aquire). The Majority of people who call themselves socialists would prefer small worker cooperatives and private buisnesses to state intervention where possible.
Anarchists for the most part, adhere to more or less the same philosiphy although are more anal about democratising everything (ie spanish anarchists voting whether on they feel like fighting or not before every battle). They also generally have a much smaller time scale when it comes to how fast they are going to change things, and have slightly different economic structures (see syndicalism) but all in all have the same point.
Whether or not the political theory is the same as the actual practice is a different matter. And is generally the case when it comes to any political philosiphy, even capitalism (see corporate welfare).
The early anecodote ("We've brought in a new person, no experience in what you do but he's a really hot developer, really, please bring him up to speed") has happened to me this past week, ironically enough.
I used to co-run a niche portal site, under linux, with heavy use of open source tools (phorum, some nice php stuff, some stuff I developed). The new owners brought in 'some hot programming talent' that turned out to be underpaid interns.
They also brought in a 'content manager' who was going to take over the site... but didn't know html and keeps reformatting the stuff using some windows program.
In short, we went from a friendly linux-backed site that required maybe an hour a day of simple script running to update... to a windows-2k driven monstrosity that requires a team of programmers and still can't update each week.
The lesson I learned? Folks with money aren't web-saavy, programmer-saavy, or programming-saavy. What they think of as 'hot talent' means someone who was good at schmoozing while others did the work. And since they fall for sales hype, they choose expensive, unworkable schemes instead of the simple, direct method.
If you sell something or let the VC come in, RUN! Disassociate yourself! If you stay, you'll just have regrets.
I must remain,
Anonymous
Call this a flame if you want but BOO HOO HOO. You chose the GPL for your software and this is EXACTLY the behaviour that it allows. It allows for code forking, modification, etc. Don't cry too hard though - at least it's not a BSD style license so the code is still being released. Eric Raymond's "unwritten rules" that all open source developers understand, discourage code forks and other "rude" behaviour. Companies like Corel feel they can influence a development path and, unfortunately, they're right. You don't have to incorporate their changes but they can go wandering merrily off down their own path. I'm not sure who said this but it seems apropos: "When you dine with the devil, use a very long spoon." We WANTED commercial companies to develop for Linux. There's bound to be consequences.
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
The key is not to allow any one voice to overpower the rest so that it becomes effectively a free source of development for the voice in question. Clearly companies who are releasing the fruits of the project commercially are the ones to be most wary of because they have to serve both the software and their paying users.
It seems that as open source moves into the spotlight more and more, there will be an increasing number of bodies joining the party and then trying to make it their party rather than everyones.
I don't however see any point in panicing. Providing the members of a community realise this may happen and remain vigilant they can easily try to minimise any negative aspects of the contributions of the corporations many seem to fear.
I am not qualified to assess whether Corel is a creeping black cancre on open source, BUT... being a profssional tester I am regrettably over-qualified to address the tone of hostility the author assumes towards testing. He writes in part:
"Changing file types is an advanced feature, and it should not be so easily accessible from a right-click menu," said one, on June 9. "A new user could easily handicap his or her system by accidentally playing around with settings without a clear understanding of their purpose." A bug? What here isn't working as designed? Or a dumbing down of KDE? Is there a single case of any KDE user ever "handicapping his or her system" by slapdash changing of file types?
It may be that the bug database for Debian is structured in such a way as to distinguish "bugs" from "design change requests". However, the supercilious attitude this developer assumes towards a voluntary bug submission is way too common in computing. Open source projects trawling for contributors often proclaim 'if you can't code, file bugs!' but if this is the attitude a bug filed in goodwill can expect to generate, don't be suprised to see your userbase ossify out to 99% hard-core developers and only 1% or 2% OSS newbies.
It's an unfortunate fact that development often looks down upon test, not the least because QA is staffed by typically less-educated or -skilled individuals. Keep in mind, however, that without this buffer of moderately knowledgeable testers between consumers and devs with their fingers stuffed in the code, many key issues of usability and quality will be pooh-poohed right out the door. The dialogs aren't consistent? Well who gives a fuck! They work, don't they? Ship it!
When you're getting QA input for free, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
And thus was my faith in the merging of poetry and humor restored.
(no guess, by the way... Anyone?)