Slashdot Mirror
Richard Stallman On KDE/GNOME Cooperation
Karma Sucks writes: "For the first time that I remember, RMS is encouraging collaboration between the GNOME and KDE projects. He offers a concrete idea: Unifying the themes between KDE and GNOME. Matthias Ettrich once went far enough to propose a default unified 'Linux' theme that both Qt and GTK+ could support."
I've never heard of it before. I would have posted themes.org as the link. But that's me. kde-look is a very nice website, but is there a GNOME equivalent?
Everything is mainstream now.
Oh wait, my bad, this idea is so obvious it's rediculous. Does anybody have a valid reason why it hasn't happened already?
Ideally, I'd like to see as many applications as possible running under both environments. With most Linux distributions currently, the libraries for both environments are supplied. I'd like to see this become standard, and I'd also like to see an interface library developed in collaboration which will translate calls to either gnome or kde, depending on which is running. This library would have to be primarily written in C++ to suit the existing QT/KDE application base, but would also need to have C and other language bindings.
I use KDE but prefer Mozilla. I am *sick* of the incompatible clipboards that KDE/GTK use. As a matter of fact, I just complained to my co-worker about this and said, "This is why a monopoly is a good thing: someone to declare 'clipboard functions work this way or no way'". Damn I hate this.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
KDE is so much nicer to develop for than GNOME imho but I prefer to use GNOME, I'm sure that others have differing opinions about what they like and hate about each environment, but working together to provide maybe the ultimate desktop experiance would be brilliant!
I know this opinion is a little radical and not likely to happen, but if I had my eutopia, that would be it!
We'll soon get GNU/KDE and KGNOME?
Why would you have stability problems running KDE apps in gnome, and vice-versa? They're only X-Apps - konsole, gimp, and the rest couldn't care less what window manager/desktop environment/file manager/web browser you're using.
This space intentionally left blank.
He explained his reasons for opposing KDE. As you even said in your summation, it had nothing to do with who was in charge and everything to do with the license. The license has since changed, so there is no more need to oppose KDE.
People who assume his attack on the license was an attack on the people who chose to use that license are the ones who come off as ideologues.
Nope, no sig
Flamewars like the Gnome/KDE one have always been a side-effect on free projects that have the same final purpose (and on free projects in general ;), but it's true that the rivality between developpers of such important components has to disappear. The idea is good, and given its originator it may have a considerable impact on future GUI development aims.
;)
:]
But I'm not quite sure if a compatible theme engine is the way to go... Many people still consider themed desktops as a waste of time and space, and sometimes you can find really awful things on themes.org
Another direction may be the component object model itself. There has been, IIRC, at least one attempt to start an uniform interface between ORBIT and the KDE object model, and others may be under way.
IMHO, this would be a much better challenge for Gnome/KDE integrators, and provide a broader signal to the GUI community.
Microsoft has made COM first, then made XP skinnable. Of course, the Linux themes.org effect was not present then (IIRC), and maybe it was sheer luck. It worked for them anyway.
But I'll sure fancy some skinnable icons while drag/dropping objects between Gnome and KDE apps
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
This is good news! What's next? An abstraction of the widget sets so that programmers can code to a neutral API that can be deployed on both GTK and QT (Or Gnome and KDE) at once?!?! When are we going to see that? :)
AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak
RMS didn't like KDE because it was not "free" -- and in fact, in his opinion, it's position was threatening Free Software in general (it undermined the GPL, it took people away from developing Free alternatives, etc). So he argued against KDE, in favor of GNOME, a truely Free alternative.
KDE is now Free, in part because of serious amounts of lobbying by the Free Software Community, including RMS. KDE is no longer the bad guy, RMS no longer has a beef with KDE.
Now that the "Free KDE" battle is over, RMS is now saying "Um guys... we won -- ALL of us (KDE and GNOME) won, last year. It's time, past time, to stop sabre-rattling at each other". Since Qt became GPL-compatable, I haven't seen RMS stoking the GNOME v. KDE fires. Now he's trying to quench the GNOME v. KDE fires, because leaving them smouldering is bad for Free Software in general.
I don't know about anyone else, but I always thought it was funny how the Open Source community yelled about "standards," yet we have so many damn standards that there aren't any.
Now that license issues are cleared up, RMS has a chance and he's gonna take it. Eliminate two, create one. This isn't a bad thing, since you STILL have the source.
We have options for customization, and a lot of freedom, but what we lack is any real consolidation (IE eliminating redundant standards), thus creating a plethora of pitfalls for software developers.
This is one thing I think the Linux Standards Base should cover. More than just one boring, rather useless "base," it should cover MANY bases, and specify standard APIs, installations, and specifications for systems/software. Hell make Linux Standard Base certification like that damn Made for Windows XX logo.
Theory:
LSB defines a desktop base, a server base, and an embedded base.
On the desktop base you have modules (not necessarily compatible), say Gaming Module which includes all necessary packages and auto-detection and config info, a Network client module that automatically loads remote config utilities and any necessary client software, and a workstation module that adds it's required things.
Same for server and embedded.
Also have the LSB supply standard definitions for the GUI APIs. Standard Themes, fonts, what have you.
If you can build a solid foundation for your system and get it under control (community control, it's still ours), then you'll attract users. I think that's a bit of what RMS is trying to do here.
Back in November 2001, when RMS was candidate to the GNOME Board of Directors, there was a discussion on /. about the reasons why he applied.
Just a couple days before, he had said during a conference in Paris that his primary reason to apply to the board was to support cooperation between GNOME and KDE (see my post), eventhough it wasn't clearly stated in his answers to the GNOME board candidacy questionnaire.
I'm really happy to see that it was not only electoral bulls**t.
Maybe he is the last person you could have think of for such a task (especially knowing his position toward the KDE team in the old days of the QPL), but here he comes with this simple (as in not heavily political) practical (as in usefull) first step... so let's try !
Actually, there's a pretty simple argument against this. Standardizing the desktop stagnates innovation. With a standard "Linux" desktop, all distributions for a good amount of time will have to follow that standard or face alienating their users. Look at how little the MacOS interface changed before OSX and how only with Windows XP has Windows had a major interface revision - and even now it is still heavily rooted in the framework of prior revisions.
Personally, I agree with you and think a standard would be a good idea. Taking a step away from rapid developement and making a single stable interface would do wonders for acceptance. Besides, you can always have easily accessible information on configuring your interface how you like it. Still though, the arguement against this is pretty obvious.
I'd probably say that the best idea would be for some group to go and dedictate a year or so to making the be-all-end-all of interfaces. Not some wierd hybrid of previous interfaces like most distros ship now, but something that is simple, elegent, etc. Other people have said it, and I'll repeat - like the OSX interface. I'm not saying it's the most efficient, but it consistently does what you intuitively expect it to do. That's what a defacto Linux "theme" would need to do. The only other option, I suppose, is just to copy Windows or OSX or another highly developed/researched interface. There simply exists nothing right now that would make sense to call the default desktop.
Debian is close to releasing and they are talking about a unified Linux desktop theme. Hell most have frozen over or this is a sign of the apocalypse!
Gorkman
- It will address what's generally felt to be KDE's biggest drawback.
- Do the same for Mozilla and every other C++ project, free and non-free, running on GNU systems.
- Point up the importance of the GNU contribution to what's generally referred to as Linux. (Not that I'm thrilled to see him getting more ammunition to pester us on that score, but it's not until I was cursing out the FSF for making C++ apps run so slow that I realized he's actually got a good point.)
Besides, it's something he's in a position to actually do, and which doesn't require anyone to sacrifice existing work.(Poor guy -- he's like Alan Greenspan, where every public utterance is turned into a grand policy question.)
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Think about it. Compare to 'windows' in its simplicity if you like. We want to create a unified GNU/Linux desktop operating system and not play around with fancy names. (Designed for X Windows, anyone? :-)
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
shit man, the source is there, if it pisses you off *that much* then fix it.
Getting rid of the inconsistency and incompatabilty in X is hardly a one man job.
It's hardly a 1000 man job.
Hell, removing inconsistency from X is like removing religion from church - it just can't be done.
C-X C-S
Why?
Nobody is suggesting anyone be locked into these. Nobody is suggesting these be graven into stone never to become v.2 as progress marches on.
What this would do would be provide a common basis for new folks, a baseline for support folks, a universal look for screen-shots and documentation. If along the way some solid UI design were applied, usability testing done and minimal esthetics incorporated then so much the better.
Tweak away, replace, bend, fold, spindle, mutilate. But at least folks who are bewildered and lost could go to a common default and see something reasonable and trivially relate it to the documention or support folks. A simple menu option of "Default" would do wonders and all the better that it be consistant across toolkits.
Of course the next question is "What?" Here's where I think a good process of involving folks who are knowledgable in this area along with things like testing and feedback and skills in UI-standards-making would be incredibly valuable. Nothing against the coders but frankly, and many would agree, many desktops today are bad Windows reimplementations, wannabe-MacOS X looks or terrible pistaches of any number of good-ideas-running-into-eachother. A committee of KDE and Gnome AND others working on a timeline with a budget and a set of goals and opportunity for community feedback would be ideal, something with conflict-resolution built in from the beginning.
And if it stinks up the place it gets ignored. Or fixed in v.2. But at least we'll have taken the chance of a basic common UI gtting a shot and possibly accruing the benefits that would accrue from such. As for those looking to use something different, more innovative, more complex, more suited to them - go right ahead.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
The main reason for the split, is the widget set dependence of GNOME and KDE. Until this issue is resolved, deeper interoperability issues won't likely be resolved.
You *should* be able to use Qt write a complete GNOME application that obeys GNOMEs theming rules, uses Bonobo, GConf and other GNOME technologies.
You *should* be able to use Gtk+ write a complete KDE application that obeys KDE's theming rules, uses KParts, DCOP and other KDE technologies.
Yes, it may be *easier* to write KDE applications with Qt, and GNOME applications with Gtk+, each desktop/platform shouldn't be *tied* to these widget sets.
That's not the way it works now. At the moment, I believe that GNOME's technologies (at least the one's in GNOME 2) are more decoupled from the widget set than KDE's. For instance, it's possible to write a Qt application that uses GConf2, Orbit2, GStreamer, and Bonobo2 without linking in any Gtk+. If you *really* work at it, you should also be able to integrate with GNOME's accessibility framework by hooking Qt components to the appropriate ATK+ options. That's a fair chunk of GNOME already. But there are many other GNOME features that Qt applications can't take advantage of.
"....we had to attack it [KDE] to make people aware of the threat"
The attacks were vehement, nasty and for the most part unwarranted. I never saw KDE as a "threat" and considering it a threat did nothing but waste a lot of energy (IMHO). Especially considering where the software was headed and the fact that EVERYONE KNEW that QT would have an open source license eventually.
While I endorse the idea of some interoperability I tend to take a step back and look for other motives. Members of the KDE team have long tried to get some interoperability between the 2 desktops and were repeatedly rebuffed. It's a nice idea, but considering some of the mudslinging thats gone on over the past few years, I'm with holding judgment.
Hopefully the axe is buried, considering there are some admin's out there running open relays because it was the right thing to do in 1990, I expect to see it dug up a few more times. That's the problem with religious wars where you unfairly vilify the enemy it makes it hard to work with them when they are on your side. I'm glad some people are starting to consider the big picture.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
RMS wrote: When Qt was non-free, KDE was a danger to the community
... I don't think a monoculture is the way to go
The way I read it as, not having been under a rock for the last decade is: When Qt didn't use my specific licence, KDE was a danger to the community.
He meant exactly what he said. Part of communication is understanding where the other person is coming from, and not taking potshots at others because they believe in different things than you. RMS believes that it's important that people use all Free software, and a huge project of Free software that depended on non-Free software was a threat to that. He did what he felt he had to; deal.
I'll keep doing it for as long as he wants to be in charge of other peoples projects.
Why, when RMS makes comments on what direction GNOME and KDE should go, "he wants to be in charge", but you can make all the comments you want? He has the right to make his opinion known, as do you, and people can listen or not as they want.
"Don't feed the troll"...
Just look at his username. What good can one get discussing anything with such people?
On the other hand, as a Linux desktop user (Mandrake 8.1 but seriously considering Suse), I would say that you are going a bit too far when you say Linux is easier to use than Windows.
For a very special kind of user, the kind you have to baby-sit be them on Windows, Linux or Mac, maybe. But I would really love to have everything working from the start.
Installation should tell me "Look pal, we don't support your funny soundcard, go buy something usable". Which I eventually did, but I shouldn't have to cope with a system that thinks some sound is being played when it isn't.
Apart from StarOffice, and I hate 5.2, all other pseudo-Word software couldn't cope with lightly formatted Word files.
But then there is development, and Linux is a far superior, controllable platform if you know what you after. And of course, Mozilla gets better each night.
I guess what I am trying to say is that Linux today is not always the best solution for the desktop, but it is amazing how far it came in, say, two years (if memory serves, two years ago it was still quite easy to burn a monitor misconfiguring X during installation - today distros will configure it automatically). I believe that Microsoft is even lending a hand, by changing its licensing policy. The corporate world will be looking very hard at Linux for their millions of desktops.
But there is still a long way to go before Linux desktops can show the maturity one sees in MacOS X, for instance.
Version after version, distro after distro, app after app, I still don't have a unified clipboard to simply copy and paste between apps.
Give me a unified clipboard, or give me death.
If anything, there are too many standards.
;)
Too many APIs, yes, I would agree.
Standards? No. I think the last attempt at standardizing X toolkits was Motif/CDE.
it would be hypocritical for communities founded on freedom and openness to embrace the principles of oppression and design by fiat which underlie your suggestions.
So standards and guidelines are fascist now?
Whatever. If oppressive standards build things like global networks, I'll be happily oppressed.
If a system has a dozen redundant modules, then any bloat is the administator's fault - he or she did not remove the extra ones
How is having at least 4 ways[1] to create a pushbutton object "the administrator's fault"?
It's not like I can take gtk_create_pushbutton()[2] from the GTK library and replace it with Qt::Button or somesuch and expect the GTK program to run.
Perhaps you are thinking of the associated pixmap libraries or desktop environment libraries.
Well, they're kinda, like, required for most every app, so of course I included them.
That you can run them alongside one another is only meant to be a charming illustration of the community spirit and excellent engineering at work.
Excellent engineering.
That's why programs crash when you try to do complex things like "paste".
This isn't engineering, engineering implies well thought out design.
C-X C-S
[1] Gtk, Qt, Motif, Athena... (Fltk, FOX, OpenLook, Tk, XForms, WxWindows...)
[2] If that were a real GTK call, it'd be about 35 characters longer.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Possibly moving the focused windows up to the top edge so that they are joined onto the menubar, or some kind of hysteresis so that if you drag fast enough across the gap the focus does not change, or some idea nobody has thought of, would solve this. But until somebody does this I doubt you will see much interest in top-of-screen menubars from either the Linux or Windows advanced programmers.