Slashdot Mirror
Interview With The KDE And GNOME Release Managers
An anonymous reader writes "It has to be tough, keeping projects as big as GNOME and KDE organized, but that is the job given to those projects' 'release managers.' In an interview on Linux and Main, KDE's Dirk Mueller and GNOME's Jeff Waugh discuss their wacky, devil-may-care, hell-bent-for-leather, zany, fun-filled world -- the shadow, as T.S. Eliot put it, between the idea of a release and its reality."
I agree. I would like to see and "experemental" desktop, even if it's just for fun. As crazy as you can get while still being workable.
I think making a new window manager, like BlackBox or FluxBox, is as crazy and experimental as you can get. Making a system as big as a desktop work is a huge job. Keep in mind that a desktop environment consists of not only a window manager, but a set of libraries (QT/KDELIBS for KDE, GTK for GNOME), which are a huge job in and of themselves. Add in the need for core apps (since no one but no one will use a desktop that doesn't come with solitaire), and you've got a huge project, that people won't want to take a huge risk on.
Also, you don't need to emulate Windows using KDE/GNOME. Their default configurations just include a panel at the bottom of the screen with a K or a foot where the Windows Start Button is. The user is free to change this.
Finally, I must point out that a third major desktop environment is the last thing Free Software needs right now. We're already fractured by the fact that developers (both Free and commercial) must choose whether to base their apps on QT or GTK. Many major projects choose to target neither: OpenOffice, Mozilla, Kylix, and Adobe Acrobat Reader, for example. A better option would be for KDE and GNOME to move to a new user interface, while keeping their libraries intact.
#define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."
I disagree with the implied opinion that Free Software would be hurt by the development of another major desktop. The choice of which libraries to use when developing a new program seem not to have as much to do with what desktop environment you expect people to be using as it does with what a developer finds most comfortable to use and is best aligned with thier software licensing philosphy.
I say this because, as a KDE user, I can't think of a single instance in which a program written to use GTK has ever failed to run correctly (where 'correctly' is defined as 'the way it would run if I were using GNOME').
What would another desktop environment mean? It would mean I would have another choice. If it is better (for me) than KDE, I'd use it, if not it would be unlikely that I would have trouble running programs designed for its libraries. At worst it would mean I would have to have another set of libraries on my machine.
One somewhat valid objection to a new desktop environment would be that we could make our current desktops even better if the developers of our hypothetical desktop focused their efforts on one of the existing options. However that makes the often false assumption that said developers would actually spend their time in that manner were they not off creating their own desktop. Also this brings to mind cliches about too many chiefs.
In any case, I don't particularly feel as if I'm in any way entitled to make demands on how developers spend thier time if I get to benefit from their work at no cost.
Okay. I'm done rambling.
Alan
that the story has MS visual basic ADvert right in the middle?
;-) just like larry wall!
Sorry for OT trolling but kinda thought it to be real real ironic considering that Kdevelop is direct competitor of MS programming environment.
Moving back online to the topic, I felt the interview a bit more general with very general questions with even more general answers.
I guess more hard hitting interview is the need of the hour with the interviewer baying for blood
Better still get both of them together and lets have a flame war about wether KDe or Gnome is better. Too radical... I guess not i would really like to know what the KDE developers and leaders really feel for Gnome and vice a versa.. some interesting interview will be that!
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Mozilla is a single application suite; it is small compared to either KDE or Gnome.
Mozilla is a single application suite; it is small compared to either KDE or Gnome.
This is a joke, right?
I mean, there's even a company that is using Mozilla to create a nice interface for Linux machines. How exactly is this different from KDE/Gnome?
It's every bit a platform as KDE or Gnome: It provides a user interface via xml, scripting language support (javascript), the ability to write add-ons for it, and it includes an html rendering engine, a complete email program, an WYSIWYG html editor, an address book, and (soon) a calendar/scheduling program. And anything it gives up in size to KDE/Gnome, it makes back due to the cross-platform complexities.
"And like that