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."
The really interesting question is where does this convergence start? Are the reward systems, involving kudos and problem-solving pleasure for free software, and money for commercial software, fundamentally different? I suspect they're not, and that there is much less difference between an open source project and commercial product development than is sometimes thought. I'd guess that the more successful examples of each strongly resemble each other.
3dwm is an interesting 3D window manager project (not an X11 window manager though)...definitely a bit different from the "same basic look and feel"
Dear Mr. Dirk Mueller and Mr. Jeff Waugh:
The ACME Sales Corporation is proud to announce a solution to your problems. The XJ19 Laser tatoo removal kit. It will even remove the "Sucker" tatoos clearly emblazended upon your foreheads. How did you get conned into taking these jobs? Cat hearding is easy in comparison to the tasks you each wield. For only $99.95, and three sacrificial rubber chickens, we will gladly send you our kit.
But seriously, thanks for all the fish!
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
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."
As a project Manager I can really associate with these guys..
;)
;) If it looks to tough to finish in time, delay it for the next release.. I have seen releases with 50 updates and fixes scaled back to 10-15.
;) Mind you I would recommend it to anyone who wants to see how project teams, communities and stakeholders react to what happens with software releases. As the release manager you are one of the few who ever gets to see all sides of the argument.
I became a release manager at the company where I used to work by volunteering... it nearly gave me a heart attack after 18 months.
Release dates are set at standard intervals becasue theat's the way it has always been done
Scope changes to meet time available
Time to code ! bah no release manager has time for sleep, family or counter-strike..
and all of the above explains why I now do Business Continuity rather than release management
lounge around on the blue couch
My question is, is there any project of the same calibre (of would be soon), that does a native look and feel (modern and cool, like in movies) for Linux/BSD's ?
Amma, the destops you see in movies look cool on the screen, but that's their only good point. Their user interfact is horrible. Movie producers purposefully give computers on movies a "computerish" look; for example, movie computers often have green text (a la the text in The Matrix, when Neo sees it), which has been obsolete for years -- it's hard on the eyes.
Movie destops also have an excessive amount of animation. Trust me, you'd hate any desktop that worked that way -- it'd run like absolute molasses.
The user experience I've had that most closely resembles a movie desktop is application built using Flash, like you find on web sites and enhanced CDs. These apps try to emulate the look and feel of movie desktops.
#define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."
Have you tried windowmaker (part of the gnustep desktop)? Its not as full featured as KDE or Gnome but it runs their apps fine, is much more light weight and doesn't feel like windows at all.
Kinda like Mac OS X, eh? Yeah, yeah, it's getting better, but it's still pretty slow compared to other operating systems with less flash.
Interestingly, most of those movie GUIs are built using Macromedia Director (or similar), so building the same thing out of Flash makes sense. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those movie web sites actually took most of the code directly from the mock-up made for the movie itself. It shouldn't be difficult to do.
Personally, I like usability with a bit of flash. Something like Window Maker, while very useable (it should be, since it's based on NeXT), is rather boring. Enlightenment, while flashy, isn't that useable in my opinion. In that vein, I'm pretty happy with Windows XP. It's themeable (link is down at the moment, but according to the notice it should be back up in a half an hour -- I doubt that, but check back in a day or two), so I can get my eye candy, but it's also very useable. Say what you will, Microsoft has spent a small fortune on useability testing, and most of what they've done works well. Brush it off as familiarity if you will, but there are concrete examples of Windows useability getting better (small example: the Start button now has infinite borders, just like the Apple menu in Mac OS -- throw the mouse down to the lower left and click, you'll get the start menu).
I understand the above post's fact that it would be very difficult to create another set of libraries along with a desktop environment.
Yet the parent asks why the 2 major desktop environments look like Windows.
So why couldn't one (or a group of developers) combine both of these statements and create a window manager with a "modern and cool, like in the movies" interface that is compatable with either the GTK or QT libraries or both, (plus or minus patches for this window manager to make it compatable with the GTK or QT libraries)?
Though I am not a heavy developer, the concept of this wouldn't be difficult. It would be like rebuilding fluxbox to make it run KDE apps 100% natively instead of using a "transparency layer (?)" just so you can use KDE apps in fluxbox (or WindowMaker or IceWM etc).
Let me take your unwritten assumptions in order.
Assumption: The goal of GNOME and KDE is to convert Windoze users.
Truth: There are as many goals for these projects as there are developers. The goal of converting Windows users is definitely on the list somewhere for some developer, but overall it is very low on the totem pole. Much higher are the goals of "scratching my itch", "improving the desktop I use", and "writing my application in this awesome development framework I've found."
Assumption: Windoze users will be more comfortable in a cloned Windoze environment.
Truth: There are two kinds of Windows users. Those that can't stand change and those that want to get away from that crappy desktop. Nothing is going to please the former but the genuine article available only from Microsoft. The latter don't want that article, which is why they're leaving.
Assumption: GNOME and KDE emulate the Windoze look and feel.
There is some resemblance between GNOME/KDE and Windows. But it's superficial only. Take a second glance and there's no comparison. The Windows desktop is ugly and very low in usability. On the other hand, both GNOME and KDE have great usability and look good. There is no comparison between Kicker/Panel and the Windows taskbar. There is no comparison between KWin/Sawfish and the Windows "window manager". There is no comparison between Konqueror/Nautilus and the Windows Explorer. Etc, etc, etc.
Assumption: There is a native look and feel for Linux/BSD somewhere if I can find it.
Truth: There is not a native look to Linux/BSD. Trust me, I've checked. That's because there isn't *a* native look, but multiple native looks. Among them are GNOME and KDE.
There is no centralized authority over the *Nix look and feel, so there will never be just one, no matter how hard Redhat tries.
Assumption: The desktops in movies are modern and cool.
Truth: They sure look modern and cool, but they also look like usability nightmares.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
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
No, 90% of users will never change the skin. If more than 10% will, then GNOME/KDE still have a long way to go (96%+ of windows users never change the color scheme; 75%+ never change the wallpaper)
Now, I would really love to hear where you got your stats from.
KDE and Gnome releases are fine, but compared to the Mozilla build/release process, managed by the enigmatic Leaf, they are 2nd class. Mozilla developers created their own tools to do it, too. Mozilla is cross platform, continuous builds, bug tracking integrated with version control, and they released regularly on a five week cycle (now quarterly), and daily build and smoketests. And once again, Mozilla is cross-platform -- Linux, Windows, and Mac OS 9/X.
Sorry to crash the party, but I have yet to see KDE or Gnome approach the bar that Leaf and Brendan Eich set high.
..movie operating systems have bad useability?!..
Ive never had problems with my movie operating system. Say... you want to hack someone? Simple!
Step 1: Open 'Elite Hacking Utility' in the 'Extras' submenu of the startbar.
Step 2: Enter the IP Address of your target, or click 'Hack Previous Download Stream' to hack the last server you sent data to. Then click OK
Step 3: 'Elite Hacking Utility' will automatically determine which OS the hackee is running, and then will prompt you if you wish to proceed. Click OK to continue, or Quit to exit the program.
Step 4: The hackee computer is running "Debian Linux." If you press okay, Elite Hacking Utility will hack through any firewalls and give you full access to that computer, using simple translators to convert anything to the file types supported by the OS. You will then gain complete access to their computer and all their files. You have not owned them! Although Elite Hacking Utility is a very safe program, there is a rare chance that the hackee could make a counter-attack, that Elite Hacking Utility may be unable to stop. To proceed, click OK, to choose a different IP address, click Back, to exit the program, click Quit, if you need assistance, press the Help key on your keyboard or choose Elite Hacking Help from the Help menu.
Simple!
They keep mentioning it in the article and I must admit I have no idea what that is. My best guess would be it's some crazy abbreviation for installation.
...which usually includes docs, i18n, etc. as well as maintainers...
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
Bugzilla is way far from being the best bug tracking software. For example just compare it featureset with RT.
--
Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)
Well, it wasn't strictly a Unix system - it was an IRIX system.
Actually this isn't true of GNOME any more. The default layout is as far as I can tell unique. You can see a screenshot of it here.
There is a bar across the top Mac style (though that's the only similarity to the mac), and a taskswitcher with desktop switcher at the bottom. There are two menus, Applications and Actions (which makes sooo much sense I can't help but think, why did nobody think of this before?). You can add your own applets to the panels, or add your own. It's not only extremely flexible, but very intuitive as well.
Having said that, I wouldn't recommend GNOME2 for new users yet. I'm using it now, and it's interesting as much for what it lacks as for what it's got. It's clearly a fantastic foundation to build on, and I await the 2.2 release with interest. Hopefully Nautilus won't suck then.
But anyway. The old bottom panel with the foot system has gone (unless you use RedHat) - I suggest you check out those screenshots of Jimmacs. They are too sweet. And nothing like Windows or the Mac, or KDE.
KDE with different settings.
The fundamental problem in UI design is that since the "ah ha!" insight that created the WIMP interface and the desktop metaphor, there hasn't been another key insight or breakthrough. Having once seen an actual Star workstation in action I can attest that a Star user wouldn't have any difficulty using the current Mac or Windows interface - they are fundamentally the same. Everyone agrees that we need something better than the W95 desktop - its just that no one can figure out what that is.
sPh
> (modern and cool, like in movies)
You apparently have seen different movies than I have. The movie
desktops I've seen don't provide any facility for launching apps,
switching between apps, or anything else useful. They usually
consist of one big screen-filling dialog box containing options
for performing impossible feats, such as trying all the
possibilities for a sixteen-character password in thirty seconds,
or uploading a fatal virus to an alien computer system about
which nothing is known. Also, they have about 160x50 resolution,
which is anything but modern and cool.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
The flash app of which you speak --- may we view it? Grazi.
Need a Linux consultant in New Orleans?
www.enlightenment.org
In principle I agree with you, but playing Devil's Advocate let me ask:
Now we have to install 2 complete desktops just to run most Linux GUI applications.
How much disk space will we need if we have to install 3 or 4 desktops just to run a couple of apps?
No sig for the moment.
Okay, question then. Without referring to the availablity of applications (which is a separate issue) or the difficulty in installing and configuring the underlying operating system (another separate issue), why do you prefer the Windows *desktop* over the alternatives?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I believe you can get them running on OSX, but why bother? They are seriously crippled on that platform due to lack of full POSIX compliance, and people buy OS X largely for the GUI. Anyway. Let's deal with your criticisms
First of all, the desktop icons... they look... weird. It's some weird angle on the icons. Also, the shoadow on the bottom of the icons don't make sense. The shadow on the front of the folders should be eliminated.
These folders are, fyi, SVG icons so they can be scaled to any size. Because this shot was of an early beta of GNOME2, not all the icons had been converted, hence the 2 different styles (both of which I think look quite nice really). I don't know what you mean about the shadows, the icons look fine to me. This really seems to be merely a personal aesthetic issue, which is fine, that's why we have icon themes.
Also, in the 'gfx' icon, I don't see what the slide should mean. The toolbar icons should be made a bit larger, or the toolbar itself should be made a bit smaller. Users are too apt to miss the button.
The slide - who knows? It was a demo of the different folder decorations you can have. There's no need to use it, if you don't think it's appropriate. The toolbars are fine, I use them all the time and you don't have to click directly on the image, as long as you're close it works OK.
Finally, the text rendering on the taskbar(which is not unique, but win95ish) looks weird. Look at 'Keyboard Accessibility Control'. The text should probably be squeezed or truncrated, but instead it clashes with the icon.
That was a minor bug that has since been fixed. I'm using it now, and the buttons are fine.
Oh yeah, the 'applications' menu, sounds macos-classic-ish, but I can't tell since I haven't actually seen it.
I've used Classic a bit, I don't recall any Applications menu. At least on the mac I used, everything was started either from the finder, or DragThing.
The point was not to hold up that particular screenshot as UI perfection itself, but to demonstrate that gnome has a fairly unique look to it.