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.
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."
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
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!
Internationalization. It's abbreviated "i18n" because there's an "i", 18 more letters, then an "n".
KDE has very impressive i18n tools (Fire up kbabel and take a look if you're running KDE right now), and I'd assume that any major project (Gnome, Mozilla, etc) all have nice tools as well. Unfortunatly, due to an oversight in Unicode, KDE's support for tlhIngan Hol uses the english alphabet.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Well, it wasn't strictly a Unix system - it was an IRIX system.
Kdevelop is direct competitor of [the] MS programming environment.
No, it isn't.
Most importantly, KDevelop is not a commercial product, so it has nothing to compete for. Sure, it's nice if lots of people use it, but ultimately it matters not at all how many "customers" KDevelop has. As long as there are interested developers, the project will thrive.
More obviously, KDevelop targets only unix apps; MSVB targets only windows apps. They're in completely different "markets".
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.