Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Explains Stance on KDE/Gnome Desktop Changes
An anonymous reader writes "A lot of people are angry over the changes RedHat has done to KDE and Gnome in their latest beta, code-named Null. They have basically "nullified" all the default themes and settings with which each desktop attempts to posture for more users. Instead, there is now a beautiful unified look. To explain RedHat's stance, Owen Taylor writes this piece here. I hope that RedHat successfully forces both Gnome and KDE to become compatible with one another which would result in the creation of a single desktop. This would be the greatest gift to the Linux world."
I couldn't agree with RedHat's statement any more. I definately feel that a unified look and feel is something that Linux has always needed. People need to be able to look at a system and recognize it. You can always recognize Windows by the look of it, as it should be for Linux. Users need this to use Linux. If you want people to use Linux for their desktop they must first feel comfortable with it...
------ This has been provided as a public service! ------
So, basically their reaction to users having a choice is to try and negate that choice by making the options as similar as possible. How very MicroSoft!
I think you're missing the point here. The idea is to unify a desktop solution so that people who are familiar with MS (read: most of the world) are not terrified of trying to configure a Linux box. I don't see this as MS-like. I see this as a step in advancing Linux as a desktop solution.
The whole point of having KDE/GNOME/WindoMaker/Et al is to allow people to pick the one that suits them.
Very true. If the experts who are used to Linux want it, they should still be available 'untouched' for them to install and configure. But let's face a fact here: RedHat is becoming the easiet of the distros to install and configure; making the setup and configuration less daunting for newcomers is a step in the right direction.
If RH don't like this then why don't they just drop the one(s) they don't want people to use?
Don't you think that this is more MS-like than trying to unify their desktop components? To just drop packages they don't like would be a true method of negating choice. THAT would be a step in the wrong direction.
--Kylus
Idiot-proof something, and Life will build a better Idiot.
-sigh-
:)
Look, RedHat is right on this one. Finally, after years of frustration, someone might just drag linux kicking and screaming into the desktop market.
I swear, linux does not want to be mainstream. Sure, everyone talks about how they want their favorite OS to be taken seriously on the desktop, but no one wants to take the steps necessary to do it. I like choice, don't get me wrong. But most users do not give a shit about choice. They want AOL and MS Word. They want the start button. Fine, give them the start button, give them an MS Word clone. Let the world view linux with this perspective: a solid OS that 'just works' with a standard interface and standard applications that work as well as those on Windows. And for those who want to do more, we have other "versions" of the OS that allow other desktops, applications and such.
To sit here and rip them for 'taking away choice' is just ignorant and, well, stupid. Please, people. I like WindowMaker, but I also know what we need to make linux work outside of the server room and the geek's bedroom. Don't forget, programs like 'switchdesk' exist for a reason. Those who want to use it, and those who can use it, are not prohibited from it.
Bravo RedHat. Lead linux into battle for the server and desktop. Let everyone else follow. I need to get back to my kernel compile, now.
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
The real reason everyone likes to have multiple desktop environments is for choice. The choice to develop applications with the toolkit of your choice. This is great because, as everyone loves to say around here, "this is what makes Linux great, choice and freedom."
But as with all choices to diverge, rather than unify, someone suffers. Up unitl now that has been the end user -- the person all this software was written for in the first place, or is it? KDE and Gnome are great, but they offer two different window kits, two different looks and feels, and two different user experiences. This is bad for the end user. If I am KDE die hard and want to use a Gnome application, I can, the only problem is that it's going to look and feel like a Gnome app on my KDE desktop. And if I was a Gnome user the above situation would be reversed, you get the idea.
The point here is that Red Hat has done a great service to the KDE and Gnome teams. They have taken two incompatible, entirely different desktops, and unified them for the benefit of the end user.
Let's not forget that Linux is about freedom not only for the developer, but for the end user. Well written applications are designed with the user in mind. If the KDE and Gnome teams want to contribute to the Linux/*nix community in a truly free and open maner, they will see this move for what it is: a change to allow developers to continue to innovate in the way they see fit, using the right tools for the job at hand, all while improving user experience. That's what it's all about. Right?
Indeed, because if the desktop is more appealing then more people will use it and if more people use it then companies will start to consider it a viable market for software (applications and drivers) and when there is greater support for Linux then more people will move to it because it has the applications they want and so on and so on ...
Microsoft are already doing Linux a favour with their licence changes, but that doesn't mean that we should expect people that are brave enough to change to come to the Linux side (at the moment, I'd say they're more likely to go to Apple, as they have consistency and ease of use down to a tee)
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
11 comments, and most of them are people grumbling about how Red Hat is squeezing choice out of the hands of the user. But really, is this true? What RH has done (from what I hear, I don't chase bleeding-edge distros, usually) is just change the way things look. They've provided a different default appearance. How is this worse from the default appearances provided by the GNOME and KDE teams? (RH's arguments for why it's better are in the article, you should read it :3 )
It's not like Red Hat is releasing modified versions of GNOME and KDE that don't let you customize the appearance; then, only then, would the complaints about choice be founded. The people who really care about the difference between GNOME and KDE probably do so on reasons deeper than 'the default theme looks cool'. (Personally, I don't really like either of the default appearances that much ^^; ) So, when nagora asks "If RH doesn't like this, why don't they drop the one they don't want people to use?" the answer is: they don't care what you use, but they want the defaults to look reasonably similar, because they know that people who really don't *want* their default theme either know how to change it or probably have settings that they'll import anyway.
Remember who Red Hat's intended market share is: the corporate environment. A lot of people I've talked to recently agree that RH's biggest 'ins' are (or should be) for office workstations. Lots of places implement a baseline standard that they want to look the same, but that people can customize if they want to (as long as they don't spend hours tweaking it). This is the mentality that RH seems to target. Yes, this isn't for everyone, but that's the point ... there are plenty of good distributions out there, and many more choices out there if you really really don't like it. But no-one said you have to use Red Hat. (Although I could understand concerns about RH-isms creeping into LSB, but nobody's brought that up.)
Remember, RH == vendor for corporate enviroments. Corporate environments like standard desktops, so this move makes sense in Red Hat's perspective.
The idea is: What looks the same behaves the same.
Which is not the case with current Gnome and KDE. And probably never will be.
I have different desktop themes and backgrounds at work and at home for a reason. My mind and my fingers automatically switch passwords and procedures, because without conscious effort I recognize the different environment and switch to different trained behaviour. Also, the few Gnome programs I am using look decidedly different than the KDE stuff I am using, and this helps a lot. Looking different, I do not expect the Gnome stuff to operate like the KDE grouping around it, and automatically treat it differently.
Kristian
I get the distinct impression that the Red Hat team is trying hard to not push their biases onto their users. It's fairly clear the Red Hat's developers are more adept with Gtk+/Gnome than Qt/KDE, and there's nothing wrong with that - if they were better at Qt, we'd still be having this discussion.
When you realize you have a bias towards one group, you have two options - defend your bias and try to convince others, or work extra-hard to give the other team a fair chance. I think Red Hat is trying to give KDE a fair chance because the whole idea of Linux is to give users the right to choose.
Maybe I was just sucked in to Red Hat's PR speech, but I really have to agree with their philosophy of providing a nearly identical UI on both WM's. It prevents novices from choosing one over the other just because of configuration differences such as single- vs. double-clicking icons. It annoys me to no end when a user tells me he/she didn't like product A because of a default setting that happened to be set differently in product B. In doing this, Red Hat may have made KDE "act like" Gnome, but I believe that it is inadvertant, just because the Red Hat team has gotten used to settings more typical to Gnome.
Having said all that, though, think about this: If you know the difference, you can change it. If some guy who knows nothing about Linux doesn't know the difference, will he care?
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
I'm tired of variety! Some days, I come to work, and I just want the damn thing to work. I'd like the perfect background, and themes. All the menu options would be well thought out, and in the right spot etc. I realize that this will never happen, but I get really tired of having everything non-standard and haveing to recreate my desktop whenever a new version comes out. There is sooo much choise out there that it takes forever to become educated in enough different areas to trully be able to function most effectivly. Just let the community reach some sort of consensus on what is the best in an area an include in a distro. I used to follow hardware (workded for a white box computer store) every day. But it just got old. I just want the phreak'n thing to work,have a little eyecandy, and some best of breed apps so that I can get on with my job. Where I have 10 zillion other dicisions to make regarding HW/SW etc.
-jj-
I am (was?) a more die-hard Linux user than most on Slashdot. I still love Linux on the server. But the split between GNOME and KDE, and therein between GNOME 1.x and 2.x, prompted me to drop Linux as a desktop platform in favor of Mac OS X. Without focusing on the platform I switched to, let me explain.
When actually trying to get work done, and not simply tinker around, having essentially three different widget sets and standards is a nightmare. I wasn't even using GNOME or KDE as a desktop; I used fluxbox. But some of my GNOME apps looked one way, the 2.x ones looked another, and the KDE apps yet another. Then comes trying to remember the keyboard shortcut conventions: do I shut this down with ctl-Q, ctl-x, alt-q, alt-x? On top of all this, there's the bloat of carrying around libraries for all three widget sets, and all their dependencies (and I still had a pretty stripped down install; I was running Gentoo).
Day-to-day, this made for a truly unpleasant, unproductive, and frustrating desktop experience, without even getting into issues of stability. Many will toot the horn of diversity and choice, but in this the GNOME/KDE split is simply a massive hassle for new and experienced users alike. I'm the secretary for my college's Linux User Group, and explaining the differences between all the desktop environments confuses new users into a catatonic state, leaving them so confused they don't know where to go for what.
I won't say that Linux can never succeed on the desktop. It just needs a shitload of work, and and the demolition of this KDE/GNOME barrier.