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, for one, like the different options we have in terms of desktop environments. I don't want either KDE or GNOME to go away.
I think the different desktop environments are important the way it's important to have variation in the gene pool.
We can only attain perfection through variety.
"If I were to ask you a hypothetical question, what would you like it to be about?"
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! ------
A standard desktop ? Then how will all the prima-donna point out how their desktop is so much better because of this or that bell and whistle.
What a horrible idea, leveling the playing field and have a standard theme that concentrates on usability and then a pure battle of abilities to determine who underpins it. If there can be no differentation in terms of buttons and icons then how would people judge if not by "see-through windows" v "tear-off tabs" and other such pointless arguments and wars.
Terrible concept, concetrate a team on a decent standard theme, and then have competition for the best engine behind it....
Umm wait, isn't this in effect the same as the Video card market where standards have led to the engines (the cards) being bought and swapped purely on the grounds of ability, sure each has "special" instructions, but for 99% of applications no one cares.
Oh and isn't it the same as the PC market, one instruction set, AMD v Intel.
Oh I see, thats what they want, what a great idea now I understand.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
This is a positive thing, for the reasons RedHat is stating; namely that many users don't want to make a decision between "this one" or "that one". How many times have people whined on /. that Linux will never make it to the desktop because there are too many tweaks things the users need to learn.
This is RedHat's way of making Linux more appealing to the end user. Good for them.
If you don't like it, do what I do and run Slackware (or other distro of choice), but bravo for the RedHat folks. This is a positive step.
I think Red Har has recognized that look and feel unification is a prerequisite to corporate entry. I understand the usual ./ user's opinion that desktop uniqueness is cool, but when you're a corporate help desk manager with a limited budget you don't need 2500 desktops looking different. It makes training more difficult too. The similarity of desktops is how MS can easily have people upgrade from Win98 to NT to 2000 to XP... the desktops are the same and retraining cost is minimal. Good for Red Hat!
If you have to support a product, standard look-and-feel is a good thing for you. If you allow advanced users to change whatever they want, good for us.
Where is the problem?
___ I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, and I Never Mod them UP.
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.
You can find some right here: Red Hat 'Null' Beta screens.
Note: they have not taken away any user choices. You can still completely change your KDE/GNOME appearance, perhaps even back to the KDE/GNOME defaults. The only things that might bug users are the changes they've made to the code, but we don't yet know what they are, or how significant they are, so we'll have to wait and see.
I for one would welcome it. I'd change my themes straight away, because I've spent far too much boredom-time making my KDE3 desktop look exactly how I want it. But I also had to spend quite a while getting GNOME and GTK+ apps to look right so they almost blend in with my KDE3 apps and desktop.
The final goal here is of course compatability in themes. I.e. you download and install a KDE theme, and you can then make your GTK apps look identical, either with the same theme, or a mirror package. It's something even RMS has proposed, and something that will make life a lot more pleasant for those aesthetic pedants like myself, without taking away any of the choice we have in desktops and looks. Hopefully RedHat will find a constructive way of using these code modifications to help the KDE & GNOME projects achieve this "integration".
I have to say, it does look very nice and I (being in the "lets have one desktop and do it right for the sake of consistency and adoption" camp) will definately be installing it when it is released.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
-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?
a few others
$bash>
;
c:\>
nothing else necessary
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Exactly. RedHat isn't taking away your ability to choose. If you want something to be different, change it. In the meantime, All the people who need standards to survive int he computer world can enjoy a little more of Linux than they could before.
Here's a bad computer-car analogy. If the Microsoft car has a steering wheel, and the Linux car has a numeric keypad (which undoubtably can do more), most people couldn't drive the Linux car.
RedHat is trying to push the Desktop Linux by making different GUIs work the same. This is known as "standards."
The real issue here is while there was a display manager that became the standard, these should have been something on interface design long ago.
We live in a world of standards, and yet the one thing that needs the most standardization is the one thing people push to have the least.
Free the GUI!
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
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 whole point of having different linux distos is to allow people to pick the one that suits them.
Don't like what RH is doing? Pick a different distro. Don't like what any of them are doing
I can recognise Windows by the fact that it is bland and ugly. I can recognise a GNU/Linux or FreeBSD desktop no matter what window manager is being used; I'd used just about all of 'em. Let Red Hat do what it wants with its distro; if you don't like what they do, then switch to Gentoo or FreeBSD. Red Hat is not Burger King, and "Have it your way" isn't one of Red Hat's slogans. So if you want Linux made your way, make it yourself.
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
There are two points Owen didn't strike home with a sledgehammer, so I'll say them:
First, those users who already know they PREFER the "old look" of KDE or GNOME can configure their new Red Hat Linux 8.0/Null++ to regain that old look. The Red Hat "Bluecurve" work is almost entirely artwork and menu organization, both of which can be re-themed or re-edited by any user who wants to. This change is to remove a bewildering either-or choice that paralyzes many newcomers.
Second, Owen didn't mention that a huge area that BOTH desktops need to strive to improve is accessibility. It's vitally important for Linux to make inroads into the highly regulated Government sector. GNOME2 is laying groundwork for major gains in accessibility, thanks to partnering research by folks at Sun and other places. KDE needs to work hard on being accessible too. Features like Sticky Keys are just a start. Supporting limited-vision users and other areas is a must. Both desktops should do what they can, so that the best approaches can be adopted as standards.
[
Frankly this is a win - win situation. Red Hat now has a more well-rounded desktop with a more unified feel that they can sell to corporate customers. Furthermore, has anything really changed? Red Hat's KDE desktop was a piece of crap, and their Gnome wasn't much better. I've never met a Red Hat user who didn't tear out one or the other and replace it with either the latest build of their favorite desktop or something entirely different. Hell, the first thing I do when I install a new Red Hat box is install Ximian. You have the same choices you had before, today.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
If you look like Microsoft and Apple, they tie the user experience to the choice of OS. That Linux allows us to choose, is exactly what makes Free Software good. If you don't agree with RedHat, at least learn to respect that their decisions. They have been contributing code, and good software so far. At least LET them exercise their freedom to please their customers.
The anonymous submitter wrote "RedHat successfully forces both GNOME and KDE to become compatible with one another which would result in the creation of a single desktop."
Where did he manage to get this idea caught in his head? Merging the desktops? RH is just trying to make the two interoperate as best they can in their own release from a UI standpoint.
If RH don't like this then why don't they just drop the one(s) they don't want people to use?
You still *can* pick KDE/GNOME/whatever. RH chose a *theme* that makes them look alike. A *theme*! God, where did everyone lose sight of that? Ximian chooses a different theme than the GNOME default as well...are *they* evil, sadistic bastards too?
I still can't figure out why this is news. It wasn't back when the story was first posted, and nobody cared except for about four people on the KDE forums (mostly the ever-vocal Mosfet).
My guess is that publicizing this is a UnitedLinux initiative to make RH look bad, since I can't figure out a single other person who has anything else to gain by blowing this as out of proportion as it's gotten. Who *cares* about RH's default theme? Change your theme! Use WindowMaker if you want! This has no impact whatsoever on you!
May we never see th
Um, actually that would exactly be the open source process. If you don't like it you change it to something you do and redistribute the code. That is exactly what its all about.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
... that Redhat was the major force behind Gnome, which came into existence *after* KDE (because qt wasn't completly free and open). They were the single most important distro to support Gnome instead of KDE, which has been chosen by almost all other distro makers as a default. Remember when Mandrake entered the market and basically was a Redhat with KDE? Mandrake's success told Redhat a big lesson.
So it's kind of hmmm strange, that nowadays Redhat tries to nullify the difference between KDE and Gnome.
But let me state it again: I think, we don't need two desktops. So every move to make those beast more similar is welcomed.
Bye egghat.
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
I appreciate Red Hat's concern that the community understand and approve what they are doing in this effort. However I think the community has been far too cynical in its reaction.
Being a for-profit company I have long been surprised that Red Hat hasn't done this type of thing more often. There's no requirement that everyone be in agreement with one group's efforts--this is Open Source! Our montra is that if you don't like something, you are always free to do it your own way.
These are the type of freedoms that take away your reasons to complain. Were we in any proprietary system, we would be at the mercy of the implementor. But as it stands here, our only limitation is time and money. These are precisely the same resources Red Hat is trying to steward just to stay in business. (Let alone, turn a profit!) So it appears we are all on the same footing.
I wish individuals would stop complaining about someone else deciding to exercise their freedom. Life is hard, you can't always get what you want. Be happy that your rights aren't taken away. Sure we might not all like Red Hat's decisions in integrating GNOME and KDE. I'd be certain that not all on Red Hat's own desktop team are 100% happy about some of the individual decisions either.
Just be thankful that Red Hat has even bothered to inform us of what they are doing. Obviously they are interesting in maintaining community support, but everyone should take note that this is our privilege, not our right. Certainly, Red Hat has a lot to gain by working with the community as opposed to against it or in some dark shroud of secrecy. But there is no requirement that they do this.
In all, this is a great start on something both sides have long pondered. Frankly, both GNOME and KDE have been slow to make this type of move, although discussed much for a long while. Thank you Red Hat for once again taking the lead on a tough task, and thanks Owen for so kindly explaining how Red Hat is has decided to implement its business strategy.
There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
That "Linux is about choice" argument is getting a little stale boys. Choice is having options available to you. The ability to use both KDE and GNOME apps on the same system is condusive to having choice. However if you're stuck with two incompatible systems how productive are you REALLY going to be when you use those systems to do more than tinker on them? Red Hat moving in this direction is forward thinking and in my opinion intelligent. Consistancy is important not just for novice computer users but experienced ones as well. Most experienced users of any type of computer commit certain actions to reflexive muscle memory, when two different programs act similarly that is one less set of motions to memorize or confuse when you're in a hurry.
There's also the important fact that GNOME and KDE are open source. I can fork both projects right now and do what I want with them. Anyone can which is the nature of the GPL. Whining because someone took your code and extended it makes the concept of open source seem a bit retarded doesn't it. People want source code for everything and it all ought to be open and free but as soon as someone changes something all hell and whining breaks loose. Red hat could have tried to contribute their changes back into both respective code trees but why should they wait? Should everyone stick with inferior kernel VM systems until they are officially included in the release tree? Come on.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
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.
The real power of Open Source is NOT:
- A variety of applications
- Multiple configurations
- Configurable kernels
- Source code available
- Community of users
The real power of Open Source is that, despite whatever the default configuration of a system might be, you can customize it any way you want!I really don't care if the standard Linux desktop starts to look and act like Windows in default configurations. In fact, I encourage it. It's the only way Linux will go corporate, companies will start making software for it, and support for things like hardware and drivers will finally become what they need to be.
As long as it retains the ability to be as configurable and adjustable as it is right now, I'm a happy man. So what if your kernel comes configured generically for every piece of hardware in the world? If you have the know-how, configure it yourself. Recompile the software, the applications, the windowing system...write your own drivers, apps, utilities. Colorize your bash prompt. Interface with the toaster.
Remember: With Linux there is Choice. Microsoft never even bothered to give you one. Keep that philosophy in mind and we'll be all good.
Blog,Twitter
I started using Ximian the day it came out, and I enjoyed it. Then, I realized it ate a lot of my menus that RedHat or I had installed and didnt play very nice in letting me re-add them. Sadly, Ximian really locks down the menus to just a few programs, which can be a real pain in the ass when you still know of only 1 way to do things.
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
Where I think Red Hat have made mistakes (by incompetence, rather than malignly) is by modifying code rather than commissioning the GNOME and KDE teams to do it on their behalf. What they have generated are Red Hat GNOME and KDE desktops. In doing this they have antagonised developers and made both their own and the vanilla desktops more difficult to support.
And what happens if the developers decide to ignore the code change requests Redhat wants? All Redhat can do in this case is make the changes and submit the patches....and wait for the developers to incorporate the changes if they so desire.
The hacking of the Gnome and KDE codebases is no different than the hacking Redhat does to apply patches to the kernel tree for instance. How many kernel patches that get applied to commercial distro kernels? How long would Redhat have to wait to see a stock kernel with ALL the patches they apply to be bless by linus? Do the kernel developers get mad when Redhat patches a stock kernel on their own?
For whatever reason whether it be long standing grudges or just the fact the Redhat has a different vision and motivation than the desktop developers...Redhat decided to make some patches. If Redhat submits those patches to the developers on the main branch..Redhat has done all you can really ask of them to do. We don't expect every person who comes up with a kernel patch to talk it over with Linus before they create the patch, do we?
Sometimes the lines of communication break down and you have to do things yousekf to get what you want. Sometimes its a simple matter of manhours and the people you'd rather work on it don't have the time. Sometimes is a decision to make experimental changes that others disagree with....
many reasons as to why patches for code get made.
The underling issue here is about control, who has control of the codebase. The people complaining about the changes Redhat has made, and the politics of the situation around those changes, miss the whole point about the GPL. People don't have to play nice in OSS to innovate. What matters in the end is whether or not Redhat has created a better KDE with their changes. If they haven't..then they wasted some valuable manhours in development time...but if Redhat's changes catch on in the userbase then it doesn't matter how the changes were made now does it? If the original project want to pick up the patches they can...and it would be a shame to see any contributions that provide new features that users like stay out of the main project because of some politics...and in the end that situation only hurts the main project...and not Redhat becuase Redhat will be seen as the innovator.
-jef
No, this is not what we need. Just like we don't need a "unified" CPU-maker and a "unified" PC-vendor we don't need a "unified" Linux distribution.
If we would need that, we would all run Macs now.
DOS/Windows is so entrenched because:
RedHat having their great "unified" desktop won't make Photoshop run on it, it won't void the contracts OEM have with Microsoft and it won't make people forget about Windows.
However, both KDE and GNOME are usable enough and similar enough so that a Widnows user will have no problem using it (especially if you choose the Windows-config on your first login in KDE.) so that is already solved.
What we still need is:
I'm putting big hope in Codeweavers to produce a usable Wine that is easy to install and works with most office-software. - On all distributions, not only on RedHat.
and not distributors playing monopoly-unification games and reducing inter-distribution interoperability.
No, I don't think that we should all use the same distro from the same distributor. What I do think is that if Linux is going to succeed in the consumer market, then there must be a noticable face for the consumer to identify with. This is what Windows has done. Most users couldn't tell you the difference in the versions of Windows, other than the newer on is prettier.
In contrast to what you say above, I do think that a unified face will allow more software to be ported to Linux. As companies see that the market is maturing, they will be more likely to take the jump to a linux version because there is less risk to there bottom line. You have a chicken and egg fiasco, which will come first, products or customers? I definately feel that this more identifiable "version" of RedHat Linux will go far is helping the cause. Consumers will now be able to focus on making linux work for them, instead of making Linux work.
------ This has been provided as a public service! ------
The problem with your logic is that much of the innovation is a backlash against/breaking with the standard.
Apple incorporated a number of additional features over time that were tweaks. The Menubar clock, the Apple-delete command, the Launcher, Spring-loaded folders, Internet Settings, Stickies, PPP support - All of these were available as add-ons before Apple incorporated them. They were made because people wanted something the standard didn't offer.
Microsoft responded by adding many of these same features to their OS.
On a side-bit, Apple did this mostly by purchasing the software from the makers, Microsoft wrote their own versions and prevented competitors from being used (e.g. The Windows XP Personal Firewall).
Without a standard against which to work, innovation is much slower. The people at PARC with made the first GUI did so roughly (brute force rendering, etc) and apple took their standard and crafted something else. Microsoft followed in Suit. And Linux GUIs are based heavily on Windows (Call it what you want, it's a Start Button).
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
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.
If you dont like it change the theme yourself, or dont install it with the distro go out get the source and compile it yourself.
I love linux on the desktop (I use fvwm), but when I tried to set it up for a friend she went nuts becuase it was too much of a change for her. Linux has come far enough that there is no excuse for this, I spent about a day and a half tweeking it (Gnome) for her and now she loves it.
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.
Yes, I think so, too.
For far too long I've watched two extremely talented and desktop teams produce excellent software and haven't seen as much cooperation and collaboration as I would like. Being open source projects, both teams have the advantage of being able to more easily "steal" good ideas from the other team. I think that's great.
I'm really glad not only that Red Hat, whose market size in Linux matters, is taking the initiative to draw the two desktops closer together, but also that the two desktops are open source and that Red Hat even has the ability to do this kind of unification.
That is, while they don't perhaps realize or care much about it, I, for one, am happy that both Gnome and KDE are unifiable.
That's a great thing.
I wouldn't even care to speculate how much needless user pain there has been between proprietary desktops (win32 and Mac) that absolutely positively would never be merged simply because they're closed source and used as marketing weapons.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Oh, not another one explaining the success of Microsoft. Face it: Microsoft is successful because IBM gave them the OS-monopoly in 1981. Everybody would have been successful with that, even Microsoft which never really did anything other than following the market. Microsoft has delayed the wide adoption of a GUI (every other major platform had a GUI long before 1990, but Windows 3.1 was the first usable GUI for DOS and came in 1993), they delayed the wide adoption of the Internet (In the early 90's Bill Gates himlelf said that "Internet will never be popular" and "The Internet? We are not interested in it") and PDAs (Go! invented the first PDA, Microsoft killed them with a lot of FUD and PenWindows which came out 2 years afterwards - which was dropped after Go! went bankrupt. Great, eh? PenWindows only use was to kill a company, advancing technology was not really important for MS)
So please stop telling me Microsoft's great secret of success. In real life, Microsoft is one of the most chaotic and incompetent companies.
Microsoft's only interest is maintaining the status-quo. The only reason we have Windows now is because everybody else already had a GUI for years and Microsoft had to follow.
In all new markets like Webservers for example, Linux is doing great - better than Windows. In all old markets where people have tons of programs and documents to lose, Linux doing not so good.
We need backwards-compatibility or WINE. Everything else is already there.
In contrast to what you say above, I do think that a unified face will allow more software to be ported to Linux. As companies see that the market is maturing, they will be more likely to take the jump to a linux version because there is less risk to there bottom line. You have a chicken and egg fiasco, which will come first, products or customers?
Customers.
I definately feel that this more identifiable "version" of RedHat Linux will go far is helping the cause. Consumers will now be able to focus on making linux work for them, instead of making Linux work.
Nonsense.
Currently Joe installs Linux and either stays with it because he likes it better or drops it because doesn't run.
How will that change? RedHat's GUI will be as new as stock-KDE for Joe (only uglier), so why should Joe be more likely to keep using it?
RedHat won't enable Linux on the masses' desktops. Codeweavers will.
Reading some of the posts here you'd think that making a graphic desktop look a certain way cripples power users. Unless the Linux power user community has gone completely wuss, power users should still be able to do whatever they damn well please with whatever software they install on their systems.
If you don't like what Red Hat's doing, swap out their desktop for the one you want. If you don't like the theme, put in another one. Or simply don't use Red Hat. It seems simple to me.
All of this makes me think back to when Caldera decided to make KDE its default desktop environment to the point of removing pretty much all the WMs they used to ship. Lots of folks cried "You're dumbing down Linux! How dare you force people to use KDE!". How making KDE the default desktop affected peoples' ability to pull up an xterm, I haven't a clue.
And to the KDE developers who pissed and moaned over Red Hat changing their precious code, try reading the license under which KDE is distributed. Last time I checked, people were allowed to alter GPL'd code in whatever way they wanted and re-distribute their version provided they made their patches available. I don't recall the GPL saying "you can change the code all you want as long as you don't change anything from the way we distributed it". You chose the license, sunshine. If you don't like what Red Hat did, cry me a river but don't expect me to sympathise with you. I'm not a huge fan of Red Hat (truth be told, I don't like their products at all), but what they're doing is something you and the GNOME folks have been allowed WAY too much time to take care of but did not. Both teams dropped the ball (or at least dragged your asses), so don't whine when someone else steps in and does the right thing. If you want it done your way, stop complaining and do it.
'Nuff said.
Eventually, as with Windows and MacOS today, overhauling the system will become next to impossible (Apple pulled it off but it was a last gasp effort, like the Mac itself, before the company flatlined). If new ideas in desktop design come along they will be ignored not because they are not good but because they are different.
That is not a future I'm interested in for Linux and if the cost of avoiding that was that Linux never made it to the big-time on the desktop then that would be a sacrifice I'd be happy to make.
But, it doesn't even have to mean that. All this crap about KDE/GNOME is missing the truth:
THE DESKTOP DOES NOT MATTER
As many people here have said, the ordinary user just wants to get work done. Think about what that means (better yet, go and look at real users working in their offices). The normal user does not use the desktop. They use the Start menu but even that is because they have to. If they really had what they need it would be a screen with maybe six big buttons on it marked "Word Processor","Spread Sheet", "Email", "Web","Print Queue", and one custom button for whatever other app they use in their work (Quick Books, Photoshop, Quark, whatever).
These buttons would be for restarting the given app if it crashes; in normal use a window for each app would be started up on boot.
Give them a handy way to switch between them and that's all 90% of Windows users would ever want or need.
I know this because I've done it. WindowMaker can set this up very easily and it takes about 3 minutes to turn a Windows User into a Linux User like this, for the simple reason that the desktop is not what people use all day, every day. If you have the apps (and OpenOffice has gone a long way on this) they don't give a toss what the desktop is doing.
KDE and GNOME are not things normal users need! Power users like systems like KDE/Gnome because they are useful for handling large numbers of apps and file locations. Normal office users don't have lots of apps and keep all their files in "My Documents".
The only thing convergence does is ossify the system and make life harder for power users who want to be able pick and choose their environments to suit their, minority, needs.
So: package KDE, Gnome, WindowMaker, ICEbox, and as many other desktops with your distro that you can fit onto the CD, make them all options during install, and make the default choice one the simplest with a handfull of icons already set up to start the "usual" apps and leave Linux to celebrate diversity while Windows fades away as new ideas and innovations pass it by because they are "too radical" for users.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I still get tempted to use KDE because so many people said KDE was better and I consider myself computer savvy so I thought I should use KDE.
But I couldn't find the RedHat RPM tools on KDE. I didnt see RedHat network. I used KDE but had to switchdesk to GNome to do any administration.
Next, can we get rid of the 100 word processors and text editors?? Its confusing as hell to have so many damn tools that do the same thing. Is this an OS or a program war???
And I say again, that's nonsense.
BeOS had a nice desktop. Where is it? It's gone because it doesn't has any apps.
Windows succeeded because it was backwards-compatible. The PC was plagued by IRQ and DMA conflicts and still took away marketshare from Macs and Amiga.
Linux needs to become backwards-compatible to Windows and needs to run Win32 applications.
That's what is holding it back.
In all areas where the apps are available, Linux is doing fine
Examples? Webservers - Windows gets marginalized there. Professional 3D-animation: Just after the tools were ported, many movie studios moved right to Linux. Embedded systems: Except for PDA's which are ruled by Palm and WinCE (and now guess why? RIGHT! Because of the APPS!!!) Linux has become the standard.
Software will be ported to Linux when the users are there. C++ and Delphi apps will be ported to KDE and C-apps will be ported to GNOME. Period. All apps work on all desktops, no problem in sight. End of story.
People want applications.
Nobody will give a shit wether an application runs on Qt, GTK or Wine. It doesn't matter as long as the functionality is there.
There are good political reasons to choose GNOME. (I don't know why when people say 'politics' it is assumed to be a synonym for 'bad'.) Namely, proprietary software vendors can produce GNOME versions of their apps without any trouble; but you have to pay Troll Tech if you want to produce proprietary software for KDE.
Free software zealots won't care one way or the other - indeed they might even prefer the GPL'd Qt rather than Lesser-GPL'd GNOME libraries - but businesses are perhaps more likely to choose GNOME if they decide which desktop to develop for.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
RedHat having their great "unified" desktop won't make Photoshop run on it,
Think about that for a minute. Part of the reason that software vendors are loath to enter the linux desktop market is because there is so little standardization and they don't want to have to support 50 different ways of launching a program. Standardization makes it easier to guarantee that the software you'd like to distribute will work. The LSB is moving towards making that possible at the developer level, but having the biggest commercial distro standardize on a desktop will help to make the user interface less of a moving target.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
I, for one, like the different options we have in terms of desktop environments. I don't want either KDE or GNOME to go away.
People are continually misunderstanding this point. You can change the default look and feel and behaviour if you want t, but Red Hat have made the two desktops consistent. Which is a good thing, as users choose their desktop apps based on usefullness, rather than toolkit.