arb writes "The Age has an interview with Shawn Gordon, president of theKompany.com where he discusses such issues as RedHat's focus on Gnome and the relegation of KDE 'to second best', other Gnome vs KDE issues, distributions including proprietary bits and so on."
Embedded/Zaurus software
by
aldjiblah
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Your software for Zaurus/Qtopia has made my Zaurus infinitely more usable, especially tkcAddressbook, tkcCalendar and most of all tkcJabber (nice!). How is the business side of the Zaurus application development - how are sales?
-- sig sig sputnik
"Race KDE cannot win"
by
ultrabot
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I think there might be a grain of truth in the fact that KDE has very hard time winning the desktop. Gnome has the huge advantage of licensing (LGPL vs. GPL). It doesn't matter how much smoother or better the technology underlying KDE or KDE applications is.
KDE people also have the weird habit of producing their own versions of various pieces of software. Surely a conservative decisionmaker will choose a desktop-agnostic Mozilla or OpenOffice over the KDE-specific versions. KDE applications might do better by just dropping the K from their names, thus competing on their own terms (snappines and other virtues associated with Qt).
Note that I have been KDE user in the past (alternating with less popular lightweight wm's), but Gnome seems to finally have gotten their stuff together with gnome2.
-- Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Re:"Race KDE cannot win"
by
scorp1us
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
As s developer, I dispise GNOME. It's a PITA to program in, where as under Qt/KDE it is very easy. Lets face it, C is not well suited for window environments. Sure it can be done, but it's not a Good Thing. Don't beleive me? Look at Windows. MFC is just C++ classes aound C stuff. It is horrid and I hate using it. Having complex the functions organized in self-managing classes is a dream.
I love KDE, but loath the license. I think all GNOME people are fans of KDE, they just won't come out of the closet because they are scared of the license.
What that the License gets you though, is the ability to ship the same high-grade apps on Windows as on Linux, Mac OS X, and whatever other platform you want. This could singlehandedly be the missing element to bring Linux to the masses. If they use cross-platform apps (Kapital for windows), then switching out the OS is small potatoes (Kapital for Linux) because there are no file-format lock-in issues.
I blame several people. KDE, and GNOME are all to blame. If GNOME people worked on Harmony, they'd be set Free, and there'd be no lisensing issues. KDE was foolish for choosing a toolkit with such a license (but it is a GREAT product, regardless).
Qt are the big winners, yet they have an excellent product and deserve to be commended.
BRING BACK HARMONY. Ironically, that will bring harmony to the Linux world. (Harmony is a GPL replacement toolkit that as started then stopped when the Qt license got more OSS friendly)
-- Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
"... focus on Gnome and the relegation of KDE 'to second best', other Gnome vs KDE issues..."
With Mandrake focusing its attention on finances -- it is time for a leader such as RedHat to do what my father used to say to my brothers and I when we'd be squabbling over this-n-that "I don't care who's fault it is, I'll knock both your heads together -- now play nice!"
So long as we have these pissing battles between Gnome and KDE -- Windows will continue to enjoy its top of the heap status.
Competition is what we need
by
Max+Romantschuk
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
As I see it, both KDE and Gnome are good, and no matter which is better neither is revolutionary.
But the most important thing is that the competitive enviroment is maintained. If one get's to dominate too much, there's no real need to really invent stuff. Just look at what happened to Windows I haven't really noticed much of a difference since NT 4...
Re:Second best?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
> Today the desktops are basically equal, although they are > stronger in different areas. So, GNOME has better usability > IMHO, but KDE has more features.
This is a shortsighted opinion of yours and doesn't reflect the reality and obviously show that you never tried KDE for longer than 5 minutes. I know both Desktops on it's best using GNOME CVS HEAD and KDE CVS HEAD here. In my opinion GNOME hangs behind KDE in many ways. I don't want to make GNOME look bad now but I want to give you a fair objective view of the facts.
There are a lot of issues within GNOME such as integration, usability, consitency over the dialogs etc.
GNOME is not as integrated as KDE is. Have you ever dealt with KDE and seen how all the apps are playing together ?
Usability, have you seen what happened recently to GNOME's interface it toally alienate GNOME from the rest of available applications that work and require X with any toolkit.
Consistency. We all know that with the ongoing versions of GNOME the developers are trying to get consistency into the applications but yet all dialogs are still looking differently. There is no real pixel exact layout of the dialogs, menus and windows because many GNOME applications are written either with the GUI hardcoded, or Glade or Bonobo therefore all UI's are looking differently and makes it hard for the UI reviewer to get a structure inside.
On the otherhand KDE's ui are mostly external in separate *.ui files which makes it easier for the UI reviewers to concentrate on the UI and pixel exact layouts.
That's only a minor point of the whole mountain. KParts for example, every new written app follows a strict rule of KDE and embedds itself seamingless into the whole desktop. It has a Webbrowser embedded in a Filemanager and both of them are really usable and and and..
I could write half a day and name more and more features and pros which makes imo KDE far superior. KDE as is right now are milies if not lightyears ahead of GNOME but it's understandable that GNOME people don't want to have their desktop look bad but face it as is GNOME has a hard and long way to go to at least keep up with a little bit of KDE's features. Keeping up with KDE itself is a lost battle.
Where have you been for the last two years?
by
PeterClark
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
What's wrong with KDE's (and QT's) GPL license? Or are we going to get into that silly "LGPL is better than GPL" argument? It's possible (because of QT's dual license) to produce closed-source software, which is what theKompany has done. Or have I been trolled?
This is the beauty of using an open system. I've used KDE, I'm using Gnome. Switching between them is pretty much painless (as is switching between KDE/Gnome and Windows). That there are two systems for window management likely means that both will get better faster. Gnome sees a great innovation in KDE and implements it. KDE sees that Gnome is running faster and works to make KDE run faster. And back and forth.
The problem with Windows has been that there was no real competition. That problem is being solved. I know that there are folks out there who are devoted to Debian and hate what Red Hat has done with 8.0, but regardless, I could hand the Red Hat discs to any of my family members and they could install it on their computer without wiping out the Windows install. This is one thing the Linux community has been shooting for. Are there problems with RH 8.0 and BlueCurve? Sure, but it's something that compares well with XP.
I like having KDE and Gnome to choose from and, at this point, I don't know enough to choose one over the other forever and ever amen. Right now, though, I have the choice and that's what brought me to the party in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Your software for Zaurus/Qtopia has made my Zaurus infinitely more usable, especially tkcAddressbook, tkcCalendar and most of all tkcJabber (nice!). How is the business side of the Zaurus application development - how are sales?
sig sig sputnik
I think there might be a grain of truth in the fact that KDE has very hard time winning the desktop. Gnome has the huge advantage of licensing (LGPL vs. GPL). It doesn't matter how much smoother or better the technology underlying KDE or KDE applications is.
KDE people also have the weird habit of producing their own versions of various pieces of software. Surely a conservative decisionmaker will choose a desktop-agnostic Mozilla or OpenOffice over the KDE-specific versions. KDE applications might do better by just dropping the K from their names, thus competing on their own terms (snappines and other virtues associated with Qt).
Note that I have been KDE user in the past (alternating with less popular lightweight wm's), but Gnome seems to finally have gotten their stuff together with gnome2.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Here's the real problem:
"... focus on Gnome and the relegation of KDE 'to second best', other Gnome vs KDE issues
With Mandrake focusing its attention on finances -- it is time for a leader such as RedHat to do what my father used to say to my brothers and I when we'd be squabbling over this-n-that "I don't care who's fault it is, I'll knock both your heads together -- now play nice!"
So long as we have these pissing battles between Gnome and KDE -- Windows will continue to enjoy its top of the heap status.
--- have you healed your church website?
As I see it, both KDE and Gnome are good, and no matter which is better neither is revolutionary.
But the most important thing is that the competitive enviroment is maintained. If one get's to dominate too much, there's no real need to really invent stuff. Just look at what happened to Windows I haven't really noticed much of a difference since NT 4...
.: Max Romantschuk
> Today the desktops are basically equal, although they are
> stronger in different areas. So, GNOME has better usability
> IMHO, but KDE has more features.
This is a shortsighted opinion of yours and doesn't reflect the reality and obviously show that you never tried KDE for longer than 5 minutes. I know both Desktops on it's best using GNOME CVS HEAD and KDE CVS HEAD here. In my opinion GNOME hangs behind KDE in many ways. I don't want to make GNOME look bad now but I want to give you a fair objective view of the facts.
There are a lot of issues within GNOME such as integration, usability, consitency over the dialogs etc.
GNOME is not as integrated as KDE is. Have you ever dealt with KDE and seen how all the apps are playing together ?
Usability, have you seen what happened recently to GNOME's interface it toally alienate GNOME from the rest of available applications that work and require X with any toolkit.
Consistency. We all know that with the ongoing versions of GNOME the developers are trying to get consistency into the applications but yet all dialogs are still looking differently. There is no real pixel exact layout of the dialogs, menus and windows because many GNOME applications are written either with the GUI hardcoded, or Glade or Bonobo therefore all UI's are looking differently and makes it hard for the UI reviewer to get a structure inside.
On the otherhand KDE's ui are mostly external in separate *.ui files which makes it easier for the UI reviewers to concentrate on the UI and pixel exact layouts.
That's only a minor point of the whole mountain. KParts for example, every new written app follows a strict rule of KDE and embedds itself seamingless into the whole desktop. It has a Webbrowser embedded in a Filemanager and both of them are really usable and and and..
I could write half a day and name more and more features and pros which makes imo KDE far superior. KDE as is right now are milies if not lightyears ahead of GNOME but it's understandable that GNOME people don't want to have their desktop look bad but face it as is GNOME has a hard and long way to go to at least keep up with a little bit of KDE's features. Keeping up with KDE itself is a lost battle.
What's wrong with KDE's (and QT's) GPL license? Or are we going to get into that silly "LGPL is better than GPL" argument? It's possible (because of QT's dual license) to produce closed-source software, which is what theKompany has done. Or have I been trolled?
:Peter
This is the beauty of using an open system. I've used KDE, I'm using Gnome. Switching between them is pretty much painless (as is switching between KDE/Gnome and Windows). That there are two systems for window management likely means that both will get better faster. Gnome sees a great innovation in KDE and implements it. KDE sees that Gnome is running faster and works to make KDE run faster. And back and forth.
The problem with Windows has been that there was no real competition. That problem is being solved. I know that there are folks out there who are devoted to Debian and hate what Red Hat has done with 8.0, but regardless, I could hand the Red Hat discs to any of my family members and they could install it on their computer without wiping out the Windows install. This is one thing the Linux community has been shooting for. Are there problems with RH 8.0 and BlueCurve? Sure, but it's something that compares well with XP.
I like having KDE and Gnome to choose from and, at this point, I don't know enough to choose one over the other forever and ever amen. Right now, though, I have the choice and that's what brought me to the party in the first place.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.