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."
Second best?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Why? I am fairly new to Linux, but I have to say that I always preferred KDE in RedHat 6.x and 7.x. When I upgraded to 8, I tried out Bluecurve or whatever they called their new desktop and hated it. It was slow, ugly, and just not up to the standard of KDE I was used to, so I bew it away and went back to KDE . I am much happier now...
So, my question is, why is KDE considered second best? Are there technical reasons, or political, or what?
Re:Second best?
by
IamTheRealMike
·
· Score: 4, Informative
So, my question is, why is KDE considered second best? Are there technical reasons, or political, or what?
[sigh] It's not. Look, I'll try and tell it like it is, but nobody is entirely neutral in this debate OK?
Basically, with Mandrake looking like it's going down the tubes, there are 2 major commercial Linux desktop distros left, Redhat and SuSE. There are others like Xandros of course, but they are more focussed on providing an "appliance" style OS, rather than staying level with the current cutting edge in Linux development.
RedHat are popular in the states, and are "biased" towards Gnome, that is they have more Gnome hackers with experience than KDE hackers. As such, their distro focusses on Gnome more than KDE. SuSE is similar but opposite, they focus more on KDE than Gnome and afaik don't have any Gnome hackers on the team.
When Redhat 8 came out, as I'm sure you noticed, they attempted to equalize the desktops somewhat. BlueCurve was an attempt to give Redhat a distinctive brand on the desktop and it worked tremendously well. Nonetheless, some people involved with KDE got a bit upset, because KDE has its own brand (as does gnome) and Bluecurve changed that.
Today the desktops are basically equal, although they are stronger in different areas. So, GNOME has better usability IMHO, but KDE has more features. I should think theKompany likes KDE/Qt as a developer platform more because Qt is commercially supported, has professional docs and is more cross platform, so (if they pay) they can sell their apps on Windows and MacOS as well. Of course he has hackers with KDE/Qt experience which also tips him. On the other hand, GTK is more Linux specific, but has some cooler features. Some people will tell you that GTK is harder to program for, but in reality that's not the case, if C++ is your thing then both Qt and GTKmm are excellent.
I think you're exaggurating when you say KDE is slower and uglier on redhat. I think the BlueCurve artwork is great, but you can always retheme it easily, and it should be no slower.
"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
nick255
·
· Score: 4, Informative
> Surely a conservative decisionmaker will choose > a desktop-agnostic Mozilla or OpenOffice over > the KDE-specific versions.
You mean like those people at Apple who chose KHTML for Safari?
Re:"Race KDE cannot win"
by
IamTheRealMike
·
· Score: 4, Informative
KDE people also have the weird habit of producing their own versions of various pieces of software.
I agree with the basic thrust of the post, but in fairness this occurs with Gnome as well. Gnome seems less centralised to me, for instance they don't produce their own media player as such but RhythmBox is a Gnome app, they don't produce their own email app but there is Balsa and Evolution, etc.
There is way too much duplication, I agree. The projects are starting to work together a lot more now though, largely thanks to the work at freedesktop.org. Not just there though, for instance KDE was considering using GStreamer for its multimedia architecture at one point (I think they decided to wait for it to mature, which is fair enough).
Some KDE projects seem rather dead though, I think the more decentralised approach gnome takes (or rather, doesn't take) is a bit better. AbiWord isn't a Gnome app but you'd never know, it integrates nicely etc and is a good deal more active than KWord seems to be. Ditto for Gnumeric and KSpread. Noatun is just a joke, really, but it's kind of the "official" KDE media player.
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.
Agreed, at least in terms of desktop experience. It's not all there yet, but it shows great potential. KDE still leads in terms of developer platform though imho, their documentation is much better (though to be fair to gnome, they don't have a company like trolltech maintaining it for them). Also some Gnome technologies like Bonobo tend to be a bit confusing, especially in the more advanced usage. On the other hand, the KDE usability effort seems to be going nowhere quickly:(
Interesting company concept
by
sboyko
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Never mind the KDE/Gnome discussion, I found it fascinating to read how TheKompany.com is made up of people who have not all met face-to-face. The founder has only met one of his employees ever.
His employees were all basically referred and the traditional face-to-face interviews were obviously never done.
It's a new way of doing business. I like it.
-- SCO, Microsoft, P2P, what's your hot button?
Re:Interesting company concept
by
x0n
·
· Score: 5, Funny
...
It's a new way of doing business. I like it.
Nonsense! hitmen, crack dealers and major crimelords have worked this way for years!
- Oisin
--
PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
Re:Interesting company concept
by
pubjames
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Never mind the KDE/Gnome discussion, I found it fascinating to read how TheKompany.com is made up of people who have not all met face-to-face. The founder has only met one of his employees ever.
His employees were all basically referred and the traditional face-to-face interviews were obviously never done.
It's a new way of doing business. I like it.
Exactly what I thought when I read the article. I have often toyed with the idea of employing someone over the net, but I've never had the balls to actually do it. It seems to me it must be a very efficient way to run a business.
I'd be interested on what kind of contracts he uses. Does he employ these people full-time, or by project? Another issue - getting stuff delivered on time. I guess if you make products like theKompany.com, it doesn't matter if you slip. But working for clients, you have to deliver when you promised to, or you'll quickly go out of business. Is it practical to run a business this way if you need to deliver to clients with tight deadlines?
Re:Embedded/Zaurus software
by
tweek
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I disagree. I'm a Kapital customer and even on Christmas eve, Shawn was responding to messages on the mailing list from users who had questions about Kapital.
He has consistantly listened to ideas from his customers and has discussed the feasability of each option.
There was a nice healthy discussion regarding distributing Kapital as a statically linked application recently. While I didn't like his answer or agree with the end result, he DID participate and give his reasoning in a clear manner and with extreme consideration to the customer.
-- "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!"
"Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
"... 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...
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.
Outdated opinion (was: Re:"Race KDE cannot win")
by
Reinout
·
· Score: 4, Informative
... there'd be no lisensing issues. KDE was foolish for choosing a toolkit with such a license
BRING BACK HARMONY. (....) Harmony is a GPL replacement toolkit....
I'm getting the feeling that the poster doesn't know that QT now comes under the GPL license (instead of their original non-GPL one). The poster loves KDE, but loaths it's licence. The license is GPL! Nothing wrong with that (as the poster likes linux).
Funny (or not) thing is that RMS is basically backing gnome (LGPL) while at the same time advising everyone to stay clear of the LGPL because it is an inferior language. GPL is preferred. KDE&QT is GPL, so it would be better to put the FSF's weight more (and more openly) behind KDE. By "better" I mean from a purely FSF-political standpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? I am fairly new to Linux, but I have to say that I always preferred KDE in RedHat 6.x and 7.x. When I upgraded to 8, I tried out Bluecurve or whatever they called their new desktop and hated it. It was slow, ugly, and just not up to the standard of KDE I was used to, so I bew it away and went back to KDE . I am much happier now...
So, my question is, why is KDE considered second best? Are there technical reasons, or political, or what?
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
Never mind the KDE/Gnome discussion, I found it fascinating to read how TheKompany.com is made up of people who have not all met face-to-face. The founder has only met one of his employees ever.
His employees were all basically referred and the traditional face-to-face interviews were obviously never done.
It's a new way of doing business. I like it.
SCO, Microsoft, P2P, what's your hot button?
I disagree. I'm a Kapital customer and even on Christmas eve, Shawn was responding to messages on the mailing list from users who had questions about Kapital.
He has consistantly listened to ideas from his customers and has discussed the feasability of each option.
There was a nice healthy discussion regarding distributing Kapital as a statically linked application recently. While I didn't like his answer or agree with the end result, he DID participate and give his reasoning in a clear manner and with extreme consideration to the customer.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
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
Companies often use GTK because it's the non-cost closed source option.
With QT it's either open up you code under GPL, or pay us. Which I think is by far the best option.
Also QT runs on hand helds and the like and it's C++
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
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.
BRING BACK HARMONY. (....) Harmony is a GPL replacement toolkit ....
I'm getting the feeling that the poster doesn't know that QT now comes under the GPL license (instead of their original non-GPL one). The poster loves KDE, but loaths it's licence. The license is GPL! Nothing wrong with that (as the poster likes linux).
Funny (or not) thing is that RMS is basically backing gnome (LGPL) while at the same time advising everyone to stay clear of the LGPL because it is an inferior language. GPL is preferred. KDE&QT is GPL, so it would be better to put the FSF's weight more (and more openly) behind KDE. By "better" I mean from a purely FSF-political standpoint.
Reinout
Reinout van Rees