Slashdot Mirror
UserLinux May Go Without KDE
Anonymous BillyGoat writes "For the past few days, there has been considerable debate at the UserLinux mailing list about the (proposed) non-inclusion of KDE in the distro. The KDE developers have written a proposal opposing the decision to go with GNOME as the sole UserLinux GUI, while Bruce Perens has posted a response."
KDE is still one of the most-used desktop environments around. Ignoring KDE in favor of GNOME would be like only including VI and not Emacs (or Emacs and not VI), and forcing all users to use one.
This is a mistake if they don't include both.
Erioll
Isn't KDE a lot smoother and more consistent over all then Gnome? I mean Linus uses it. Especially for business apps, KDE seems like a more natural choice.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
The inclusion of two desktop environments, no matter how good they might be, will be confusing to ordinary end users. There might be some argument for including KDE and leaving GNOME out, but I feel that GNOME is less CPU-intensive and the included applications are a little better. The best argument for KDE would be that it would make the transition from Windows easier because it is so similar. That shouldn't be an issue, though. Nobody worries about users switching from Windows to the Mac being confused. It's a good call.
Help me. I've been modbombed by a few people with entirely too much time on their hands.
There is more than one way. Anyone that insists that there is only one way, and that is their way, is probably wrong. KDE has advatages over GNOME, and vice versa. Let the flame wars begin - err continue.
AngryPeopleRule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Hasn't anyone proposed removing Gnome?
It seems to me (subjective experience, yadda yadda yadda) that KDE is less buggy, more feature-laden, more configurable, and with the new 3.2 betas even slightly faster than Gnome.
Does this have something to do with the QT developer license cost I've heard about? Is GTK devoid of such a cost?
Sometimes options are not good. Particually if you want to reach out to slightly less technical users.
Lets not forget that anyone that wants to use this distro with KDE should be able to compile and install it.
There are als many other distros that come with both.
Especially for business apps, KDE seems like a more natural choice.
On the contrary, KDE is worse for the business apps. It's all about the license difference b/w GTK+ and QT. Choosing KDE would practically have forced the companies that want to ship closed source software to buy a expen$ive license for Qt (if they want to have the uniform "look", of course).
Personally, I use KDE. That's because I'm not a business, and I use what works (and KDE works better than Gnome ATM). But I wouldn't build my future on it.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Sure, to your average ./ linux geek, not having the _choice_ of desktop environment is sacreligious, but in order to push linux into new markets, a unified, consistent GUI is one of the things needed. Support costs decrease. Documentation (user-level) can be written for a single interface. Users moving from one (UserLinux) system to another receive the same feedback, which reinforces their learning.
What linux _really_ needs (for the purpose of appeasing your everyday, business/home user) is to adopt the approach Apple took with MacOS X. It presents a single unified interface, well-designed apps, etc. but lets you add the rest yourself. It's powerful in the way that OS 9 wasn't. But because it's UNIX underneath, you know you can get in there and change it. You don't need to be an expert to do that - someone else will develop a little GUI wrapper to do it for you. But the fact is it's possible.
We've all known and loved this about Linux for years, but it's mass-market adoption is being stifled by lack of a unified interface. Aesthetics is something Apple learnt a long time ago. It counts.
The point of the various distributions is to target different audiences, to package things in different ways, to pursue different directions. If you don't like one particular distro, choose another. But we really need a distro that is consistent, and doesn't compromise on security (like Lindows). In fact, we need several. Let them fight it out. May the best distro win.
Is the freedom to create a Linux distribution with only one desktop.
Who cares? It's ONE distro out of how many? It's probably good in the long run if it makes transition from another OS that much easier. KDE needs to follow suit...how many distros would happily use them?
The PERL mantra is CRAP. One of the desktop UI projects needs to concede, and they need to put their efforts together. KDE is good, but lacks some of what GNOME has. GNOME's recent offerings have been pretty screwed up, IMHO.
While competition is good, cannibalism isn't, and that is all the two projects do - cannibalize each other. Put the resources, people, time, brains TOGETHER. It's a hard decision to make, but they really need to do it, if either one wants to get better by the leaps and bounds we need.
The last few times I have dealt with new GNOME updates it gets WORSE AND WORSE. More bloat, more crap, less options, harder to figure out how to change things. There is nothing more frustrating that a feature you used to use all the time being taken away from you
Focus on cleanliness and efficiency. That doesn't mean that all the config options have to disappear (ahem, Metacity can bite my ass). It DOES mean that nautilus can't chew up 16 MB of memory per user just to SIT THERE.
Get it together guys, they're getting ahead of you further than you can catch up at this point.
KDE will always be available in UserLinux, because UserLinux will be a subset of Debian. Want KDE? It'll be just a few clicks (or an "apt-get install kde") away. Want to run just a particular KDE or QT application? No problem; the libraries you need will be installed automatically. This is Debian, folks.
The conflict here is about defaults. UserLinux will include and install Gnome by default, and the developer effort will be geared toward GTK. Why? Because GTK is royalty-free in all situations, unlike QT, and UserLinux is building a royalty-free development environment.
Seriously. So what? If you want to use KDE, use a different distro. This is a non-issue.
-Tom
-Tom
I've used linux for years, from back at redhat 4.2 I believe. I've also used a number of the GUIs and I have some pretty strong feelings about them. In every distribution that I've dealt with, Gnome just works. Sure, it has some bugs, but in general its a smoother user experience. I'm sure you can do everything in KDE, but that's if you want to spend hours configuring it. Gnome just works. I do like the power and options available in KDE, but if I was starting with linux, I wouldn't want that. In fact, when I migrate people to linux, they get Gnome. Once they learn the OS, then I might mention there are other GUIs, but for a migration or business oriented distro, go with the one that just works.
That said, I read the article *gasp* and it was about supporting the environments, not the relative qualities of the GUIs and I have to agree that its easier to standardize on one development environment.This is a good move for a new distro and helps to keep their costs down and quality up. I just hope that the fallout from the geeks doesn't kill them before they get going. I'd love another good Debian based distro
KDE is great, but too much is exposed. I don't need three text editors in a right click menu, I want one that just works, although I generally use vi and they never include that in the click menus:(
Is there are a reason KDE can't be used anyways? You'll just have to download it instead of it being distributed with the initial install.
If you like KDE... keeping using it. For the business world they get less complication and you still have choice.
yvan eht nioj
First: I am not a developer and I have no stake in -any- OS outside of the business value proposition it offers; yes I am a pointy-haired manager type. OK, except at home where I've got a little of everything (Sun, OS X, Linux, Windows).
Mr. Perens approach is right on the mark. Reducing comlexity in the overall product reduces the cost to support the platform, thus making Userlinux more viable. Even if IT departments were the ones making the choice, in a lot of small & midsize shops you would have a good chance of getting a mixed desktop environment based on the 'technically correct' choice of the moment (i.e. ignoring an overall strategy that factors in business needs and downstream support... which raises costs.)
Choice is good, but an offering where a number of those choices have been made will ultimately present a stronger picture to business. Especially at the desktop level, there is less tolerance for a wide range of choices.
Many managers fear getting into a situation where they are so unique in their implementations that only existing staff can understand them and later choices are limited due to deviation from the norm. Even not controlling versions, of say, Windows/MS Office strategically can complicate the support picture and even reduce the overall efficency of the company. I know from the experience of cleaning it up, and from having made the mistake myself of allowing sys admins having too much choice (letting the purely technical override the strategic).
Clearly making choices at the time of putting a distribution together makes good sense from a Corporate point of view.
Answer me this: why must every Linux distribution be about infinite choice?
I want to see more specialized Linux distributions, and less distribs that try to present all software to everyone. Instead of distribs that have 1/3rd of their GUIs break at various times, a distrib that picks one GUI and makes sure it works is great.
Don't like that GUI? Pick one that uses your GUI. Or pick one of the jack-of-all-trades distribs.
But stop pressuring every Linux distrib to offer every single damn software package under the sun.
Windows gives no choice. Windows rules the desktop. Windows ME/XP is (pick one: more | less) usable than the Windows 9X interface, but both succeeded.
IMHO, if more distributions picked a single UI and went with it, patching in the most annoying gaps, the biggest problem with Linux would quickly be solved. The idea that multiple choices with fewer developers is somehow superior to fewer choices better done seems disingenous at best.
I prefer KDE myself, but what I'd really like is for one to win and get most of the wrinkles ironed out. Either one. Because I don't have to worry about the UI choices in Windows, Mac, java apps, Palm apps or even PPC.
Don't forget that he isn't going to do anything that would pull KDE out of Debian. He isn't going to void the UserLinux certification of anyone who supports KDE. He is doing nothing against KDE.
If you want to be a certified UserLinux support guy, you will need to understand GNOME so you can support it. You will not need to understand GNOME to get the certification, but you can understand it if you want to. You can advertise yourself as a certified UserLinux expert who will support KDE, if you want.
So: UserLinux implies GNOME. UserLinux does not imply lack of KDE.
I think Bruce Perens is 100% correct on this issue. There is no reason to demand companies and consultants to grok two complete desktop environments, and there are good reasons why a standard distro like UserLinux should just have one. And if there is going to just be one, the one that is more free is the correct one. No one ever has to pay anyone for the privilege of writing apps for GNOME, even proprietary commercial apps, so it's the correct one.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Qt is OSS! It was GPL'ed long ago.
Exactly the point. GTK+ is available under the LGPL, rather than the *less* free GPL like Qt. You can't create closed applications with a GPLd toolkit, where you can with an LGPLd toolkit. A viable platform has to support closed applications.
This is one danger of commercial entities involving themselves in OSS development. The commercial companies are choosing GNOME not because of technical advantages, but because of monetary advantages (LGPL = no Qt license fees). If GNOME goes from being the second biggest DE (according to most polls), to becoming the standard Linux desktop because of something as stupid as that, that'd royally suck. Especially since, in most areas, GNOME's technology lags behind KDE's.
I just hope this isn't yet another example of great technology dying because the commercial software industry has a tendency to preserve the status quo in lieu of pushing the envelope.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Did everyone forget that just because it ships without kde doesn't mean you can't download kde and install it. We are talking about linux here folks.
Obviously you don't want userlinux to make their own decisions. Why else would you post something so rediculous? In fact, from your post, I would call YOU more communist than they are.
The whole point of OSS is to allow freedom of choice. UserLinux is making a "choice" (notice the key word "choice") to include only one GUI.
They have the choice to either include KDE or exclude KDE. You may chose to use KDE and forget about Gnome. Do you get communist remarks made to you because you forced your OS to only use only KDE?
They aren't forcing you to choose their distribution. You don't like it, get another distro and quit your bitching.
Not a flame, but are you kidding? I've used Gnome 2.4 for quite some time on my home machine, and KDE 3.1.* on my work machine for quite some time now. I have decided to go with KDE at home too. Gnome, to me at least, does *not* seem polished or "finished" whatever that means exactly. (OSS never seems to be finished.)
KDE, for all the claims of bloat, has applications that *work together* in ways that I can not seem to get most Gnome based apps to do. The KDE desktop is more than just the kicker and wm, but a whole suite of OSS software built around that framework that every other DE I have uses lacks. And Konqueror after two years is still my browser of choice -- Mozilla, for all it's geekiness, still seems clunky. (I have no used the *birds yet, as I've had no need.)
That said, there are things about Gnome I do miss. The MacOS-like bar at the top of the screen. I prefer that, and putting the KDE kicker up there is a poor comparison. It does have desktop menus, but then you can't put applets to that, but I hear that is to change in 3.2. I sure hope so.
There are things I like about Nautilus file-manager as well, both in appearance in and how it works, but Konqueror as a file-manager is not bad at all, and it does exactly what I think a fm would do.
In the end, I feel that KDE is the more professional feeling of both popular desktops. It has a unified look-n-feel, simple customization (widgets and window decs) of colors that *I* find pleasing, and the group of apps are just great and always tend to fit whatever need I have at the moment. My only real beef with it is the Trolltech licence. Having gotten into PyQT developing lately, I'm frustrated I can't easily move my apps to Win32 for my friends to use.
Again, not a flame, but I always hear that Gnome always appears more professional, but I gave it a test of damn near a year, and in the end, the DE felt disconnected from all the elements and apps.
I take it when you say "commercial," you actually mean "closed-source."
If you want to develop closed-source software, based on someone else's toolkit, you should have to pay for the privilege.
Another reason why GPL is the best license for these sorts of things.
As a programmer, C is great because it is quick and low level. Operating systems are written in C. Network stacks are written in C.
.NET is you just extend classes already there. It's an elegant and tidy way to do things.
For a GUI, C is horrific. GUI just lends itself to Object Oriented programming. I know the hard core *NIX geeks will flame me for this, but why on earth would you NOT want to do a GUI in OOP. The beauty of coding for windows using MFC and
Languages like C with functions just turn code into a nightmare. Ever wonder why most game companies program in directX and NOT openGL? OpenGL is C, directX is not.
The commercial issue with QT is really a non-issue. It might even be possible companies and write inhouse software without paying a license fee (since the code is never redistributed.) If companies want to make money writing with QT they will. What do *companies* want, to pay a fee to QT and own their own code, or give it away with the GPL and Gnome?
When someone starts talking about something being "FREER" as in the gpl, I turn on my Stallman filter. These people claim the BSD license isn't free because the code can be 'hijacked' by closed source projects.
If you give something away, you give it away for good. The BSD license gives it away for EVERYONE to use, and doesn't discriminate.
When decisions are NOT based on technical merit, rather on politics, then you are no longer a geek. You are an activist.
Would you use a distro developed with activism placed over technical merit? This is why Linus carries so much weight. He doesn't get into politics.
Some people have said that Gnome has an advantage over KDE because you need to buy a licence to make commercial software with QT.
First of all, this is wrong. Read the QT FAQ. Developers can write commercial apps to their hearts content using QT with complete freedom (beer & speech) as long as your apps are GPL'd. Now, if a developer wants to write PROPRIETARY, NON-FREE apps -- programs where the developer keeps the source code secret and does not allow the users to review, change, or share the program or source with others -- well, the developer can do that, but then they need to buy a QT commercial licence from Trolltech.
And what is wrong with that? If a developer refuses to share his source freely with others, why should Trolltech have to share their source with him??!
This kind of licenceing encourages the development of free (as in speech) software (including commercial free software--COMMERCIAL NON-FREE). Isn't advancing free software supposed to be the whole point of userlinux?
Actually the gconf configuration system is what the registry should have been. It's not really binary at all. Instead it's a distributed hiarchy of xml entries (using the file system to provide for folders and the tree structure). It works very well and you can edit it with vi. gconf-editor is there, and it works, but it's still plain xml text and probably will remain so. As for inter-process communication, KDE and GNOME are converging on the same mechanism (I think it has something to do with DBUS) that is probably rpc via xml, as defined in the freedesktop specs.
I find your comments on gnome show a bit of ignorance as to what really goes on in with gnome. Gnome is quite a bit better designed than you think. Whether or not it's better than KDE isn't the issue here. The main issue is providing an environment that lends itself to development needs of businesses (the LGPL actually does us a favor here). The user aspect of that is another story. All businesses have a few proprietary inhouse software packages that they would want to port with the minimal effort and expense (and licensing is part of that).
All that said, KDE is a wonderful interface. I am constantly driven nuts, though, but the insistance on using the backwards Microsoft way of placing buttons in dialogs. Apple got that one right.
How many companies do you know that actually create their own GUI applications? And I'm not talking about some internal admin interface here that some guy wrote for himself. Obviously, web interfaces don't count either, and neither does Java stuff.
And if an in-house application gets written, the planning stage until even the decision whether something will be written is done, even that phase easily costs a hundred fold of the Qt fee. Then you count in the time and productivity lost to internal training sessions, and you end up with numbers where the $1300 don't even register in the 0.x percentage range.
Also, since in-house applications are used internally and not given away, you don't need a license that allows selling the code, the GPL is perfectly fine for that.
To make this very clear: if there is anyone who is actually making graphical applications for Linux, and this argument has to carry any weight, it's neither a big company nor is it an in-house application. And if you expect to make money on an application, labor cost by far dwarfs any fixed hardware or licensing cost. Heck, MS Visual C++ alone probably costs more than the Qt license, and do you know any Windows development company who ever went under because of the MSVC license cost?
Neither do I.
Christ, I am sick of people who rattle on about this without knowing what they are talking about.
"A viable platform has to support closed applications" - no shit, Sherlock. You can write closed apps with Qt. Just buy a license and go to it. The thing is dual-licensed.
The GPL is not "less free". The GPL enforces user freedoms. The LGPL gives developers freedom. Which do you care more about? (Hint: you aren't a developer).
I could go on to compare QT fans to Windows users... but that would be silly trolling :P
BTW, the #1 reason people prefer Photoshop over The GIMP is most certainly NOT the GIU. That you think that certainly is telling. The reason people prefer Photoshop is a. 99.9% of people don't know WTF The Gimp is, and b. Photoshop has loads of extremely useful features and plugins that The GIMP lacks.
In fact, I would argue that the latest versions of The GIMP have a much saner interface than Photoshop, but that doesn't nearly make up for the features The GIMP lacks.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Bruce,
You say you are trying to "advance Free Software in business", yet choose and promote a license who's entire existence is to provide closed source, proprietary software for a free, open source operating system.
To me, this is hypocritical. You are not advancing Free Software in anyway when you choose to use the LGPL (i.e. GNOME). You are advancing closed source software.
Qt is GPL'd, and as such does not allow closed source applications to be developed for free.
Which toolkit advances Free Software more?
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
Do people *really* demand choice? Did everyone DEMAND a big choice of window managers and desktop systems? No.. they really didn't... that's just how things evolved.
I use OSX all the time, and I'm traditionally that guy who uses linux and whatever window manager currently catches my eye.
It's not just about lack of choice.. it's about stability of the target. A developer can know clearly what his target audience has when developing applications for OSX. That's hard, with linux.
Though you may feel the classic MacOS environments were about lack of choice, and confining the user to an unchanging experience, that's not the case anymore.
I don't NEED to mess around with every aspect of my GUI.. I know it can be fun.. but if it was well designed in the first place, we would have a lot less people worrying about skinning it. Go look at a room full of OS X users.. most of the desktops look the same. Any one user could quickly make use of any other user's desktop.. and believe me, it's not because skinning and manipulating the GUI is any harder than it is with X (though I"m sure someone will come up with examples of things)
More important is the fact that the OS X Gui is designed *well*. IT's open; you can write apps for it easily. IT WORKS.. if you have never really sat down to use it, and spent an hour or two getting to know it, you don't know even know what a good GUI *IS*, because you've probably never used one. Windows is pale by comparison, KDE as well (it's on par with windows in my books, in terms of usability). Some GNOME setups I've seen are better... more well thought out, not just copying windows... but still a far cry from what Apple has achieved.
If the desktop is well designed, yet extensible, there is no reason to hvae 20 totally different versions floating around.
Also, it's not because the end user doesn't want choice.. tis' because the developer needs a stable target.
Ask yourself: If you want to write a state of the art gui app for linux, that interoprates with the OS properly, drag and drop, print menus, cut and paste, etc... how will you do it? what toolkits and libraries will you choose? KDE? Gnome? Neither, just use TK? Do it totally self contained, so it looks like a uniqe app, sort of like xmms?
That choice is clear with Apple, and clear with Microsoft.
This seems to me to be one man's idea's of what linux should be. Throwing out support for KDE on
such a grandious project is simply throwing away half of all linux users. UserLiniux seems to me to be a great way for one man to toot-his-own-horn at
the expense of the linux community. We've lived with KDE's (QT's) License for a while... it doesn't seem to stop people from using and developing for KDE. It's obvious with limitations imposed as a base distro; this is going to be a micro distro with alot of software limitations. I'll never use it.
this userLinux stuff sound really great -
- it needs to support closed apps
- it needs to have less choice (1 desktop)
- one scripting environment
might as well stick with windows.
I read an article today about the mozilla platform, all of this talk about kde vs. gnome helps me understand that article better. If I was a developer I'd probably just choose mozilla and have it run everywhere...heck, even java would help out those worried developers, hehe...
The #1 reason people prefer Photoshop over the Gimp is that they already know how to use Photoshop and don't have a clue how to use the Gimp.
The last time I used Photoshop was when it was an Apple only application. As a result I'm absolutely incapable of using it today while I'm fairly comfortable with the Gimp. So of course I prefer the Gimp. Most people reason the same way.
Absolutely nothing to do with MDIs...
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
This is especially ironic considering the circumstances of the GNOME Project's foundation. Funny how GNOME is now being chosen since it is more 'accessible' to corporate developers because of its 'less Free' (in the spirit of Free software) nature as opposed to the GPLd KDE/Qt, while the initial argument against KDE/Qt was that it was non-Free and we needed a completely Free alternative. 'Lesser' GPL indeed.
So let me get this straight. From the very beginning, Qt and KDE has had non-free (beer) commercial licensing requirements; and initially it did was not considered free (libre) by Richard Stallman and GNU, at least until their licenses were modified.
And it was precisely because of this non-free status that Mr. Stallman and other free software advocates heavily encouraged the development and use of GNOME over KDE, despite KDE's initial head start.
And yet now we find that GNOME is the choice for UserLinux because it better supports the development of proprietary software on Linux!
Oh excuse me, GNU/Linux.
I get it!
Actually don't get me wrong, I understand the logic, it's just a funny twist on an old rivalry.
Maybe part of the reason KDE is better is because they manage to make some money. Taxing proprietary software when they want to take advantage of your labor so that THEY can make money seems pretty reasonable to me. If THEY can make money charging users license fees, why not KDE?
The only argument Perens makes that makes sense to me is that GTK+ can be used in a proprietary product without paying a licensing fee. Again, not trying to flame, but that more or less confirms that Bruce doesn't give a damn about Free Software. If he did, that wouldn't even be a point of contention for him.
Seriously, why do we keep seeing these heavy-handed tactics to kill KDE long after the licensing issues have been resolved? Other than the possibility of holding a grudge (and though I can't find it now, I swear I saw an RMS essay about continuing to treat KDE as a GPL-violator) I can't understand it.
You see, it's very simple. If you release your code under a GPL-compatible license and link against Qt, you're fine, since Qt is available under the GPL. If you want to release proprietary software, all you have to do is pay the licensing fee.
I know; I know. Someone's going to argue "but what about Joe Shmoe who wants to sell a text editor? What if he doesn't have the two grand?" Well, then, he can do what any other startup does: borrow money, and pay back the loan when the money starts coming in.
In no other business that I'm aware of is there the possibility of getting your tools for free, and then use those free tools to turn a profit. LGPL-using developers, you are aware, are you not, that your choice of license means that people are writing derivative works without giving back to you? You might as well be releasing your code under the BSD license (not a bad idea, IMHO, especially if you're not terribly interested in pursuing legal issues, though the BSD license isn't without strings, either.)
Couple the barely-valid cost-of-licensing complaint with the fact that GNOME is currently in a state of flux, the choice of GNOME is iffy at best. Where have all the features gone, and after usability work is done, when will the features come back? Why is the default GNOME 2.4 CD ripper incapable of allowing me to set a default MP3/Ogg Vorbis bitrate? If it's because it's assumed that the average GNOME user would become confused, is it really safe to assume that the average GNOME user is stupider than the average MacOS user? iTunes, at least, allows for some tweaking of settings; they're just not right out in the forefront, and limited to only a couple of important features.
I could go on for days, but to tell you the truth, had someone proposed this in the GNOME 2.0/2.2 days, I'd just have nodded my head; GNOME was a wee bit more bloated and had an ugly API, but if it became something of a standard, so be it. Now? Why are we burdening ourselves with this dumbed-down version of a UNIX desktop?
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Well, it's late in the game, there are a million other comments, and if there were points I was after, this would not be the time or place to write.
However, I feel I have to add my $0.02.
I recently wrote a mid-sized application using PHP-GTK. Reasoning being that it was to be a semi web-based product, it would be best to leverage the PHP code on the client and server sides, and the GTK toolkit can be used to write the UI.
It works well, and is achieving high acclaim in the marketplace in a way that the previous product based on VB simply didn't.
That said, GTK 1.x, which was bound to PHP 4, is a horrible mess.
1) Documentation is very spotty at best. I've at times had to query an object directly with get_class_methods() in order to find out what methods I can call, simply because there was no documentation for it.
2) The widgets are terribly inconsistent. For example, GtkCList (a table of text values) doesn't contain child widgets, even though portions of the widget are selectable! Thus, you cannot use something like tooltips (which creates a popup yellow text widget when you hover over a widget) for anything but the whole table!
3) Things that should be easy, like creating menus, are simply a pain in the rear.
4) The API for GTK is transient - what works in 1.3 largely won't work in 2.0. Thus, when PHP5 is bound to GTK2 (which is the official plan, AFAIK) I know there will be a *huge* porting effort just to get the application to recompile.
5) GTK objects don't have consistent means to access variables. Most of the time you use $object->Set_Data(). But, sometimes you use $object->Set_Row_Data(), or $object->Node_Set_Row_Data(). This is largely because of #2 above....
So, does it work? Yeah. Was it the best available at the time given our resources and needs? Yeah.
But there's a HELL of a lot of room for improvement. (I left a zillion notes in the online gtk.php.net documentation website as my contribution since I am not a c coder)
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
There are Gnome zealots and there are KDE zealots, and then there are the people who say, "They are both OK and neither is clearly better."
At risk of losing all my karma, I have to say that I disagree with all of the above. Both Gnome and KDE suck. In a world which has seen Windows, both UIs seem half-finished. For the developer, KDE's API is unsatisfactory (see Al Stevens' articles in Dr Dobbs in Sept/Oct 2001 - AFAIK they're not on the web, unfortunately) for details. And actually Gnome's is too, because Gnome's base is in C, not C++. Development is bogged down by being based on an obsolete language. True, there is now a C++ API glued on top of Gnome, but it's exactly that, with the inefficiency implied.
So we have two unsatisfactory UIs instead of one satisfactory UI. The quicker we pick one of them and run with it and fix it, the better.
I very much appreciate Bruce Peren's activities and believe that we need people like him who want to promote Linux as a serious contender in the market of enterprise systems.
Having said that, I was quite surprised to read Bruce's reply to the KDE-group. Nowhere does he address the real issue, which in this case is not the question of providing for another desktop solution, it is the question of providing for an enterprise Linux as a worthy contender to other "solutions" on an enterprise level.
In that respect GNOME loses big time for the simple reason that no one in the GNOME foundation seems to have a clear vision of where their development is going, in particular with respect to these points:
- Central administration of large scale desktop deployments
- Enterprise level printing administration
- Enterprise level Resource Planning
and many others more which can be read in detail on http://desktop.kdenews.org/strategy.html
KDE provides its user base with a clear and focussed vision of where enterprise Linux is going.
Where are the GNOME visions in this regard? There are none.
If UserLinux (What a bad name, it should be called Enterprise Linux or Debian Enterprise, whatever) wants to reach its intended audience, it has to provide a stringent concept for usability, scalability, support and enterprise features and commitment to care for the development.
All of this is missing from GNOME and this makes the licensing argument rather moot.
Either UserLinux wants to reach enterprises on a comprehensive level, in which case it has to provide for a framework enterprises need, or it wants to deploy some servers and some desktops without the technical merits of a real enterprise solution. The latter case is fine, if you want to show people that Linux is not bad and works fine in an enterprise environment.
However, if we are talking real enterprise level, GNOME cannot come up with the necessary features and the long term vision to compete with the large solution vendors.
As a technical salesman I would have a hard time making decision makers understand why the GNOME-UI is of real merit to their enterprise. The different licensing scheme is of only marginal interest for large scale deployments of a comprehensive framework.
Given the KDE strategy and the nonexistence of such in GNOME, one can only wonder, why UserLinux thinks it will make a difference in the corporate world.
Troll. You cannot exclude qt based environments. This will never succeed.
As a desktop environment, I think KDE is better, but for applications, GTK based apps tend to be more mature, it seems. The included KDE apps (Konqueror, Kmail, and so on) seem unfinished and feature-lacking.
I signifigantly prefer the look of GNOME to KDE, though. KDE's window decorations are about twice as tall as they should be, and Keramik is so god-damned ugly that it could blind a person.
What I want to know is why, in KDE, can I not click one button (like in Gnome) to set ALL of the related styles? Unless I am missing something, in KDE you have to set the style and the colourscheme and some other things seperately, it is not grouped together as a 'theme' as in GNOME.
Am I missing something here? Also, where can I find a nice, clean (not ugly) looking theme without over-large decorations for KDE? (I consider Windows 2000/XP to be a relatively decent looking in Windows Classic mode).
This simply ingores the realities of making a useful distro.
Many developers need KDE, plain and simple. Unfortunately it has caught hold, but that's because it is a well written functional GUI.
The desktop is less of an issue but the current user base has it's preferences, for many developers it means userlinux will be ignored as a development platform I for one want a one stop distro I can use for development, ignoring key components means that for some it won't be UserLinux. The claims about downloading the components yourself is nonsense, the whole point of a distro is that you don't have to download the key packages separately.
Yes the desktops and GUIs are complex, but that's the current situation. That these are large major components is a reason to include both, not ignore one, that's just crazy.
When I first heard about Perens' plans I thought 'great' something to save us from RH's abandonment, but I had my concerns. Now it looks like I was right to, Perens has managed to stuff this up royally with one decision "by fiat".
A lack of consensus should have told the guy something, but he completely ignored the message and is now claiming it doesn't restrict anyone supporting it themselves, rubbish! You could make ths same case about Fedora.