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
Except the User part because there won't be any.
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.
user mode linux != userlinux. HTH, HAND.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Having used both, I have likes and dislikes about both of them - Gnome does look better, and "feels", whatever that means, like a more complete and professional product.
That said, KDE is faster. Much, much faster; On older hardware, this is a pronounced difference. Every time my old P2/233 goes bobbing for objects in the Corba barrel, it takes an awfully long time to come up for air.
If the UserLinux project is only meant to run on hardware made from this day forward, that's cool, I'd go with Gnome. But if not, I'd definitely include KDE - It's cruel to say so, but the choice between Gnome and KDE is, in my house, very much dependent on the choice between new or old hardware.
Mike Hoye
Newsforge still has a copy of the response that Bruce Perens posted before replacing it with is on www.userlinux.com/GUI.html now..
Get it here
GNOME was chosen because it allows the development and distribution of proprietary applications WITHOUT purchasing a license from Trolltech.
It isn't about if one is better than the other. He doesn't touch that argument with a 10 foot pole.
Read BP's white paper for his wording on it.
I have never fully understood why distros come with both GUI environments. I realize that there is a lot of great software that one will miss out on either way, but users want simplicity.
I view Bruce's approach as being better than what Redhat has historically delivered (Gnome with half-assed KDE support). I would rather have KDE left out than finding broken features and diminished functionality after the install.
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.
Why hasn't anyone made an OSS implementation of Qt? I don't see why it would be to hard to come up with a drop-in replacement, maybe even based on GTK, (though hopefully more low level).
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
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?
There can be only one!
.NET -- and how heavily Novell/Ximian will be pursuing it. If this is the direction GNOME itself is going and MS suddenly pulls a patent-fit (released as open standards, blah blah...note SCO distributing their code under GPL doesn't shut them up).
Why GNOME over KDE, I don't know. Then again, I'm sure we all have our personal biases. (I happen to like KDE).
A possible danger here would be the road to
Support for both would be great, if not needed, though. I like kuickshow too much to give it up. I know that's a trivial app, but put a more heavily-relied-upon app in its place. There are people who couldn't work without at least KDE app support.
If in the end, there can be only one, I hope it's a product of convergence, and not the demise of one environment (to be technical, the rest of the environments).
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.
Trolltech is an independent company, not controlled by Canopy. Canopy group owns 5.7% of TrollTech's shares, while Trolltech's employees and founders own 69.7%. This myth of Canopy controlling Trolltech is entirely untrue (but remarkably persistent, thanks to anti-KDE trolls). Read kdemyths.urbanlizard.com and be enlightened.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
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
If Bruce Perens honestly wants this to be a Linux for business people (instead of the unwashed masses of normal users), he should not call it UserLinux but BusinessLinux or whatever.
I'm a user and I want KDE. Most people agree that KDE is more mature and robust than GNOME anyway, so from a business point of view it is obviously better suited. KDE also has more stability from other points of view, for example it doesn't change the default window manager for each major release, the groupware and the kiosk mode are very important as well. I'm not talking down on GNOME here, but KDE is more mature and all the major business wins Linux has had so far were with (and because of) KDE.
I think the maintainability argument is a fallacy. Admins already are completely unable to contain the complexities of different applications. Each major application and framework calls for its own class of admins. In large companies you have a Cisco admin for the networking infrastructure, you have an Oracle DBA, you have the Apache guy, you have the SuSE/RedHat/whatever admin, and the 5000 Windows reboot monkeys. Nobody expects all of this to go away if they switch to Linux. There will still be complexity. Deciding to standardize on GNOME will not make OpenOffice any less daunting to install and maintain in a multi-user environment. Or Mozilla. Or Apache.
And if we accept the argument, we would clearly choose the platform with the more robust administration interface, which clearly is KDE. kcontrol is integrated and pretty much all-encompassing, while GNOME is constantly shifting from CORBA over XML to a binary registry and back. GNOME has become so bad that they actually added a regedit style "config editor" and apparently really expect users to use it to configure applications. Hint: This is the kind of nightmare people want to get rid of when they switch from Windows to Linux.
Anyway, I don't see why we need to standardize on a GUI, and if we do, we standardize on KDE, of course, as it fulfils more of the requirements businesses have, hands down.
emacs in action
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
If you want to do commercial development with Qt, you have to pay a one time fee.
Bruce objected to that and is putting together a distribution that has NO payment requirements for commercial development.
That's his approach, that's his goal.
Whether he will succeed or not, only time will tell.
Not trying to troll or anything, I just want a reasonable answer to this one:
I heard a ton of arguments why ther should be only One. Okay, development, toolsets, all that crap.
So, if KDE IN and GNOME IN is not an option, they go with KDE OUT, GNOME IN.
Why not KDE IN, GNOME OUT?
How is GNOME better than KDE?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Just because the Canopy Group and SCO invested in Trolltech, doesn't mean that Trolltech is part of the Canopy Group.
Alltogether, Canopy Group owns a grand total of 5.7% of Trolltech. They have practically no say in the operations of Trolltech.
People really need to stop dragging Trolltech's name through the mud with this pointless argument.
(Note:: I am not a Trolltech/QT/KDE fanboy. In fact I don't use any desktop environment. My WMs of choice are Enlightenment and BlackBox.)
End of line..
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.
Remember, whatever choices we make apply only to what we choose to support as a group. Our choices don't cause the alternatives to be removed from Debian, they don't constrain what a service provider can support to their own customers...
IOW, if you want to use KDE, go ahead and use it, no one is stopping you. If they were making changes that made it impossible for KDE to run properly, then there may be a good basis for petition. Not having KDE included in distro XYZ in no way invalidates all the great work they've done to date. (I'm a happy KDE user)
Also the white paper suggests supporting MySQL as the database, Python as interpretive language, and Mozilla as the browser. I dont see postgreSQL, PERL, and Thunderbird development teams getting thier panties in a wad.
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
*every* time an artcle is posted about Linux/BSD vs. Windows/OS X usability, someone chimes in that 'if only the open source community could pick one developement platform, and limit user choice, then developers could focus on one platform, everything would work well, things would be easy, new users and business would love it, birds would sing, and MicroSoft would be overthrown'.
Then that guy gets modded up to +5.
Now, someone's making a serous effort to do *exactly that* and everyone's bitching about leaving out KDE and how it limits user choice, forces everyone to work on one platform, and how this will make things harder; when it appears that it has a large part to do with the licencing of QT vs. Gnome, and nothing about KDE or Gnome being 'better'.
Sheesh. And I'm sitting here posting about it. I can't think of what's sadder!
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...
Gee, trolling about Trolltech. How novel. Okay, before any more people swallow this bait:
Two seconds of googling would show that this is not the case. Look at Trolltech's investors. For crying out loud, Borland owns a bigger stake in Trolltech than Canopy Group, and nearly 2/3 of the stock is owned by employees:
Even if every outside investor (including Borland :-) were merely a shell corporation controlled by Canopy, they'd still have nowhere near the votes to influency anything at Trolltech.
A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
I personally prefer KDE over gnome, but if Linux is ever going to make it into the corporate world in decent-sized rollouts, some hard decisions are going to have to be made. The Gnome interface looks less sophisticated than KDE, but I know for darn sure that I don't want to ask my users "are you using KDE or Gnome" and have them replying "I dunno", then having to figure out the difference. Yes, I *realise* that IT departments would set the standard and possibly would uninstall one or the other, but does anybody care about Windows not having a plethora of other desktop-systems?
As much as I bag the shit out of Microsoft for their products, their Windows interface is consistent and you know what you're dealing with. Linux will eventually be all the better for it if KDE and Gnome can just ditch one in favour of the other and focus their collective development efforts on one, kick-arse, desktop environment. I used to use WindowMaker before we had desktop environments, but I don't lose sleep at night because I switched to KDE.
You people might think that Gnome vs KDE are holy wars that must be fought, but it is this division that Microsoft are tickled-pink to witness. Ever heard of the saying "Divide, and conquer" (or should that be "Divide, and konquer"?
Get with the program you religious zealots and do something that benefits Linux for a change! At the end of the day, I couldn't care less which desktop environment wins out, just as long as one of those frigging things is a clear winner.
This is one of the main reasons why I still keep booting into Windows XP for a lot of things - because things are consistent and they interoperate seamlessly without me having to run memory-hogging applications like klipper just so the many different clipboard protocols appear to work "seamlessly"
Bruce says: "UserLinux is intended to be a system for business people."
OK, that's great, but why on earth call it UserLinux then? Shouldn't it be BusinessLinux?
Names are important. UserLinux sounds like a Linux distro intended for end users. Someone like my Mom, not someone like HP. Bruce may be right about GNOME being a better solution for business. I will, however, bet nickels to dollars that much of the controversy is because people assume that a distro called UserLinux should be about, well, users, and that's KDE's main focus.
I have assumed ever since the initial announcement that UserLinux might end up being my distro of choice, and I was upset when I heard about KDE's exclusion. Now that I read further, I see I have no reason to be upset, because UserLinux isn't intended for me.
It wouldn't surprise me to see the whole project fail because of this fundamental naming problem. Is a distro called UserLinux even going to register on a CIO's radar?
BusinessLinux might have. I don't think UserLinux will.
Non-GPL'd Qt development requires payments to Trolltech. Qt has the same license as Gnome under Linux.
Trolltech has licensed Qt under the GPL for Linux, which is the same license as Gnome. They will also sell you another license if you don't like the GPL and want to write apps that link to Qt using some other more restrictive license.
As far as I know, Gnome is only licensed under the GPL. Unless I'm mistaken, that means to me that with Gnome, you have one choice of license, whereas with Qt, you can opt to purchase a non-GPL license.
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.
Never mind, gnome is GPL'd, but GTK+ (the toolkit, which is the proper parallel to draw to Qt) is LGPL, which is much less restrictive than the GPL.
I see Bruce's point. With GTK+, you can write GUI applicaitons, and not release your source code. The same activity with Qt requires a commercial license.
My mistake.
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?
It's the most complex text editor ever written, used mainly by programmers to edit code and a million or so other things besides. Some programmers love it, others hate it, preferring the much more lightweight (but with its own UI issues) vi text editor, or alternatives like nedit. The jargon file's entry on EMACS gives some explanation, see also vi, and holy wars. If the above links are still too opaque, and you need more details on EMACS itself rather than the culture wars, see the Wikipedia entry on Emacs.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Sorry to have to say it, but from the UserLinux people's point of view KDE isn't made here, so it's not their first choice. Neither cost nor freedom matter one fig to business. To think that they do is pure self deception.
KDE folks: Get over it, if you can't join them, beat them; and kome up with a really KooLinux.
It's more than possible by taking an appropriate subset of the Gentoo distribution and adding basic accounting functions ready to go. Now write an ebuild file and install with:-
emerge KooLinux
Now that would be a piece of cake. Granted it'll be time consuming to make, but it's far from rocket science, yet very VERY Kool.
Don't believe me? Ask Richard Stallman.
What the *fuck* is going on in Linux-land? It keeps getting trippier and trippier.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
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).
Honestly not trying to troll here, but both kde and gnome, as they are installed by most popular distros atleast, suck. I've seen a lot of linux systems that boot into windows faster than they boot linux and start up gnome or kde.
KDE and Gnome are not good examples to use if you are against bloat of any kind. It'd seem wiser, albeit harder, to take a simpler window/desktop manager and build upon it to make something that was halfway useable and consistant in design.
A few days ago, when I read Bruce Perens response (or rather defence) on his choice of GUI, there was one part of his response that caught my eye: He said that individual support companies can add KDE and support it if they want. "It's not that we are removing KDE from Debian" he said.
... so you see it isn't so much a "KDE passion", but a realism."
I contacted the UserLinux mailing list on behalf of a group/company that is considering becoming a support company for UserLinux in Iran. We badly need an Iranian distro with full support for the Farsi language, in Iran and as far as I can see there is a good market here for such a product. For months we have been thinking about wether we should roll out our own Debian-based distro, but haven't yet made our decision. (Well we have made Shabdix, which is a Live CD distro based on Knoppix). As everyone knows, maintaining a Linux distro is not a trivial task, and there is not enough financial incentive in it. UserLinux with it's proposed structure would have made an excellent choice for us.
The problem is, during the past 1.5 year, our small group of Linux enthusiasts translated KDE to Farsi. Currently it has (near) full Farsi support, and right now offers something which Windows does not: a Farsi Graphical User Interface. KDE is the only environment which has been translated to Farsi, and as far as I know no one is planning on translating Gnome to Farsi, anytime soon. The situation here, is that if people are going to use Linux in Iran, the only player here is KDE. Gnome (currently) lacks Farsi support.
Bruce's decision on GUI has made life hard for us. I Contacted UserLinux discussion mailing list to ask a couple of questions and to make things clear for myself (namely to ask how I as a support company will be able to add KDE, and still be considered UserLinux). Unfortunetely I didn't get a single reply on the mailing list. What actualy surprised me was that on UserLinux's only mailing list, most people were just trolls, engaging in endless flame wars. I didn't saw a single developer there, nothing cunstructive, just flame wars. Bruce Perens loudly speaks everywhere of UserLinux' more than 200 posts a day. What he doesn't speak about, is that these are mostly just flame wars.
However Aaron Seigo, a respected KDE developer took the time to address some of my questions, and he made me aware of the other side of the coin: what KDE developers are doing. I am posting some parts of his mails, so that the slashdot community can also use his thoughts.
He Wrote:
"I've cc'd the kde-debian list on this, since doing User Linux but with KDE is what this project is about! there's no need to sacrifice KDE, or deal with putting KDE into User Linux on your own. simply join our efforts and we can all work together on this solution. we have dozens already involved and code is being written.
After congradulating on his work I also wrote:
" However I should note that while I will look with greatinterest to your project, it is a shame that such an old issue (GnomeVs. KDE) has seperated the community in this way.
His responded:
"please note that this old issue was not raised by us (people interested in KDE) but by Bruce Perens and some random GNOME fanatics. my position was and is based on market realities and inclusivity that does not suffer from choice proliferation (e.g. the "10 CD players, 20 text editors" problem) nor from economic drags on support (as Bruce tried to submit).
I don't think GNOME should be excluded from User Linux, and i feel the same way about PostgreSQL vs MySQL as I do about GNOME vs KDE in User Linux, despite note liking MySQL as a RDBMs solution very much
I also wrote:
"UserLinux was/is a great idea, but it's strengh lies in the power of it's core organization,and how much it will be successful in getting IHV and ISV support Having two such projects competeing with each other will only damage both of these projects, as we all know that ISVs (and to so
--
The cost of a license for commercial development is not a valid argument. If a company develops an application for sale, the cost of a license is a fraction of the overall cost to develop, market, and maintain a product. As far as development kits go, the decision on which dev kit that gets chosen is based on quality, which will drive the cost of development in the long run, and company politics.
.. What I can't understand is that the development effort is *much* bigger [In the United States] for Gnome than for KDE"
In fact, KDE has a larger developer and user base than any other desktop environment (besides windows) in the world.
Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
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."
LGPL is good if you like giving other people the freedom to use proprietary software if it better suits their needs. No one forces you to use proprietary software just because a library is LGPL'd.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Some quick quotes:
.... There are a number of Debian-derivative distributions that are naturals for this project.
I am interested in seeing the GUI argument end, as I've just read all of the postings in it and didn't learn much during those several hours.
That's what happens when you make up your mind before you even start the conversation. It's common in people who think they're smarter then everyone else and believe they know what's best.
But the most ludicrous aspect of the Fedora project is that with Fedora, Red Hat seeks to achieve what Debian did long ago.
Fedora is a fellow Linux distribution, worked on by people like you and me, hackers with ideas. There's no reason to call them ludicrous. It's rude and uncalled for.
The goals of UserLinux are compatible with Debian's Social Contract, which I created.
I'm starting to get numb to you tooting your own horn. Your achievements are impressive, but they're soured by all your boasting. Yeah, yeah.. you're great... blah blah blah
Mandrake sent an inquiry and we don't yet know how they'd fit.
This is interesting, as you're basing merit on whether or not a distro is Debian based. The initial mention of Mandrake could possibly have been from a corporate standpoint, but it's followed allmost immediately by the Debian reference, which assumes their worth simple because of their distro heritage. Clearly, being a Linux advocate/hacker isn't good enough unless you're a Debian advocate/hacker. This attitude is given more weight by the following line.
There have been suggestions regarding Linux platforms other than Red Hat and Debian, which I have classified as partisan.
Considering the previous, I guess this is no suprise.
You've got good goals Bruce. I don't think you'll find an arguement concerning you're overall idea. But you've got to stop being so self-centered and treat your fellow community with a little more respect, else you'll be dancing alone with your ego. Even if you do help to construct "billion dollar contracts", money can't buy you love, happiness, or my respect.
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
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.
Some random opinion on GNOME vs KDE that I really ought to shut up about since noone's listening but hey, it's saturday morning:
The GPL promotes Free software development, because you are only allowed to create Free applications with it.
MOD THE CHILD UP!
Of course, all these problems can be addressed somewhat if you take enough time to architect the software carefully, it takes too much time for hobbyist-sized (several thousand lines) projects. Improperly architected C programs are not that far from good C programs (as long as good coding practices are used), but C++ programs will be very messy if some parts are put together ad hoc.
For object-oriented programming, I prefer simpler languages such as Smalltalk, Java and C#, if they suit the job.
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.
Seriously, while I'm not familiar with QT's licensing fees and I'm too lazy to go read them, there's no way in hell that a few grand in licensing fees can offset the massive savings that would be realized by ditching Windows for a free desktop OS across thousands of PC's.
Also, if you're really the CTO of fortune 250 company (*cough*), why don't you just call up Perens and try to influence the direction of UserLinux by funding a little development that specifically addresses your requirements? Remember, it's called "open source" as in "open to everyone". That includes businesses and even you personally. I realize this. You do not.
Most (non-tech) businesses still view open source software as canned products developed my some mysterious "other" and never even think about taking a direct role in development. In other words, they still don't realize it's true potential or advantages. Think of this situation as "under-utilization of available assets" or "failure to consider a wide array of options."
If you want to make (or save) enough money to substantially alter a large company's bottom line, you have to exercise leadership and creativity. A brilliant, original and trend-setting IT solution will not just show up on your doorstep with a EULA and a pretty brochure. I realize this. You do not.
I'm not really a developer. I've compiled and configured an entire network of free software, but I could not code "hello world" without looking at a "{programing language} for dummys" book to save my life. I've used Gnome 2.4. I used if for a month both at work and at home. At the end, I was *so* happy I could go back to KDE. KDE just works. Now. I couldn't even get printing to be uniform in Gnome. I wish OpenOffice and Mozilla would have the option to use KDE's dialogs, but at least I have a consistant printing system with kprinter. KDE is lightyears ahead of Gnome. Gnome has no consistancy whatsoever. Things don't mesh well at all. It feels like a bunch of parts just thrown together. I have dabbled in programing. I've thrown together little bits and pieces to see how they go together. Never really gotten anywhere simply becouse I don't like programing enough. However, I do know that if I ever wanted to make an app, I would use QT. And it wouldn't matter if I wanted to use the GPL or make it commercial. The fee for a commercial license is pocket change for a commercial project. I would be able to call TrollTech for support. I have easy to read documentation for every single funtion in QT. I have no one to call for gtk support. Also, I have the assurance that if TrollTech ever went under, I would have the QT code since they have agreed to release it under a BSD style licence if that were to happen.
Here's a quick test using google seaches:
QT toolkit Technical Support
GTK toolkit Technical Support
Now, if I were a comercial company, which toolkit would I want to use? One with full technical support, excelent documentation, and a contract that assures I'm never left without the code that costs money?
Or a toolkit with no technical support, inferior documentation, no guarantee that development will continue thats free?
Using Gnome for a distribution geared toward business is a bad idea. Mark my words: This will end badly, even if the distribution is successful.
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
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.