Fine, you like KDE. Why do you think it should be the exclusive default environment?
Well, I didn't. I said that *IF* standardization is so damn important, you would have to standardize on an exclusive default environment.
A theme will only make it look integrated but will fail where it will count.
Answer this: why is standardization overrated? It's the only thing that allows something to gain mass acceptance. Look at cars. They are all pretty much the same in terms of the basic "user interface". You can soup up a car and make it look cool or give it some eninge modifications to get extra performance, but any joe off the street will be able to drive even the most modified car. This is becasue ALL cars have a "default theme", so to speak.
A good example: All cockpits look very different (= **NO** "default" theme at all. not even near it) but the controls work similarily (like everybody has windows, menus, a mouse, etc.).
So you provided an example that the average Joe does not freak out because some colors or looks are different. My point all the way.
Your "steering knob" example is not appropriate. All common DEs work through the same principles.
Regarding KDE: Yes, many themes support putting the buttons wherever you want, but some don't. On everything else you say it's "boring", whatever that means.
I don't really care much about being "cool", I care about getting work done. KDE's printing manager lets me send a pdf as e-mail out of *every* KDE app. This is why I switched over to KWord for bills. Konqueror's "fish:" KIOslave lets me connect to *ANY* ssh-scp computer without any need to configure anything. (What a relief, before that you had to set up NFS, SMB or something like that - unnecessary for non-permanent connections. This is the first graphical ssh/scp client I am aware of).
All it requires is a simple question: Are you new to Linux? If they answer yes, then BAM! install the low-grade user's default theme pack.
Well, as I already pointed out, a settings-manager already exists in KDE and the "Windows-like"-settings will probably be fine for newbies coming from Windows.
So what you request *EXISTS RIGHT NOW* and is used in SuSE, Mandrake, Caldera and all other distros that install KDE by default. But you seem to be in denial about that fact.
You said that something like this is needed for mass-acceptance and you are right: Everywhere RedHat scares away new users, Linux is virtually non-existant on the desktop while everywhere a KDE-centric distribution is in the default installs, it is spreading. What a coicidence, eh?
Stop denying the facts.
Do you know the saying "A technology has not been invented until Microsoft incorporates it"? - We are discussing really long now and you beg for a solution that does not exist for you because RedHat does not incorporate it but everybody else is using for quite some time now.
GNOME/KDE cooperation would solve that problem real fast. That's what I was saying earlier about how competition needs to go away since it is only a destructive force.
Let's get some facts straight: GNOME was a reaction on KDE, if there were no KDE, there would neither be a GNOME. GNOME's only reason to exist is to kill KDE.
Also if you look at GNOME, they seem to be eager to jump on every Microsoft-technology (MONO, a registry-like settings system(!)) but are not willing to use KDE-technology at all. It's not easy to work with people whose only goal is to kill you. But to be fair, it was getting better lately.
Also, because of the nature of the two projects (C vs. C++) sharing code is hard or even impossible.
You feel that KDE is the best environment for all users and should be the default.
Wrong, I think (and I can support that with usage statistics) that KDE is the best environment for most (not all) users and should be the default.
So unifying on one user environment and taking away choice with regards to environments is a good thing? I think THAT is a serious mistake.
True, but nothing prevents them from including GNOME. But IF you think that standardization is important they should switch to KDE as the default. IMO, they should use KDE as a default, but not because of standardization...
As far as RedHat being different is concerned, what does it matter for crying out loud!??
Funny, it was *YOU* who said that everybody should have the same thing on every distro, not me.
IMO, standardization is overrated, but that's me.
What distro of Linux do you think newbies are going to buy in the US? They certainly aren't going to get Debian, SuSe or use Linux From Scratch. They are going to buy RedHat every time. When SuSE actually makes a dent in the US, maybe things will be different.
Wow, you change your mind pretty fast. First you insist on cross-distribution conformity, now you say that RedHat is the only thing that matters.
There is also Mandrake, BTW, which is not doing bad in the US either.
Of course RedHat scare away so many users that there are fewer desktop Linux-users in the US than in Germany, despite being 3 times larger...
Just check out newsgroups, you will see about 5 - 15% of Linux users in German newsgroups, but only 0-3% in US-newsgroups. (non-technical, OS-neutral of course.) I can send you a perl-script that analyzes with what people posted their messages if you want.
But you seem to be fine with that, it seems.
KDE isn't flexible enough,
Do you have an example of KDE "unflexibility" or are you just trolling?
At the same time, we don't need to limit a distro's choice of environment either. And that is exactly what you are proposing.
Wrong. I was talking about defaults. Of course Gnome should be included for those who want it.
Who cares if it's the environment that most distros use?
You seem to.
A theme is less of a limitation and has NO impact on advanced users.
As I already pointed out, that's false. A theme just makes it "look" integrated, but the real cool features all don't work (and you don't know why some apps work while others don't because of your idiotic theme, which makes it even worse.)
As I said, this standardization is overrated, however it's not completely pointless either. For example you might want to use the addressbook or the printing dialouge or want to dock to the menubar. These are things that really matter and those will not work better because of themes.
What I am saying is... A newbie NEEDS to see the EXACT same thing on each distro.
Currently all distributions install KDE by default except one which installs GNOME.
In 2 months, all distributions will install KDE by default except one which will install a bastardized mixture of KDE and GNOME.
And you say that's great. What was your point again?
The newbie benefits because (if this were in all distros)
It is not in all distros. KDE is the default on all distros except one. If we really need standardization who should change?
Also, I don't think anybody can expect all distros to put a redhat-logo in the bottom-left corner.
And once again, you miss my point... this is NOT for you. This is for the person who has never run Linux before. This is for the person who can't set their microwave or VCR clock because it's too difficult. These are not stupid people, they are people who simply don't care. They just want to turn the machine on and get to work.
Your point is completely irrelevant.
Hell, KDE even offers a settings-manager which is launched at first log-in. Just choose "Windows" and *ALL* your settings will be set like Windows. It will look like Windows, it will feel like Windows. So the newbie thinks "I know Windows, so this is probably the best" clicks on it, clicks "next" twice and that's it.
This is out-of-the-box KDE functionality.
If RedHat thinks it's so damn important to keep Gnome, they could just write a similar application for Gnome and everything would be fine.
Sorry, but creating a mixture won't solve *this* problem (which has nothing to do with uniformity) at all.
And if RedHat is listening... this would be something that you DO install during a default installation, but can be de-selected during all installations if the admin chooses. If you want to elevate yourself among the masses, then you can call it the "Dummy Pack" for all I care, but either way, it has to be unifrom across all distros and it has to be a default that can be over-ridden by those who "know better".
So you say that we need uniformity and think that RedHat is doing the right thing by being the ONLY ONE doing everything different.
There are good political reasons to choose GNOME. (I don't know why when people say 'politics' it is assumed to be a synonym for 'bad'.) Namely, proprietary software vendors can produce GNOME versions of their apps without any trouble; but you have to pay Troll Tech if you want to produce proprietary software for KDE.
IIRC, Trolltech's license is about 1500$ - 3500$ per developer. That shouldn't be a roadblock for a commercial vendor. Microsoft's tools are also not free and people are obviously using them.
Free software zealots won't care one way or the other - indeed they might even prefer the GPL'd Qt rather than Lesser-GPL'd GNOME libraries - but businesses are perhaps more likely to choose GNOME if they decide which desktop to develop for.
Wrong, businesses will choose Qt if they use C++ and GTK if they still use C.
And if they want to do multiplatform, they will choose Qt or Kylix (both KDE-based).
The point of this? If Linux is ever to succeed on the Desktop, with über-geeks AND consumer-Joe-and-Jane-public, a unified desktop is essential.
First you say it is a problem that users can't distinguish Windows-versions then you say it's essential to make KDE and GTK indistinguisable? That doesn't make any sense.
Me: "Do you use KDE or Gnome, Ma'am?"
Aha, and "Do you use KDE, Gnome, RedHat's desktop, SuSE's desktop or Mandrake's desktop, Ma'am" would be better?
*IF* we really need a unified desktop we have to choose from KDE and Gnome. Period.
If RedHat would install KDE by default, we would have that unified desktop RIGHT NOW, because they are the only ones still holding out with GNOME. (The default is what counts)
Creating a bastardized mixture of both will not solve this problem (if it really is a problem which I honestly doubt.)
Bullshit. Most users - the non-MS haters, non-zealots - will see no reason to switch to another OS in the first place,
Oh, Microsoft is doing their best to provide reasons: New licensing scheme, DRM, Palladium, spyware, requesting rights to control everything...
Of course KDE offers so much, Windows can't do (more desktops, session manager, good MMB integration, etc.) but those are only discouvered after using it for some time.
and being able to run the same apps won't sway them. They will respond, logically: "If I'm going to be using the same programs, why not be using the same OS?"
By that theory, we would all still use DOS.
Correct is: "Great that I can use better and more stable Linux-apps on a better desktop, but I still have to use this one important Win32-app or I can't switch."
Or (more realistically for the average Joe): "Great that I can still listen to pirated music, but I still have to use these (also pirated) Win32 games"
It's ridiculos to think that anybody will use Wine to use all their Win32apps on Linux. Wine is and will be used for those programs that don't have an equivalent in Linux and only for those, not for all.
WINE and Windows Compatibility are a way to win the battle and loose the war, it is a short-sighted "Fix it now" solution that will cause more harm that good. All it will do is ensure that developers never develop for linux.
Wrong, Wine makes developing for Linux easier and faster. IBM has shown that you can make good and stable Wine-based apps (hpbuilder).
WINE is a nice way to play catch-up forever.
Also wrong. All Win-soft is Win98-compatible which is a fixed target for 4 years now. - And will be around for quite some time, too.
This is what killed OS/2 -- they had a windows compatibility mode that was so good -- no one developed for OS/2, what possible motivation would there be to? Program to windows -- sell on windows and OS/2.
Yeah, I saw that coming. But it's complete nonsense. OS/2 was killed because it was from IBM.
From an OEM point of view:
OS/2 = IBM = computer-maker = competitor = not a good idea.
Windows = Microsoft = software-company = no competitor = OK
Add in that OS/2 was too expensive, had really shitty marketing and wasn't really pushed by IBM itself (they sold DOS/Windows PCs at all times!) - but even the best price, the best marketing and IBM only selling OS/2 PC wouldn't have made OS/2 successful. OEMs would have been stupid to adopt it.
Wine is a great way to attract users. If Wine becomes so good that Wine-apps run on Linux just like on Windows - well what's the problem?
But we both know that developing for Win32 is a pain. Wine is a way to attract users. Once Linux gets a significant marketshare on the desktop (over 10%) developers will happily make native Linux-versions. Just like developers stopped made Win32-apps when Win95 was released. Also a native app will have better KDE-integration (and that's where RedHat's initiative fails - where it counts it doesn't work, it just puts a skin over it) than a Wine-version. Of course Linux-users have to be relevant, which is currently not the case on the desktop.
We have to get the users *FIRST*. Whining about no native apps available won't change a thing. If Wine is a way to get users (and it is, IMO) it is the way to go.
And another thing: Linux has a strong development community which puts out many great Linux-only apps. Wine won't change that. - If Linux manages to become the OS with the most apps (Qt, GTK, Win32 AND Motif) it will become the most popular OS.
Beyond all that -- the unified desktop (QT+GTK) will enhance the user experience. Widgets should look and act the same, you shouldn't have to train your eye to a new widget set for each application you use. You shouldn't select an application because it fits "with your desktop" -- you should select it because it is the best application -- the article makes the point very clearly and I whole-heartedly agree.
Well, where it counts, RedHat's approach fails. (Does Gnome's Palm-software get synch my notes with knotes? I don't think so. Does Gnome's PIM software know about my KDE-adressbook? Does Gnome's Windowmanager restore KDE-windows on relogin? on the correct desktop? I don't think so. Will Gnome apps use KDE's really fine printmanager? I don't think so.) RedHat made it *look* like it's integrated, but in reality it isn't.
*IF* you think we need a really unified desktop you will have to choose.
I would have done what every commercial Linux distribution except RedHat does:
Install KDE by default but include Gnome in the distribution for those who want it.
What's wrong with that?
The reason RedHat pushes Gnome is just politics and stubbornness.
But it's OK, it's their distribution, so why not install Gnome by default and include KDE in the distribution?
Would still be better than such a half-assed desktop mixture.
PS: You can't "take the best of both and integrate them into a single desktop" because KDE is written in C++/Qt and Gnome in C/GTK. Those don't mix. If they would mix, such a merger would have happened a long time ago.
Why should a "unified" desktop better than some default desktop?
Both are new to the user. HOW DOES THE NEWBIE BENEFIT?
Just look at KDE 3.l and Keramik and tell me RedHat should not install that as a default.
If you think that newbies should not choose, just install KDE and include GNOME on the CDs for those who really want it - or do a recommendation.
Actually I don't really mind distributors optimizing things, but in this case it's not an optimization, it's a "kill all innovation" approach. RedHat didn't try to make their default desktop better, they tried to align their default desktop to another desktop.
RedHat newbies will never see Keramik, they will never see new cool features.
All they will see is a bastardized desktop that just won't feel right and will be behind both KDE and GNOME.
And for you "standardize"-fans: Now we have 2 major desktops (KDE, GNOME), how is going from 2 desktops to 3 desktops (KDE, GNOME, Redhat) a step towards standardization? Imagine every distributor would do that?
No, I don't think that we should all use the same distro from the same distributor. What I do think is that if Linux is going to succeed in the consumer market, then there must be a noticable face for the consumer to identify with. This is what Windows has done. Most users couldn't tell you the difference in the versions of Windows, other than the newer on is prettier.
And I say again, that's nonsense.
BeOS had a nice desktop. Where is it? It's gone because it doesn't has any apps.
Windows succeeded because it was backwards-compatible. The PC was plagued by IRQ and DMA conflicts and still took away marketshare from Macs and Amiga.
Linux needs to become backwards-compatible to Windows and needs to run Win32 applications.
That's what is holding it back.
In all areas where the apps are available, Linux is doing fine
Examples? Webservers - Windows gets marginalized there. Professional 3D-animation: Just after the tools were ported, many movie studios moved right to Linux. Embedded systems: Except for PDA's which are ruled by Palm and WinCE (and now guess why? RIGHT! Because of the APPS!!!) Linux has become the standard.
Software will be ported to Linux when the users are there. C++ and Delphi apps will be ported to KDE and C-apps will be ported to GNOME. Period. All apps work on all desktops, no problem in sight. End of story.
People want applications.
Nobody will give a shit wether an application runs on Qt, GTK or Wine. It doesn't matter as long as the functionality is there.
No, I don't think that we should all use the same distro from the same distributor. What I do think is that if Linux is going to succeed in the consumer market, then there must be a noticable face for the consumer to identify with. This is what Windows has done. Most users couldn't tell you the difference in the versions of Windows, other than the newer on is prettier.
Oh, not another one explaining the success of Microsoft. Face it: Microsoft is successful because IBM gave them the OS-monopoly in 1981. Everybody would have been successful with that, even Microsoft which never really did anything other than following the market. Microsoft has delayed the wide adoption of a GUI (every other major platform had a GUI long before 1990, but Windows 3.1 was the first usable GUI for DOS and came in 1993), they delayed the wide adoption of the Internet (In the early 90's Bill Gates himlelf said that "Internet will never be popular" and "The Internet? We are not interested in it") and PDAs (Go! invented the first PDA, Microsoft killed them with a lot of FUD and PenWindows which came out 2 years afterwards - which was dropped after Go! went bankrupt. Great, eh? PenWindows only use was to kill a company, advancing technology was not really important for MS)
So please stop telling me Microsoft's great secret of success. In real life, Microsoft is one of the most chaotic and incompetent companies.
Microsoft's only interest is maintaining the status-quo. The only reason we have Windows now is because everybody else already had a GUI for years and Microsoft had to follow.
In all new markets like Webservers for example, Linux is doing great - better than Windows. In all old markets where people have tons of programs and documents to lose, Linux doing not so good.
We need backwards-compatibility or WINE. Everything else is already there.
In contrast to what you say above, I do think that a unified face will allow more software to be ported to Linux. As companies see that the market is maturing, they will be more likely to take the jump to a linux version because there is less risk to there bottom line. You have a chicken and egg fiasco, which will come first, products or customers?
Customers.
I definately feel that this more identifiable "version" of RedHat Linux will go far is helping the cause. Consumers will now be able to focus on making linux work for them, instead of making Linux work.
Nonsense.
Currently Joe installs Linux and either stays with it because he likes it better or drops it because doesn't run.
How will that change? RedHat's GUI will be as new as stock-KDE for Joe (only uglier), so why should Joe be more likely to keep using it?
RedHat won't enable Linux on the masses' desktops. Codeweavers will.
I do not think it is a silly game. What is silly is to start an application from KDE in GNOME or Vice-Versa and have an entirely different look.
I'm so sick of that nonsense.
When you start ICQ in Windows, you have an entirely different look - whoowhoo!
WMP in Windows - different look! OMG!
Winamp in Windows - different again! THE HORROR!
Quicktime in Windows - again different! THE CONFUSION! (and also in MacOS, BTW)
Just start any game - all are differnt! ONLY A COMPUTER FREAK COULD USE THAT!
If anything of your "everything has to be the same" were true, there would be nobody using ICQ or Winamp and only a tiny fraction of elite computer users would be able to play games.
... which quite obviously is not the case. On the contrary, specialized apps seem to do quite well compared to their "standardized" counterparts.
So essentially you say that we all should run one desktop dictated by a single distributor.
No, this is not what we need. Just like we don't need a "unified" CPU-maker and a "unified" PC-vendor we don't need a "unified" Linux distribution.
If we would need that, we would all run Macs now.
DOS/Windows is so entrenched because:
People are used to it
OEMs have to take great risks by installing anything that is not Windows.
All the software is there
RedHat having their great "unified" desktop won't make Photoshop run on it, it won't void the contracts OEM have with Microsoft and it won't make people forget about Windows.
However, both KDE and GNOME are usable enough and similar enough so that a Widnows user will have no problem using it (especially if you choose the Windows-config on your first login in KDE.) so that is already solved.
What we still need is:
a WINE that works reliably
OEMs preinstalling Linux
I'm putting big hope in Codeweavers to produce a usable Wine that is easy to install and works with most office-software. - On all distributions, not only on RedHat.
and not distributors playing monopoly-unification games and reducing inter-distribution interoperability.
They already tried to ignore KDE, but they lost much marketshare (and essentially made Mandrake a main-stream distribution, which would have never happened without RedHat dropping the ball on KDE.
Of course this "nullification" is essentially the same thing and will make sure that:
Linux will have a hard time on the desktop for the next years where RedHat is dominant (In Germany, where SuSE is the biggest distribution, Linux desktop-marketshare is already at over 5%, while it's nonexistant ( smaller than 0.5%) in the US. The reason is RedHat.) The big problem is that newbies equate Linux with RedHat and won't try a good desktop-distribution after they saw RedHat.
RedHat will piss off KDE users (again). The problem is again that new users (who never heard of KDE or GNOME) still try RedHat first.
After a few months/years RedHat will realize their mistake (again) and will include a real KDE (again) which of course will be not the default and only available on special request (again) and the whole cycle starts from the beginning until the next iteration.
It will be interesting to watch how long RedHat is able to play their silly games with KDE.
Konqueror supports ftp out of the box and with the upcoming KDE 3.1 release will support a ssh/scp client, that is much better than ftp. ("fish:/", check it out, it's great. Because every Linux-box comes with ssh/scp preinstalled it's *the* ideal solution to quickly share files between boxes without having to install/configure NFS, SMB or ftp.)
If the community can produce something more efficiently than private companies, it's better to make it public. In most branches of the economy, private companies do it more effectively, but not in all.
You really expect me to accept a toy where you can't even replace the monitor as a computer?
You really expect me to think that a 15-inch CRT cuts it today?
Apple purposely cripples their low-end models. If they would invest 1$ for DVI-connectors and make the damn thing replaceable, the new iMac would be an OK-machine (still expensive, but OK), but as it is, it's just crap. I don't want to buy a monitor everytime I buy a new computer or vice versa.
What's the only thing Windows can do better than Linux?
Correct: Run Win32 applications.
Nobody will buy IA64/Windows-machines because there is no Win64 software and nobody will make Win64 software because nobody buys IA64/Windows machines...
Nobody (including Microsoft) cares wether some adult breaks the EULA in this or that way.
Now what Microsoft DOES care about is that they have the permission to install DRM on your computer.
The EULA is just a slightest hint what the operating system will do in the future, no matter what you think about it or what you do or wether a minor installed it or not.
MP3 has one digit and no vowels. It looks like a 1337 h4X0r word, especially when written in lowercase. Therefore it has negative connotations, relating to online piracy and cracking.
Since when is that negative?
I think you have listen too long to propaganda, in real life Joe Consumer will run away screaming from anything that will not allow him to pirate. (Especially if he is used to pirate it)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I didn't. I said that *IF* standardization is so damn important, you would have to standardize on an exclusive default environment.
A theme will only make it look integrated but will fail where it will count.
Answer this: why is standardization overrated? It's the only thing that allows something to gain mass acceptance. Look at cars. They are all pretty much the same in terms of the basic "user interface". You can soup up a car and make it look cool or give it some eninge modifications to get extra performance, but any joe off the street will be able to drive even the most modified car. This is becasue ALL cars have a "default theme", so to speak.
A good example: All cockpits look very different (= **NO** "default" theme at all. not even near it) but the controls work similarily (like everybody has windows, menus, a mouse, etc.).
So you provided an example that the average Joe does not freak out because some colors or looks are different. My point all the way.
Your "steering knob" example is not appropriate. All common DEs work through the same principles.
Regarding KDE: Yes, many themes support putting the buttons wherever you want, but some don't. On everything else you say it's "boring", whatever that means.
I don't really care much about being "cool", I care about getting work done. KDE's printing manager lets me send a pdf as e-mail out of *every* KDE app. This is why I switched over to KWord for bills. Konqueror's "fish:" KIOslave lets me connect to *ANY* ssh-scp computer without any need to configure anything. (What a relief, before that you had to set up NFS, SMB or something like that - unnecessary for non-permanent connections. This is the first graphical ssh/scp client I am aware of).
All it requires is a simple question: Are you new to Linux? If they answer yes, then BAM! install the low-grade user's default theme pack.
Well, as I already pointed out, a settings-manager already exists in KDE and the "Windows-like"-settings will probably be fine for newbies coming from Windows.
So what you request *EXISTS RIGHT NOW* and is used in SuSE, Mandrake, Caldera and all other distros that install KDE by default. But you seem to be in denial about that fact.
You said that something like this is needed for mass-acceptance and you are right: Everywhere RedHat scares away new users, Linux is virtually non-existant on the desktop while everywhere a KDE-centric distribution is in the default installs, it is spreading. What a coicidence, eh?
Stop denying the facts.
Do you know the saying "A technology has not been invented until Microsoft incorporates it"? - We are discussing really long now and you beg for a solution that does not exist for you because RedHat does not incorporate it but everybody else is using for quite some time now.
GNOME/KDE cooperation would solve that problem real fast. That's what I was saying earlier about how competition needs to go away since it is only a destructive force.
Let's get some facts straight: GNOME was a reaction on KDE, if there were no KDE, there would neither be a GNOME. GNOME's only reason to exist is to kill KDE.
Also if you look at GNOME, they seem to be eager to jump on every Microsoft-technology (MONO, a registry-like settings system(!)) but are not willing to use KDE-technology at all. It's not easy to work with people whose only goal is to kill you. But to be fair, it was getting better lately.
Also, because of the nature of the two projects (C vs. C++) sharing code is hard or even impossible.
You feel that KDE is the best environment for all users and should be the default.
Wrong, I think (and I can support that with usage statistics) that KDE is the best environment for most (not all) users and should be the default.
True, but nothing prevents them from including GNOME. But IF you think that standardization is important they should switch to KDE as the default. IMO, they should use KDE as a default, but not because of standardization...
As far as RedHat being different is concerned, what does it matter for crying out loud!??
Funny, it was *YOU* who said that everybody should have the same thing on every distro, not me.
IMO, standardization is overrated, but that's me.
What distro of Linux do you think newbies are going to buy in the US? They certainly aren't going to get Debian, SuSe or use Linux From Scratch. They are going to buy RedHat every time. When SuSE actually makes a dent in the US, maybe things will be different.
Wow, you change your mind pretty fast. First you insist on cross-distribution conformity, now you say that RedHat is the only thing that matters.
There is also Mandrake, BTW, which is not doing bad in the US either.
Of course RedHat scare away so many users that there are fewer desktop Linux-users in the US than in Germany, despite being 3 times larger...
Just check out newsgroups, you will see about 5 - 15% of Linux users in German newsgroups, but only 0-3% in US-newsgroups. (non-technical, OS-neutral of course.) I can send you a perl-script that analyzes with what people posted their messages if you want.
But you seem to be fine with that, it seems.
KDE isn't flexible enough,
Do you have an example of KDE "unflexibility" or are you just trolling?
At the same time, we don't need to limit a distro's choice of environment either. And that is exactly what you are proposing.
Wrong. I was talking about defaults. Of course Gnome should be included for those who want it.
Who cares if it's the environment that most distros use?
You seem to.
A theme is less of a limitation and has NO impact on advanced users.
As I already pointed out, that's false. A theme just makes it "look" integrated, but the real cool features all don't work (and you don't know why some apps work while others don't because of your idiotic theme, which makes it even worse.)
As I said, this standardization is overrated, however it's not completely pointless either. For example you might want to use the addressbook or the printing dialouge or want to dock to the menubar. These are things that really matter and those will not work better because of themes.
Yes, but only 4. And only since XP.
Windows XP has session management
No it has not. If you have 10 IE-windows on your desktop and you reboot, you start with an empty desktop.
In KDE, all KDE-programs are restored just like they were before you left.
Currently all distributions install KDE by default except one which installs GNOME.
In 2 months, all distributions will install KDE by default except one which will install a bastardized mixture of KDE and GNOME.
And you say that's great. What was your point again?
The newbie benefits because (if this were in all distros)
It is not in all distros. KDE is the default on all distros except one. If we really need standardization who should change?
Also, I don't think anybody can expect all distros to put a redhat-logo in the bottom-left corner.
And once again, you miss my point... this is NOT for you. This is for the person who has never run Linux before. This is for the person who can't set their microwave or VCR clock because it's too difficult. These are not stupid people, they are people who simply don't care. They just want to turn the machine on and get to work.
Your point is completely irrelevant.
Hell, KDE even offers a settings-manager which is launched at first log-in. Just choose "Windows" and *ALL* your settings will be set like Windows. It will look like Windows, it will feel like Windows. So the newbie thinks "I know Windows, so this is probably the best" clicks on it, clicks "next" twice and that's it.
This is out-of-the-box KDE functionality.
If RedHat thinks it's so damn important to keep Gnome, they could just write a similar application for Gnome and everything would be fine.
Sorry, but creating a mixture won't solve *this* problem (which has nothing to do with uniformity) at all.
And if RedHat is listening... this would be something that you DO install during a default installation, but can be de-selected during all installations if the admin chooses. If you want to elevate yourself among the masses, then you can call it the "Dummy Pack" for all I care, but either way, it has to be unifrom across all distros and it has to be a default that can be over-ridden by those who "know better".
So you say that we need uniformity and think that RedHat is doing the right thing by being the ONLY ONE doing everything different.
Sorry, I don't understand your point.
IIRC, Trolltech's license is about 1500$ - 3500$ per developer. That shouldn't be a roadblock for a commercial vendor. Microsoft's tools are also not free and people are obviously using them.
Free software zealots won't care one way or the other - indeed they might even prefer the GPL'd Qt rather than Lesser-GPL'd GNOME libraries - but businesses are perhaps more likely to choose GNOME if they decide which desktop to develop for.
Wrong, businesses will choose Qt if they use C++ and GTK if they still use C.
And if they want to do multiplatform, they will choose Qt or Kylix (both KDE-based).
First you say it is a problem that users can't distinguish Windows-versions then you say it's essential to make KDE and GTK indistinguisable? That doesn't make any sense.
Me: "Do you use KDE or Gnome, Ma'am?"
Aha, and "Do you use KDE, Gnome, RedHat's desktop, SuSE's desktop or Mandrake's desktop, Ma'am" would be better?
*IF* we really need a unified desktop we have to choose from KDE and Gnome. Period.
If RedHat would install KDE by default, we would have that unified desktop RIGHT NOW, because they are the only ones still holding out with GNOME. (The default is what counts)
Creating a bastardized mixture of both will not solve this problem (if it really is a problem which I honestly doubt.)
Bullshit. Most users - the non-MS haters, non-zealots - will see no reason to switch to another OS in the first place,
Oh, Microsoft is doing their best to provide reasons: New licensing scheme, DRM, Palladium, spyware, requesting rights to control everything...
Of course KDE offers so much, Windows can't do (more desktops, session manager, good MMB integration, etc.) but those are only discouvered after using it for some time.
and being able to run the same apps won't sway them. They will respond, logically: "If I'm going to be using the same programs, why not be using the same OS?"
By that theory, we would all still use DOS.
Correct is: "Great that I can use better and more stable Linux-apps on a better desktop, but I still have to use this one important Win32-app or I can't switch."
Or (more realistically for the average Joe): "Great that I can still listen to pirated music, but I still have to use these (also pirated) Win32 games"
It's ridiculos to think that anybody will use Wine to use all their Win32apps on Linux. Wine is and will be used for those programs that don't have an equivalent in Linux and only for those, not for all.
Wrong, Wine makes developing for Linux easier and faster. IBM has shown that you can make good and stable Wine-based apps (hpbuilder).
WINE is a nice way to play catch-up forever.
Also wrong. All Win-soft is Win98-compatible which is a fixed target for 4 years now. - And will be around for quite some time, too.
This is what killed OS/2 -- they had a windows compatibility mode that was so good -- no one developed for OS/2, what possible motivation would there be to? Program to windows -- sell on windows and OS/2.
Yeah, I saw that coming. But it's complete nonsense. OS/2 was killed because it was from IBM.
From an OEM point of view:
OS/2 = IBM = computer-maker = competitor = not a good idea.
Windows = Microsoft = software-company = no competitor = OK
Add in that OS/2 was too expensive, had really shitty marketing and wasn't really pushed by IBM itself (they sold DOS/Windows PCs at all times!) - but even the best price, the best marketing and IBM only selling OS/2 PC wouldn't have made OS/2 successful. OEMs would have been stupid to adopt it.
Wine is a great way to attract users. If Wine becomes so good that Wine-apps run on Linux just like on Windows - well what's the problem?
But we both know that developing for Win32 is a pain. Wine is a way to attract users. Once Linux gets a significant marketshare on the desktop (over 10%) developers will happily make native Linux-versions. Just like developers stopped made Win32-apps when Win95 was released. Also a native app will have better KDE-integration (and that's where RedHat's initiative fails - where it counts it doesn't work, it just puts a skin over it) than a Wine-version. Of course Linux-users have to be relevant, which is currently not the case on the desktop.
We have to get the users *FIRST*. Whining about no native apps available won't change a thing. If Wine is a way to get users (and it is, IMO) it is the way to go.
And another thing: Linux has a strong development community which puts out many great Linux-only apps. Wine won't change that. - If Linux manages to become the OS with the most apps (Qt, GTK, Win32 AND Motif) it will become the most popular OS.
Beyond all that -- the unified desktop (QT+GTK) will enhance the user experience. Widgets should look and act the same, you shouldn't have to train your eye to a new widget set for each application you use. You shouldn't select an application because it fits "with your desktop" -- you should select it because it is the best application -- the article makes the point very clearly and I whole-heartedly agree.
Well, where it counts, RedHat's approach fails. (Does Gnome's Palm-software get synch my notes with knotes? I don't think so. Does Gnome's PIM software know about my KDE-adressbook? Does Gnome's Windowmanager restore KDE-windows on relogin? on the correct desktop? I don't think so. Will Gnome apps use KDE's really fine printmanager? I don't think so.) RedHat made it *look* like it's integrated, but in reality it isn't.
*IF* you think we need a really unified desktop you will have to choose.
Install KDE by default but include Gnome in the distribution for those who want it.
What's wrong with that?
The reason RedHat pushes Gnome is just politics and stubbornness.
But it's OK, it's their distribution, so why not install Gnome by default and include KDE in the distribution?
Would still be better than such a half-assed desktop mixture.
PS: You can't "take the best of both and integrate them into a single desktop" because KDE is written in C++/Qt and Gnome in C/GTK. Those don't mix. If they would mix, such a merger would have happened a long time ago.
Why should a "unified" desktop better than some default desktop?
Both are new to the user. HOW DOES THE NEWBIE BENEFIT?
Just look at KDE 3.l and Keramik and tell me RedHat should not install that as a default.
If you think that newbies should not choose, just install KDE and include GNOME on the CDs for those who really want it - or do a recommendation.
Actually I don't really mind distributors optimizing things, but in this case it's not an optimization, it's a "kill all innovation" approach. RedHat didn't try to make their default desktop better, they tried to align their default desktop to another desktop.
RedHat newbies will never see Keramik, they will never see new cool features.
All they will see is a bastardized desktop that just won't feel right and will be behind both KDE and GNOME.
And for you "standardize"-fans: Now we have 2 major desktops (KDE, GNOME), how is going from 2 desktops to 3 desktops (KDE, GNOME, Redhat) a step towards standardization? Imagine every distributor would do that?
And I say again, that's nonsense.
BeOS had a nice desktop. Where is it? It's gone because it doesn't has any apps.
Windows succeeded because it was backwards-compatible. The PC was plagued by IRQ and DMA conflicts and still took away marketshare from Macs and Amiga.
Linux needs to become backwards-compatible to Windows and needs to run Win32 applications.
That's what is holding it back.
In all areas where the apps are available, Linux is doing fine
Examples? Webservers - Windows gets marginalized there. Professional 3D-animation: Just after the tools were ported, many movie studios moved right to Linux. Embedded systems: Except for PDA's which are ruled by Palm and WinCE (and now guess why? RIGHT! Because of the APPS!!!) Linux has become the standard.
Software will be ported to Linux when the users are there. C++ and Delphi apps will be ported to KDE and C-apps will be ported to GNOME. Period. All apps work on all desktops, no problem in sight. End of story.
People want applications.
Nobody will give a shit wether an application runs on Qt, GTK or Wine. It doesn't matter as long as the functionality is there.
Oh, not another one explaining the success of Microsoft. Face it: Microsoft is successful because IBM gave them the OS-monopoly in 1981. Everybody would have been successful with that, even Microsoft which never really did anything other than following the market. Microsoft has delayed the wide adoption of a GUI (every other major platform had a GUI long before 1990, but Windows 3.1 was the first usable GUI for DOS and came in 1993), they delayed the wide adoption of the Internet (In the early 90's Bill Gates himlelf said that "Internet will never be popular" and "The Internet? We are not interested in it") and PDAs (Go! invented the first PDA, Microsoft killed them with a lot of FUD and PenWindows which came out 2 years afterwards - which was dropped after Go! went bankrupt. Great, eh? PenWindows only use was to kill a company, advancing technology was not really important for MS)
So please stop telling me Microsoft's great secret of success. In real life, Microsoft is one of the most chaotic and incompetent companies.
Microsoft's only interest is maintaining the status-quo. The only reason we have Windows now is because everybody else already had a GUI for years and Microsoft had to follow.
In all new markets like Webservers for example, Linux is doing great - better than Windows. In all old markets where people have tons of programs and documents to lose, Linux doing not so good.
We need backwards-compatibility or WINE. Everything else is already there.
In contrast to what you say above, I do think that a unified face will allow more software to be ported to Linux. As companies see that the market is maturing, they will be more likely to take the jump to a linux version because there is less risk to there bottom line. You have a chicken and egg fiasco, which will come first, products or customers?
Customers.
I definately feel that this more identifiable "version" of RedHat Linux will go far is helping the cause. Consumers will now be able to focus on making linux work for them, instead of making Linux work.
Nonsense.
Currently Joe installs Linux and either stays with it because he likes it better or drops it because doesn't run.
How will that change? RedHat's GUI will be as new as stock-KDE for Joe (only uglier), so why should Joe be more likely to keep using it?
RedHat won't enable Linux on the masses' desktops. Codeweavers will.
I'm so sick of that nonsense.
When you start ICQ in Windows, you have an entirely different look - whoowhoo!
WMP in Windows - different look! OMG!
Winamp in Windows - different again! THE HORROR!
Quicktime in Windows - again different! THE CONFUSION! (and also in MacOS, BTW)
Just start any game - all are differnt! ONLY A COMPUTER FREAK COULD USE THAT!
If anything of your "everything has to be the same" were true, there would be nobody using ICQ or Winamp and only a tiny fraction of elite computer users would be able to play games.
No, this is not what we need. Just like we don't need a "unified" CPU-maker and a "unified" PC-vendor we don't need a "unified" Linux distribution.
If we would need that, we would all run Macs now.
DOS/Windows is so entrenched because:
RedHat having their great "unified" desktop won't make Photoshop run on it, it won't void the contracts OEM have with Microsoft and it won't make people forget about Windows.
However, both KDE and GNOME are usable enough and similar enough so that a Widnows user will have no problem using it (especially if you choose the Windows-config on your first login in KDE.) so that is already solved.
What we still need is:
I'm putting big hope in Codeweavers to produce a usable Wine that is easy to install and works with most office-software. - On all distributions, not only on RedHat.
and not distributors playing monopoly-unification games and reducing inter-distribution interoperability.
Of course this "nullification" is essentially the same thing and will make sure that:
It will be interesting to watch how long RedHat is able to play their silly games with KDE.
You are allowed to copy, modify and redistribute yast just like with any GPL-program.
The ONLY difference is that you are not allowed to distribute it commercially (sell it, make a commercial distribution out of it).
You won't use ALSA? (SuSE pretty much the only commercial developer)
You won't use ReiserFS? (SuSE also the only commercial developer for that project)
What about KDE and the Linux kernel?
SuSE did more for the community than most other Linux distributors.
Konqueror supports ftp out of the box and with the upcoming KDE 3.1 release will support a ssh/scp client, that is much better than ftp. ("fish:/", check it out, it's great. Because every Linux-box comes with ssh/scp preinstalled it's *the* ideal solution to quickly share files between boxes without having to install/configure NFS, SMB or ftp.)
For example police, military or the road-net.
If the community can produce something more efficiently than private companies, it's better to make it public. In most branches of the economy, private companies do it more effectively, but not in all.
You really expect me to think that a 15-inch CRT cuts it today?
Apple purposely cripples their low-end models. If they would invest 1$ for DVI-connectors and make the damn thing replaceable, the new iMac would be an OK-machine (still expensive, but OK), but as it is, it's just crap. I don't want to buy a monitor everytime I buy a new computer or vice versa.
Correct: Run Win32 applications.
Nobody will buy IA64/Windows-machines because there is no Win64 software and nobody will make Win64 software because nobody buys IA64/Windows machines...
Nobody (including Microsoft) cares wether some adult breaks the EULA in this or that way.
Now what Microsoft DOES care about is that they have the permission to install DRM on your computer.
The EULA is just a slightest hint what the operating system will do in the future, no matter what you think about it or what you do or wether a minor installed it or not.
Does anybody have some information about Sharp's plans on Zaurus?
Seems like ogg can give you the disk space savings that will allow you to do batch encoding ;-)
Since when is that negative?
I think you have listen too long to propaganda, in real life Joe Consumer will run away screaming from anything that will not allow him to pirate. (Especially if he is used to pirate it)