2004
29
Jan
29
Jan
I think the whole discussion can be simplified with three points that hopefully everyone can agree to:
- In the next 12-24 months the only way to get a somewhat competitive desktop is to pile up code from all sources, including kde and gnome, and try to integrate them somehow
- If you think about the architecture of a desktop in 5-10 years, this mixture of pure C code, Gnome/Glib C code, KDE C++ code, Python, Bash scripts, maybe Mono C# code etc, all with different API conventions and wrapped by various wrapping mechanisms, all that sounds like a horrible nightmare that no one really wants
- Whether you like freedesktop.org or not depends on whether you want to have a usable desktop soon (thus today's desktop has a high priority for you and the future a low priority), or whether your goal is to have the best desktop at some point in the future (future: high priority, today: low priority)
Make your choice.
- tjansen's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1212 reads
Syndicate Blogs
Comments
Bollocks I'm Afraid
In the next 12-24 months the only way to get a somewhat competitive desktop is to pile up code from all sources, including kde and gnome, and try to integrate them somehow
12 - 24 months. Where does that timescale come from? And your solution is to pile up code and integrate it somehow. That's worse than the situation we have now.
If you think about the architecture of a desktop in 5-10 years, this mixture of pure C code, Gnome/Glib C code, KDE C++ code, Python, Bash scripts, maybe Mono C# code etc, all with different API conventions and wrapped by various wrapping mechanisms, all that sounds like a horrible nightmare that no one really wants
And you want to integrate all this? Go ahead.
Whether you like freedesktop.org or not depends on whether you want to have a usable desktop soon (thus today's desktop has a high priority for you and the future a low priority), or whether your goal is to have the best desktop at some point in the future (future: high priority, today: low priority)
I think you misunderstand freedesktop. It is not to provide a standard desktop, as much as Havoc may privately wish it would. I think we will have the best desktop in the future. It is called KDE, and let's not kid ourselves, everybody knows it is. Miguel de Icaza admitted it in mid-2003. If you want a desktop that will attract Windows developers out there then you use C++ and Qt. Qt, C++ and the quality components, like Kparts, that have been produced in KDE sells, and they are the things that any Windows developers out there attracted to a Linux-based desktop will want to see. You name me one distribution started from scratch, where the technical people have looked impartially at the desktop (i.e. no Gnome or KDE people) and have not picked KDE.
If it's one desktop you want, it's called KDE, and as someone who develops in Windows and would like to do so for a Linux-desktop (yes I know there are the BSDs etc.) KDE is the only option.
Why "KDE only"?
I cannot understand people who make claims like "only KDE" or "only GNOME". The only basis you give for this claim is that, in your opinion, it is better; the only evidence you give for this is that no distribution not involved in GNOME uses GNOME by default.
If you're right, then why do so many people continue to use GNOME, Xfce, Fluxbox, etc? But beyond that question even, why should developers or distributors be making this choice for users? It's extremely arrogant to assume that KDE will always be better, and quite against the Free Software philosophy to impose one solution.
By not stating what you think fd.o is, you neatly sidestep the fact that fd.o in no way stops KDE from being the best desktop. By adopting standards and reusing code developed under the fd.o name, KDE can continue to progress, and, crucially, benefit from increasingly seamless interoperation with other competing technologies. If KDE leaves fd.o entirely and goes out on its own, then it will have to innovate as quickly as GNOME, Xfce, the *box WMs, Xpde, Evolution, Mozilla and all other competing technologies combined to keep up and be a viable platform without them.
Honestly, I cannot understand how anyone who has tried using a GNOME app in KDE, or vice versa, could possibly be against fd.o in principle. I'd love for The GIMP to use kio_slaves, and for all KDE apps to use Gstreamer, for example.
Why "KDE only"?
I cannot understand people who make claims like “only KDE
Re: Bollocks I'm Afraid
12 - 24 months. Where does that timescale come from? And your solution is to pile up code and integrate it somehow. That’s worse than the situation we have now.
It's not my solution, it's a decision about the future of KDE that needs to be made by the project.
So far KDE tried to create a clean architecture. KDE devs created KHTML instead of trying to integrate Mozilla code. KDE devs worked on KOffice instead of trying to integrate OpenOffice or other free office projects. I think that both are good decisions (even if they have been made before those projects became free software), and in the long term they will pay off. It's one of the things that makes free software better than its commercial counterparts. A commercial company couldn't afford to do this, it needs to be profitable as soon as possible. The result is that the code base of almost every commercial project becomes nightmare to maintain after a few years and progress begins to stall as people begin fighting with code that's no fun to work on. Such a development in favor of short-term functionality would not match my goals, because a) I work on KDE for fun and b) I think that it still takes a long time and a huge amount to make KDE good enough to convince people to use it instead of Windows. That's won't happen unless KDE is vastly superior to Windows - not for the geek but for the average user. Sacrificing clean architecture in favor features now could mean that it does not have a chance of overtaking the competition ever.
Re: Bollocks I'm Afraid
So far KDE tried to create a clean architecture. KDE devs created KHTML instead of trying to integrate Mozilla code. KDE devs worked on KOffice instead of trying to integrate OpenOffice or other free office projects. I think that both are good decisions (even if they have been made before those projects became free software), and in the long term they will pay off.
No problem then.
Such a development in favor of short-term functionality would not match my goals, because a) I work on KDE for fun and b) I think that it still takes a long time and a huge amount to make KDE good enough to convince people to use it instead of Windows. That's won't happen unless KDE is vastly superior to Windows - not for the geek but for the average user. Sacrificing clean architecture in favor features now could mean that it does not have a chance of overtaking the competition ever.
You've rather contradicted yourself there.
Throw at the wall and see what sticks
In some way, the way fd.o is going is similar to the various patches and specific enhancements available for the kernel. The majority fade away, or are maintained by and for the small group that need them, some mature, get rewritten, reworked, and added to the kernel.
The ideas right now are in response to real needs. The implementations probably suck, and need to be worked over quite substantially. Or implemented by others. But there are good ideas.
As long as the participants remember that this is how it works, all will be fine. Unfortunately, I think the quick and easy will be too tempting. Although, a standard isn't a standard unless someone uses it. It's probably easier and better to continue as KDE has done, and when there is a standard established, adopt it.
Derek
Don't agree.
Point #1: I think KDE is competitive *today* as a desktop. The vast majority of this code is based on KDE/Qt C++. Projects such as libqtgtk and the Qt Style for GTK+ are not really needed, but they do provide some extra benefits for those users who wish to use GTK+ apps in KDE.
Point #2: I don't see this horrible mixture that you are alluding to. KDE does not have a horrible mixture at the moment. A few folks are looking at Python and Ruby, but the vast majority of code that makes up the KDE desktop is a homogenous combination of KDE/Qt C++.
Point #3: I like Freedesktop.org when it sticks to what it does best... a shared place to gather and talk about shared specifications and standards. I *don't* like Freedesktop.org when it mixes and confuses this worthwhile goal with a sort of sourceforge like repository for software which seeks to become the 'standard'. First: implementations != 'standards'. Second: some of the implementations look cool from this perspective and will likely be used by some KDE developers *ahem* Keith's Kdrive *ahem* and others are not likely to see any light of day on the KDE desktop. So, I think FD.o would do well to leave the hosting to other folks and concentrate on shared specs/standards.
I believe this is what Ian was talking about.
Don't agree.
I think KDE is competitive *today* as a desktop.
No, it's not even close. It lacks non-standard software, like video editing or DTP or tax software. Even some mainstream software, like a media player that can compete with WM9 or RealOne, is missing. In almost every KDE app (exceptions: Konqueror and KMail) I can show you dark corners that would freak out every regular user. There's no user-friendly way to configure the system (e.g. network confguration). No easy way to install third-party software. No GUIs for configuring apps like web servers. And so on...
Point #2: I don’t see this horrible mixture that you are alluding to. KDE does not have a horrible mixture at the moment.
KDE itself doesn't. I was referring to all those GTK/Qt integration discussions, DBUS, GStreamer, HAL, FUSE/KIO and so on.
Re: Don't agree.
No, it's not even close. It lacks non-standard software, like video editing or DTP or tax software.
It lacks this software, especially commercial and proprietary, because there just is not enough Linux desktops yet. That is a fact of life. Gnome also lacks this software. Hell, Ximian are hashing Mono together to do what KDE has had ever since it started - a development environment developers out there can actually use. We're not going to get any of what you say be pseudo-hacking Gnome and KDE together. That would be a disaster.
KDE itself doesn't. I was referring to all those GTK/Qt integration discussions, DBUS, GStreamer, HAL, FUSE/KIO and so on.
That's not KDE's problem. KDE needs to be the best desktop it can first and foremost, provide people with a good option, and then we can look at interoperability.
Re: Don't agree.
It lacks this software, especially commercial and proprietary, because there just is not enough Linux desktops yet. That is a fact of life. Gnome also lacks this software.
Sure, but Windows doesn't. When a user needs to decide for a system, one of the questions is "does that DE have all software that I need (and may need in the future)?". It does not matter why the DE lacks the software.