Re: KDE Interop [Was: D-BUS background]
- From: Vadim Plessky <plessky cnt ru>
- To: desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Cc: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>
- Subject: Re: KDE Interop [Was: D-BUS background]
- Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:59:14 +0300
On Sunday 02 March 2003 09:31, Havoc Pennington wrote:
| On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 04:55:27PM -0500, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
| > Reading today's Slashdot comments, you can see that our desktop is
| > falling behind stability-wise and feature wise to KDE.
| My view is that we're ahead of KDE in a number of areas, in some cases
| far ahead. Not all areas of course.
I am curious to know where GNOME is ahead of KDE.
I try every major GNOME release and still can't find it useful (as of 2.2
On the other hand, KDE became useful since 2.1 version.
So, I am really curious to hear your arguments.
| It's easy to listen to Slashdot too much. But those people do not have
| the same priorities that an operating system vendor or an "enterprise
| customer" has. Usability, simplicity, modularity of the packaging,
| accessibility, licensing, applications, interoperability, standards
| compliance, development process/visibility, API/ABI supportability,
| the list of things that really matter that Slashdot doesn't understand
| or care about is long. Frankly Slashdot wildly overestimates the whole
| desktop environment thing to begin with; applications and the OS as a
| whole are at least as important.
| Nick Petreley thought that Caldera would win, IIRC because they had
| more corporate-looking graphics and didn't buy into the whole open
| source thing. Doh. While KDE may "win," it's not going to be due to
| the rationale that Petreley gives - he ignores numerous relevant
| issues and overblows some very superficial points.
| I hope your mail won't land on Slashdot or some other web
| site. Slashdot (= shorthand for all similar sites) is the most evil
| influence possible if we really want to do what it takes for Linux (or
| UNIX) to succeed on the desktop.
| The reason "enterprise customers" matter is that "enterprise customer"
| basically means "customer who deploys lots of seats and pays lots of
| money." And this is thus where you win significant marketshare and
| make significant revenue. And that's where you can start having some
I doubt "enterprise customer" in current economical environment would wish to
pay lots of money.
| > I probably mentioned this before, but when I went to Mexico in December
| > to the facility where we launched gnome, they had all switched to KDE3.
| > I am not sure the reasons they gave me were correct, and they can be
| > debated (and in fact, people in #gnome pointed out that those reasons
| > might be wrong), but here they are:
| > * Compiling Gnome is too difficult.
| A great example - what is typically called an "enterprise customer"
| would not compile GNOME. Some of these guys have a heart attack if
This is correct, enterprise customers would expect binaries coming
| they have to run any binaries that haven't been officially certified
| for the *specific version and errata set* of Red Hat Linux (or
| whatever OS) they are running. We put out a security patch, they want
| to see all their ISVs say "that doesn't break our app." Compiling
| GNOME themselves would mean they would have no support at all.
| On the other hand, GNOME's modularity is clearly better when it comes
| to scaling/parallelizing our development process and easing
| distribution maintenance - i.e. helping us handle a larger development
| team and manage architecture changes over time.
If you think that GNOME has larger development team - *why* GNOME is (IMHO)
behind KDE (in terms of usability for *real world* apps, like mail client ,
office suit, etc.)?
| Not to discount the value of promoting garnome/jhbuild.
| > * Gnome is slower than KDE.
| Totally depends on your setup (many people on Slashdot today actually
| said the opposite of this), and assuming basic sanity, is no way going
| to be the most important factor for anyone who's paying money for the
| OS vs. trying to use something cheap on old hardware. I use GNOME 2.2
| on my 266 Mhz laptop, though.
| That said, we are on track to be *substantially* smaller and faster if
| we kill the duplication of platform in gtk vs. libbonoboui, speed up
| pixbuf handling, optimize fontconfig, and some stuff like
| that. kdelibs is *huge*, as is Qt, and they heavily duplicate each
well, kdelibs+kdebase have the same size as 57 packages required to install
Gnome desktop, while:
a) GNOME Desktop (panel+terminal+control_center+Nautilus) lacks Web Browser.
Adding Mozilla results in additional 15MB-20MB of disk space.
Besides, Mozilla is not very well intergrated with GNOME (to say the truth:
not integrated at all), and adding Galeon results in one more package
installed, and it is still not 100% integrate dinto GNOME.
b) kdebase has very power programmer's text editor/IDE tool - KATE (KDE
Advanced Text Editor), plus KWrite, and you don't have such tools in standard
c) KDE's Control Center is superior to GNOME's one
| other. While GNOME has no fundamental or pervasive reason it's larger
| than XFCE, just a few relatively solveable isolated bloat points.
| This is a place we could be a lot better than any of the competition
| with a bit of effort.
| > * KDE's file manager acts like Windows: its a browser and a
| > file manager.
| However Konqueror is incredibly complex UI-wise compared to Windows
| Explorer, and simply does not handle many web pages that Mozilla does
| (though sure, it anecdotally works well enough for many people, and
| having Safari helping may address this over time).
from my experience, Konqueror is superior to Mozilla.
Mozilla is incredibly slow and resource-hungry, and it fails on too many pages
to be useful.
| I believe the real Windows clone distributions are using forks of KDE
| 2 with their own file manager or control center, plus Mozilla and
| OpenOffice. The Chinese government developed distribution is doing
| the same.
If you speak about Lindows (th emost advanced from those Desktop Windows
clones) - they have KDE3-based version of Lindows.
Not sure wether it's released or not, but that's the question of time.
| Windows XP moves in the same direction as GNOME in terms of
| simplifying things rather than adding more complexity; OS X and the
| screenshots of next-gen Windows move even further that way. GNOME 2.2
| is *still* more complex than either Windows or OS X in various ways.
Compare Outlook (I have Outlook XP in office) with KMail.
KMails' UI is much simpler and more intuitive.
Outlook's UI is bloated and incredibly difficult to use.
| > Again, not the same. Some people want gnome because it makes sense
| > license-wise (Red Hat and Sun seem to be concerned about *this*
| > particular issue).
| This is a misconception, at least for Red Hat. There are 5 or 6 major
| bullet points in the "why we default to GNOME" rationale. People felt
| we could work around or address the licensing issue, in fact. The
| technical and organizational points are the main ones.
There is no licensing issue with Qt/KDE already for 2.5 years!..
| (I don't want to list them; it'll just land me on Slashdot and piss
| people off. Not that there's anything wrong with the reasons, they are
| just a technical/requirements evaluation type of thing, but people
| won't take them that way.)
| > This is not intended as a flame. Hope the tone here is the right one.
| I think it is a good tone, I hope my reply is in the same spirit.
| In short, my opinion is that we have done many of the hardest tasks
| very well. We've scaled the devel organization and release process to
| a large number of people. We've sorted out how to manage corporate
| participation/contribution. We've addressed usability and
| simplicity. We have nice HIG. We have years of effort completed for
| Section 508 compliance. We have best depth of application
| functionality. We are on course to have the devel platform
| unified/unbloated by GTK+ 2.4, rather than two duplicating layers. We
| have the most credible enterprise OS vendors involved. We have clean
Do you know that Intel+HP were demonstrating recently Itanium2-based Superdome
server, and it was running (together with HP-UX, on another partition) Linux
| and maintainable code with strong maintainers for nearly all the key
| components. We've properly modularized those components so we can
| spread out release cycles and maintenance.
| What remains are some relatively isolated and addressable features and
| issues, rather than big-picture hard stuff. I have no question we'll
| nail a sizeable number of these in the next 6-12 months; we fixed a
| ton of them for 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6 should not be different, our process
| is like a machine these days. The determinant of our success will be
| whether we get the right features and get them done soon enough.
What version of GNOME would have usable File Selector?
(comparable to KDE 3 or Windows 2000 File Selector in terms of functionality
| Have faith in the direction we've established during 2.0 and 2.2; it's
| a good path, it is the right path, and if we sustain it and don't have
| too much bad luck it'll work.
SVG Icons * BlueSphere Icons 0.3.0 released
] [Thread Prev