Re: Food for thought: Why (and how) should KDE and Gnome unite?

[Adam Rotaru <arotaru cs sfu ca>]

  Hi again,

On Wed, 23 Dec 1998, Gleef wrote:

> Well for one thing, neither has a start menu.  KDE has a K menu, GNOME has
> a foot, and both are considerably more powerful than either Windows' Start
> menu or the Macintosh Apple menu (or any other analagous application menu 
> I'm not thinking of at the moment).
   Right, I was sloppy using the term 'start menu'. But let's face it, we
all now about M$ Loose95's Start menu, and the K menu or foot are
analoguous is function (or at least started out like that, with
intermediary phases).
  But indeed, they are different, and having a common configuration for
both is not really possible.

> mean here.  I think that it would be a good thing if KDE and GNOME could
> agree on a cross-environment way an application could add itself to either
> application menu.  
   Yes, now it's clear that I meant this! :)
  And there should be a cross-environment way of specifying mime-type /
application bindings.  The $GNOME/share/mime-types/*  and
$KDE/share/mimelnk/* are very similar after all, just independent. 

But something like this could be done as a shell 
> script, they needn't share settings.
> 
> As for other "settings", one thing the GNOME Foot does (and I assume the
> big K does also) is access the configuration of the panel.  Since the
> GNOME and KDE panels operate very differently, something like that
> couldn't and shouldn't be the same.

> > Internalization using GNU gettext is
> > agreed. But the integration could be carried further on the system level,
> > like a centralized, application-independent string repository.
> 
> How?  An "application-independent string repository" would have no idea of
> the context in which the string is being used, and so risks giving bad
> translations often.  Gettext uses an application-specific string
> repository, so that all translations are in context, and hopefully more
> likely to be correct.

  OK, I was wrong. It should be application-dependent, I meant to say
'environment-independent'. Again, $GNOME/share/app  and  $KDE/share/app.
Or plain /opt/...    
  Ideally, either applications should install their language
files in both, or KDE and GNOME would check both locations, OR,
one $DESKTOP/share/app  place!

> > Window manager independent? Nope, KDE is not. This is a major
> > canceptual/design difference.
> 
> Both KDE and GNOME have a list of window manager requirements.  It is not
> only possible to make a window manager as KDE-compliant as kwm, but I hear
> one of them is actively working on it (I forget which one, tho).  Also,
> regardless of whether or not the WM has full support, applications for
> both KDE and GNOME will run under any window manager.

  Gnome chose to be WM-independent, but in order to take full advantage, a
WM should be Gnome compliant. Advantage: more choice.
  KDE chose an integrated WM. Advantage: more efficient.  Applicaitons
communicate with the WM by invoking member functions directly, not through
hints, as Gnome does. The first is more efficient, but doesn't work with
other WMs.
  Should KDE-WM be Gnome compliant?...

> I don't think either GNOME or KDE's goal is to "become the defacto
> standard Linux desktop environment".  GNOME's goal is to be a
> completely Free, cross-platform desktop environment.  To quote KDE's
> FAQ, "The aim of the KDE project is to connect the power of the Unix
> operating systems with the comfort of a modern user interface."
> Neither limit themselves to being a Linux desktop environment.
> Neither have being a defacto standard as their goal.
   I now neither of them is limited to Linux (I'm using KDE on SUN). But
Linux is the highest-growth Unix nowadays, and maybe the most in need of a
decent desktop. (Well, we have Gnome and KDE ! :)

> In the Linux world, the desktop environment is not something that
> needs a standard.
   But something like a 'GUI application standard' would be needed!
Foe example, if my most favorite applications (eg. Gimp/Netscape) work
under KDE, but not 100% (like no Drag'n'drop, object embedding, etc.),
they it's likely I shift to Gnome, if these features work there.
  The basic features should work under both/any environment, and
the environment should support the applications to achieve this.

> Both Miguel de Icaza (our fearless leader), and Federico Mena Quintero
> (graphics engine coder extraordinare and a core GNOME programmer) are
> not only from Mexico, but they both went to UNAM.

  So, which community should one join who is neithe Mexican nor German?
(Hungarian, for the matter)   :))

> > > effective libraries, and neither has showstopper flaws.  So tell me, which
> > > is "better", an apple or an orange?
> > Is there any developer who actually programmed in both?
> 
> I would think it would get very messy programming in either, but the
> orange would be stickier.

  :P


  chiao,
    Adam