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

[Adam Rotaru <arotaru cs sfu ca>]

    Hi!

On Wed, 23 Dec 1998, Gralem wrote:

> I greatly appreciated your comments on KDE v. Gnome.
   Thanks.

>  The first
> question I have (and I *PROMISE* I don't mean this in the wrong way)
> are you associate with the gnome project, because you gave a
> @gnome.org address at the end of your comments.  
   You are not the first one to ask this. Maybe I should've state it.
  No, I'm not involved neither with the Gnome nor the KDE project.
I'm a user, but not a heavy user. I've heard about free desktols for
Linux/Unix about a month ago, I checked out the Gnome and KDE sites,
subscribed to mailing lists, and decided for KDE (because it seemed
more in shape).
  Maybe the fact that I'm not heavily involved with either one I can
objectively see their similarities/differences.
  The only reason for the .org address is that I found a 'gnome-kde-list'
mailing  list on gnome.org, so I posted there. I didn't find a
'kde-gnome@kde.org' list.  I sent my first posting to the general kde and
gnome lists as well, but not too overload them, subsequent replies
only to the gnome-kde list.

> I'm sure it's so that
> we can get good communication between the 2 communities. 
   I pretty much hope and think so. I'm not considering myself as part of
either community, but I saw generally reasonable attitudes among the two
camps (i.e., no major flames).

> I.  GTK v. QT
> I thoroughly understand the argument between GTK and QT, I just don't
> see that it matters TO THE END USER.  If you were a PC administrator
> for a company and you installed Linux on all of the PCs, the end user
> wouldn't care about whether the widget set is THIS or THAT, only that
> it does what they NEED it to do--they want it to work.  Although it
> conceivably could affect some licensing issues, I have never heard of
> any REAL complaints and with QPL, I don't exect to ever hear of any
> problems.

   Agree. My view has also shifted to the idea that if KDE and Gnome
(and any other GUI) is to work better together, this should happen
on the user level, ie. _functionality_; not code/implementation.

   What I wouldn't like to see is that one of the them would be
marginalized based on some user trends, and not their functionality.
For example, if Gnome would take on because RedHat chooses it and not KDE,
Mozilla choses it, and other apps choses it, that would be a pity. 
(BTW I don't see the point in the QPL licensing discussion, after it was
said that the new licensing adheres to the open-source standard)

   I think in order for different GUIs to prosper, they should make 
'using and developing for both' easier. This could be achieved by a set of
similar core functionality, like:

  Common things
- mime type bindings
- application bindings, start menu
- menu handling
- cut-and-paste handling (ok)
- drag-and-drop handling (ok, XDnD)
- panel-docked application handling
- interchangable helps (in html)
- common icons
- common configurable keysettings
- object manipulations  (embedding; Corba, ok)
- session management
- common file formats (word processor, XML)

I compiled this list form responses I got.

  I pretty much agree with the rest of your arguments. Thanks for
replying.

  ... and Merry Christmas!

    /Adam/