Re: Hrm. Now I know why this list is dead

[Case Roole <cjr xs4all nl>]

On Thu, 20 May 1999, Steve Smoogen wrote:
> However, that is all water under the bridge.  I dont agree with the
> Miguels statement that KDE has no future. Without the competition of
> each group trying to improve above the other I feel either of the
> software would be inferior in the end. [This goes for distributions
> also, Red Hat would devolve if it were not for Debian, etc to be
> compared against.] 
> 
> The greatest strength of the Linux community is that we can compete
> OPENly against each other down to argueing over whether software is
> called Free or Open. 

Originally, I thought that "competition" covered the situation of KDE and GNOME
well. In the economic process, competition is what makes companies attempt to
please customers most by either offering better products or services than
others or by offering them at lower prices. Thus "competition" benefits
customers.

Speaking of free software, the price differentiation aspect drops out, so only
the "better products" option remains. 

Well, so far things look "competitive": we have two projects, each aiming at
pleasing "customers" best by making a better product.

But there are another force and another option at stake. Respectively, there is
the conception that there should not be differentiation at all. This one takes
an especially nasty turn when it is combined with the attitude that it takes too
long to define standards for relevant technologies that different parties can
adhere to and it is therefore best to "standardize" on a vendor instead of a
codified standard. Furthermore, unlike the situation with material objects such
as cars, software allows for component merging and sharing. Think e.g. of all
those KDE and Gtk/GNOME GUI's on top of original command-line applications. 

Especially given the option of merging/sharing, the best solution of the
differentiation problem is to define standards for component technologies. This
approach has been quite successful as we can hook up clients to tcp/ip
networks, connect to webservers and have ICCCM compliant window managers.  

Speaking of "competition" - especially given The Microsoft Situation - too
easily suggests a one-vendor-takes-all solution of the problems of
differentation. Instead we want a situation where standards are defined to
create a situation where applications can be used uniformly regardless of any
one desktop environment, while at the same time differentation is possible in
components where standards are (not yet) fruitful. This works for window
managers and it could work for desktop environments.

The idea of having desktop environments "compete against each other" is
detrimental to users and developers alike. I think the very existence of this
list is based on the idea that the development of GNOME and KDE can lead to
shared components and even to defined standards that third projects can adhere
to. 

I am not disappointed that nothing much is happening in this area - let me
write the first lines of code, right? - but I am disappointed that the benefits
of cooperation are perceived so little.

-cjr