Red Hat Explains Stance on KDE/Gnome Desktop Changes 570
An anonymous reader writes "A lot of people are angry over the changes RedHat has done to KDE and Gnome in their latest beta, code-named Null. They have basically "nullified" all the default themes and settings with which each desktop attempts to posture for more users. Instead, there is now a beautiful unified look. To explain RedHat's stance, Owen Taylor writes this piece here. I hope that RedHat successfully forces both Gnome and KDE to become compatible with one another which would result in the creation of a single desktop. This would be the greatest gift to the Linux world."
Unified Desktop (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a Good Thing (Score:4, Insightful)
This is RedHat's way of making Linux more appealing to the end user. Good for them.
If you don't like it, do what I do and run Slackware (or other distro of choice), but bravo for the RedHat folks. This is a positive step.
Re:Insane (Score:2, Insightful)
Then we'd get the "Redhat is Microsoft" arguments, and people saying that they're reducing choice, stiffling competition, etc, etc.
Why is MS or AOL powerful? Because they are simple, and have lots of users. We need to get more people using Linux.
It's About Time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Insane (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have to support a product, standard look-and-feel is a good thing for you. If you allow advanced users to change whatever they want, good for us.
Where is the problem?
Choice is the key (Score:4, Insightful)
KDE & Gnome desiring MS control? (Score:5, Insightful)
MS complains (and forces them to comply, which doesn't apply here).
So Red Hat wants a unified look (who cares what they want, it's their distribution), but KDE and Gnome want to dictate how their software looks on someone else's machine? I don't think so! If they don't like it then they got into the wrong business.
I can't wait for someone to say, "But Red Hat isn't giving their customers a choice and linux is about choice...". That comment is ludicrous on multiple levels, given the dozens of other distributions which deliver a plain vanilla KDE/Gnome.
The linux community is a quirky bunch. Saying, "We want choice." was great until they started tacking on "Unless it's our software your changing, in that case you should choose the way we want you to choose." Desiring a distribution to change based on your opinion is no different or appalling than desiring a user to change based on your opinion. You are still assuming that the user is stupid and can't be trusted to choose their own way in the face of a default installation.
I can see the flames now...
-Adam
Re:Insane (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're missing the point here. The idea is to unify a desktop solution so that people who are familiar with MS (read: most of the world) are not terrified of trying to configure a Linux box. I don't see this as MS-like. I see this as a step in advancing Linux as a desktop solution.
The whole point of having KDE/GNOME/WindoMaker/Et al is to allow people to pick the one that suits them.
Very true. If the experts who are used to Linux want it, they should still be available 'untouched' for them to install and configure. But let's face a fact here: RedHat is becoming the easiet of the distros to install and configure; making the setup and configuration less daunting for newcomers is a step in the right direction.
If RH don't like this then why don't they just drop the one(s) they don't want people to use?
Don't you think that this is more MS-like than trying to unify their desktop components? To just drop packages they don't like would be a true method of negating choice. THAT would be a step in the wrong direction.
Re:Two thumbs up for Red Hat. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here we have a situation where an organization takes a free software package and makes modifications to it in order to suit its needs, and then rereleases the modified package also under the GPL. What could be MORE complaint with the spirit of the GPL and free software as a whole???
Re:Insane (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, RedHat is right on this one. Finally, after years of frustration, someone might just drag linux kicking and screaming into the desktop market.
I swear, linux does not want to be mainstream. Sure, everyone talks about how they want their favorite OS to be taken seriously on the desktop, but no one wants to take the steps necessary to do it. I like choice, don't get me wrong. But most users do not give a shit about choice. They want AOL and MS Word. They want the start button. Fine, give them the start button, give them an MS Word clone. Let the world view linux with this perspective: a solid OS that 'just works' with a standard interface and standard applications that work as well as those on Windows. And for those who want to do more, we have other "versions" of the OS that allow other desktops, applications and such.
To sit here and rip them for 'taking away choice' is just ignorant and, well, stupid. Please, people. I like WindowMaker, but I also know what we need to make linux work outside of the server room and the geek's bedroom. Don't forget, programs like 'switchdesk' exist for a reason. Those who want to use it, and those who can use it, are not prohibited from it.
Bravo RedHat. Lead linux into battle for the server and desktop. Let everyone else follow. I need to get back to my kernel compile, now.
Re:Why do we need "one unified" desktop? (Score:4, Insightful)
You like the variety. I like the variety, likely most of the Linux users on
Have your cake and eat it too? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real reason everyone likes to have multiple desktop environments is for choice. The choice to develop applications with the toolkit of your choice. This is great because, as everyone loves to say around here, "this is what makes Linux great, choice and freedom."
But as with all choices to diverge, rather than unify, someone suffers. Up unitl now that has been the end user -- the person all this software was written for in the first place, or is it? KDE and Gnome are great, but they offer two different window kits, two different looks and feels, and two different user experiences. This is bad for the end user. If I am KDE die hard and want to use a Gnome application, I can, the only problem is that it's going to look and feel like a Gnome app on my KDE desktop. And if I was a Gnome user the above situation would be reversed, you get the idea.
The point here is that Red Hat has done a great service to the KDE and Gnome teams. They have taken two incompatible, entirely different desktops, and unified them for the benefit of the end user.
Let's not forget that Linux is about freedom not only for the developer, but for the end user. Well written applications are designed with the user in mind. If the KDE and Gnome teams want to contribute to the Linux/*nix community in a truly free and open maner, they will see this move for what it is: a change to allow developers to continue to innovate in the way they see fit, using the right tools for the job at hand, all while improving user experience. That's what it's all about. Right?
Re:This is a Good Thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, because if the desktop is more appealing then more people will use it and if more people use it then companies will start to consider it a viable market for software (applications and drivers) and when there is greater support for Linux then more people will move to it because it has the applications they want and so on and so on ...
Microsoft are already doing Linux a favour with their licence changes, but that doesn't mean that we should expect people that are brave enough to change to come to the Linux side (at the moment, I'd say they're more likely to go to Apple, as they have consistency and ease of use down to a tee)
Re:Two thumbs up for Red Hat. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes - but there is a difference between having one supported
email client and how the client works. For that matter, an IT
department can declare that Gnome or KDE is the supported
desktop. End of discussion.
As for masking the differences between Gnome and
KDE to the end customer - that is the same as doing
it the MS way or hit the highway. No thanks!
Well- I've been a Mandrake supporter ever since
they used the license holy wars to justify not
shipping KDE. Guess that won't change at all.
Choice and Red Hat (Score:5, Insightful)
11 comments, and most of them are people grumbling about how Red Hat is squeezing choice out of the hands of the user. But really, is this true? What RH has done (from what I hear, I don't chase bleeding-edge distros, usually) is just change the way things look. They've provided a different default appearance. How is this worse from the default appearances provided by the GNOME and KDE teams? (RH's arguments for why it's better are in the article, you should read it :3 )
It's not like Red Hat is releasing modified versions of GNOME and KDE that don't let you customize the appearance; then, only then, would the complaints about choice be founded. The people who really care about the difference between GNOME and KDE probably do so on reasons deeper than 'the default theme looks cool'. (Personally, I don't really like either of the default appearances that much ^^; ) So, when nagora asks "If RH doesn't like this, why don't they drop the one they don't want people to use?" the answer is: they don't care what you use, but they want the defaults to look reasonably similar, because they know that people who really don't *want* their default theme either know how to change it or probably have settings that they'll import anyway.
Remember who Red Hat's intended market share is: the corporate environment. A lot of people I've talked to recently agree that RH's biggest 'ins' are (or should be) for office workstations. Lots of places implement a baseline standard that they want to look the same, but that people can customize if they want to (as long as they don't spend hours tweaking it). This is the mentality that RH seems to target. Yes, this isn't for everyone, but that's the point ... there are plenty [debian.org] of [gentoo.org] good [suse.de] distributions out there, and many [freebsd.org] more [openbeos.org] choices [apple.com] out there if you really really don't like it. But no-one said you have to use Red Hat. (Although I could understand concerns about RH-isms creeping into LSB, but nobody's brought that up.)
Remember, RH == vendor for corporate enviroments. Corporate environments like standard desktops, so this move makes sense in Red Hat's perspective.
Re:Insane (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole point of having different linux distos is to allow people to pick the one that suits them.
Don't like what RH is doing? Pick a different distro. Don't like what any of them are doing
Re:Unified Desktop (Score:3, Insightful)
I can recognise Windows by the fact that it is bland and ugly. I can recognise a GNU/Linux or FreeBSD desktop no matter what window manager is being used; I'd used just about all of 'em. Let Red Hat do what it wants with its distro; if you don't like what they do, then switch to Gentoo [gentoo.org] or FreeBSD [freebsd.org]. Red Hat is not Burger King, and "Have it your way" isn't one of Red Hat's slogans. So if you want Linux made your way, make it yourself.
This will drive many people insane... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is not the case with current Gnome and KDE. And probably never will be.
I have different desktop themes and backgrounds at work and at home for a reason. My mind and my fingers automatically switch passwords and procedures, because without conscious effort I recognize the different environment and switch to different trained behaviour. Also, the few Gnome programs I am using look decidedly different than the KDE stuff I am using, and this helps a lot. Looking different, I do not expect the Gnome stuff to operate like the KDE grouping around it, and automatically treat it differently.
Kristian
Re:Insane (Score:3, Insightful)
Good and Bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Where I think Red Hat have made mistakes (by incompetence, rather than malignly) is by modifying code rather than commissioning the GNOME and KDE teams to do it on their behalf. What they have generated are Red Hat GNOME and KDE desktops. In doing this they have antagonised developers and made both their own and the vanilla desktops more difficult to support.
They have also made maintenance more difficult, KDE 3.1 is due out shortly. This means that all the changes the RH put in place will have to be repeated. If they had engaged the developers in the first place this would have been much less likely to happen.
While there are mujahadin on both the KDE and GNOME desktops, the developers seem to have a relationship of friendly rivalry. By taking the lead on this RH could have facilitated better interworking between the two systems.
Re:KDE & Gnome desiring MS control? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the changes made were only cosmetic and easily overcome through a theme or widget change, then your argument would be complete. Unfortunately, some of the changes go beyond the cosmetic and do force users into a "Redhat flavored KDE" as opposed to the KDE on which the KDE developers have invested so much time and energy.
Still, the GPL allows for just the kind of modifications Red Hat is executing. You can't have it both ways, either your software is open or it isn't. You may not like the changes someone is making but the license you've chosen gives them the right to do it. Ultimately if the changes Red Hat is making are detrimental to KDE, in the sense that they provide a worse environment, it should cause users to move to a different distribution. Ultimately we all vote with our feet and our wallets.
Re:KDE & Gnome desiring MS control? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the KDE people are just pissed because RH employs 3 Gnome developers and no KDE'ers. Really, they ought to be pleased - at least RH is promoting their window manager, which will raise KDE's profile another notch.
I think when all the dust settles, this will end up being seen as a Good Thing. And besides, if Red Hat takes on more of an active role in providing compatibility between KDE and Gnome, this should benefit the whole community.
Re:Greatest gift to the linux world???? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you look like Microsoft and Apple, they tie the user experience to the choice of OS. That Linux allows us to choose, is exactly what makes Free Software good. If you don't agree with RedHat, at least learn to respect that their decisions. They have been contributing code, and good software so far. At least LET them exercise their freedom to please their customers.
Re:Two thumbs up for Red Hat. (Score:5, Insightful)
So you would rather have the local IT managment make the choice for the user than have Red Hat make changes so that the distinction isn't important? I don't really see how this is "choice".
As for masking the differences between Gnome and
KDE to the end customer - that is the same as doing
it the MS way or hit the highway. No thanks!
That is absurd to say about any GPL application. If you don't like Red Hat's choices, then you are free to change them at multiple levels including changing the source code on your local machine. Why you think that it's OK for KDE or Gnome to make choices for look and feel, but not OK for RedHat is completely incomprehensible.
Re:It's worse than I thought! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Two thumbs up for Red Hat. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it isn't. Not while Slack, SuSE, Mandrake, Debian, and JoeBobsBaitNTackle distributions are all available. The GPL is all about people being able to modify software however they want to, as long as the modifications are released. This is precisely what RedHat is doing. You can still choose not to use RedHat and not lose Linux, hyperbolic comments about RH being the next MS aside.
FINALLY! I've Been Waiting For This For Years. (Score:2, Insightful)
As unremarkable as it appears on the surface, this may very well be the most significant milestone in Linux's history -- the first step towards a unified desktop appearance.
Whether you like or not, the rest of the world doesn't want "freedom of choice" when it comes to their desktop appearance. They want freedom from choice. They want familliarity. They want sensibile designs. They want a look and feel that will still apply from one machine to the next. They do NOT want pointless bells and whistles like having sideways titlebars and 18 different ways to unminimize a window. They just want to sit down, do their work and move on.
We are not the average user.
All a user should ever need to be concerned with is just that -- getting the job done. In no way whatsoever should they even know about (or even CARE about) the fact that their apps may be provided by two completely different toolkits. Thats our concern, not theirs.
A lack of continuity in the appearance of the Linux desktop has been one if not THE largest stumbling block in Linux' acceptance on the desktop. It all starts there. Say you're a company trying to offer Linux support for their products --- You cant show snapshots of a Linux desktop in the manual, because they all friggin look different! You cant even explain it in text, because "Go here and do this" can often mean two holly and distinctly different things, depending on if youre using KDE, or GNOME, or God knows what.
Windows has a distinct face to it. So does the Mac. So does AIX. So did the Amiga. So did the Atari ST. So does even friggin Solaris! But Linux? No. The Linux desktop, up until now, is a schitzophrenic mess of different personalities dictates by the whims of individual users.
You guys have no idea how important this evolutionary step was. And I, for one, cannot applaud RedHat enough for having the balls and the smarts to take it.
Cheers,
Thanks. (Score:3, Insightful)
I appreciate Red Hat's concern that the community understand and approve what they are doing in this effort. However I think the community has been far too cynical in its reaction.
Being a for-profit company I have long been surprised that Red Hat hasn't done this type of thing more often. There's no requirement that everyone be in agreement with one group's efforts--this is Open Source! Our montra is that if you don't like something, you are always free to do it your own way.
These are the type of freedoms that take away your reasons to complain. Were we in any proprietary system, we would be at the mercy of the implementor. But as it stands here, our only limitation is time and money. These are precisely the same resources Red Hat is trying to steward just to stay in business. (Let alone, turn a profit!) So it appears we are all on the same footing.
I wish individuals would stop complaining about someone else deciding to exercise their freedom. Life is hard, you can't always get what you want. Be happy that your rights aren't taken away. Sure we might not all like Red Hat's decisions in integrating GNOME and KDE. I'd be certain that not all on Red Hat's own desktop team are 100% happy about some of the individual decisions either.
Just be thankful that Red Hat has even bothered to inform us of what they are doing. Obviously they are interesting in maintaining community support, but everyone should take note that this is our privilege, not our right. Certainly, Red Hat has a lot to gain by working with the community as opposed to against it or in some dark shroud of secrecy. But there is no requirement that they do this.
In all, this is a great start on something both sides have long pondered. Frankly, both GNOME and KDE have been slow to make this type of move, although discussed much for a long while. Thank you Red Hat for once again taking the lead on a tough task, and thanks Owen for so kindly explaining how Red Hat is has decided to implement its business strategy.
Squish the fruit slowpoke Ed boy. (Score:4, Insightful)
There's also the important fact that GNOME and KDE are open source. I can fork both projects right now and do what I want with them. Anyone can which is the nature of the GPL. Whining because someone took your code and extended it makes the concept of open source seem a bit retarded doesn't it. People want source code for everything and it all ought to be open and free but as soon as someone changes something all hell and whining breaks loose. Red hat could have tried to contribute their changes back into both respective code trees but why should they wait? Should everyone stick with inferior kernel VM systems until they are officially included in the release tree? Come on.
Sounds like they're trying to give KDE a fair shot (Score:5, Insightful)
I get the distinct impression that the Red Hat team is trying hard to not push their biases onto their users. It's fairly clear the Red Hat's developers are more adept with Gtk+/Gnome than Qt/KDE, and there's nothing wrong with that - if they were better at Qt, we'd still be having this discussion.
When you realize you have a bias towards one group, you have two options - defend your bias and try to convince others, or work extra-hard to give the other team a fair chance. I think Red Hat is trying to give KDE a fair chance because the whole idea of Linux is to give users the right to choose.
Maybe I was just sucked in to Red Hat's PR speech, but I really have to agree with their philosophy of providing a nearly identical UI on both WM's. It prevents novices from choosing one over the other just because of configuration differences such as single- vs. double-clicking icons. It annoys me to no end when a user tells me he/she didn't like product A because of a default setting that happened to be set differently in product B. In doing this, Red Hat may have made KDE "act like" Gnome, but I believe that it is inadvertant, just because the Red Hat team has gotten used to settings more typical to Gnome.
Having said all that, though, think about this: If you know the difference, you can change it. If some guy who knows nothing about Linux doesn't know the difference, will he care?
The Real Power of Open Source (Score:4, Insightful)
The real power of Open Source is NOT:
- A variety of applications
- Multiple configurations
- Configurable kernels
- Source code available
- Community of users
The real power of Open Source is that, despite whatever the default configuration of a system might be, you can customize it any way you want!I really don't care if the standard Linux desktop starts to look and act like Windows in default configurations. In fact, I encourage it. It's the only way Linux will go corporate, companies will start making software for it, and support for things like hardware and drivers will finally become what they need to be.
As long as it retains the ability to be as configurable and adjustable as it is right now, I'm a happy man. So what if your kernel comes configured generically for every piece of hardware in the world? If you have the know-how, configure it yourself. Recompile the software, the applications, the windowing system...write your own drivers, apps, utilities. Colorize your bash prompt. Interface with the toaster.
Remember: With Linux there is Choice. Microsoft never even bothered to give you one. Keep that philosophy in mind and we'll be all good.
Re:Good and Bad (Score:3, Insightful)
And what happens if the developers decide to ignore the code change requests Redhat wants? All Redhat can do in this case is make the changes and submit the patches....and wait for the developers to incorporate the changes if they so desire.
The hacking of the Gnome and KDE codebases is no different than the hacking Redhat does to apply patches to the kernel tree for instance. How many kernel patches that get applied to commercial distro kernels? How long would Redhat have to wait to see a stock kernel with ALL the patches they apply to be bless by linus? Do the kernel developers get mad when Redhat patches a stock kernel on their own?
For whatever reason whether it be long standing grudges or just the fact the Redhat has a different vision and motivation than the desktop developers...Redhat decided to make some patches. If Redhat submits those patches to the developers on the main branch..Redhat has done all you can really ask of them to do. We don't expect every person who comes up with a kernel patch to talk it over with Linus before they create the patch, do we?
Sometimes the lines of communication break down and you have to do things yousekf to get what you want. Sometimes its a simple matter of manhours and the people you'd rather work on it don't have the time. Sometimes is a decision to make experimental changes that others disagree with....
many reasons as to why patches for code get made.
The underling issue here is about control, who has control of the codebase. The people complaining about the changes Redhat has made, and the politics of the situation around those changes, miss the whole point about the GPL. People don't have to play nice in OSS to innovate. What matters in the end is whether or not Redhat has created a better KDE with their changes. If they haven't..then they wasted some valuable manhours in development time...but if Redhat's changes catch on in the userbase then it doesn't matter how the changes were made now does it? If the original project want to pick up the patches they can...and it would be a shame to see any contributions that provide new features that users like stay out of the main project because of some politics...and in the end that situation only hurts the main project...and not Redhat becuase Redhat will be seen as the innovator.
-jef
making it look the same means more les probs? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Choice and Red Hat (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not like they are morally obliged to fix any and every problem with their code.
Re:Unified Desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
No, this is not what we need. Just like we don't need a "unified" CPU-maker and a "unified" PC-vendor we don't need a "unified" Linux distribution.
If we would need that, we would all run Macs now.
DOS/Windows is so entrenched because:
RedHat having their great "unified" desktop won't make Photoshop run on it, it won't void the contracts OEM have with Microsoft and it won't make people forget about Windows.
However, both KDE and GNOME are usable enough and similar enough so that a Widnows user will have no problem using it (especially if you choose the Windows-config on your first login in KDE.) so that is already solved.
What we still need is:
I'm putting big hope in Codeweavers to produce a usable Wine that is easy to install and works with most office-software. - On all distributions, not only on RedHat.
and not distributors playing monopoly-unification games and reducing inter-distribution interoperability.
Re:screens pls! (Score:2, Insightful)
If they wanted to get rid of KDE, they'd get rid of KDE.
Idiot.
Re:Why do we need "one unified" desktop? (Score:5, Insightful)
-jj-
Re:Greatest gift to the linux world???? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple incorporated a number of additional features over time that were tweaks. The Menubar clock, the Apple-delete command, the Launcher, Spring-loaded folders, Internet Settings, Stickies, PPP support - All of these were available as add-ons before Apple incorporated them. They were made because people wanted something the standard didn't offer.
Microsoft responded by adding many of these same features to their OS.
On a side-bit, Apple did this mostly by purchasing the software from the makers, Microsoft wrote their own versions and prevented competitors from being used (e.g. The Windows XP Personal Firewall).
Without a standard against which to work, innovation is much slower. The people at PARC with made the first GUI did so roughly (brute force rendering, etc) and apple took their standard and crafted something else. Microsoft followed in Suit. And Linux GUIs are based heavily on Windows (Call it what you want, it's a Start Button).
Lack of Unification Killed My Linux Desktop (Score:5, Insightful)
When actually trying to get work done, and not simply tinker around, having essentially three different widget sets and standards is a nightmare. I wasn't even using GNOME or KDE as a desktop; I used fluxbox. But some of my GNOME apps looked one way, the 2.x ones looked another, and the KDE apps yet another. Then comes trying to remember the keyboard shortcut conventions: do I shut this down with ctl-Q, ctl-x, alt-q, alt-x? On top of all this, there's the bloat of carrying around libraries for all three widget sets, and all their dependencies (and I still had a pretty stripped down install; I was running Gentoo).
Day-to-day, this made for a truly unpleasant, unproductive, and frustrating desktop experience, without even getting into issues of stability. Many will toot the horn of diversity and choice, but in this the GNOME/KDE split is simply a massive hassle for new and experienced users alike. I'm the secretary for my college's Linux User Group, and explaining the differences between all the desktop environments confuses new users into a catatonic state, leaving them so confused they don't know where to go for what.
I won't say that Linux can never succeed on the desktop. It just needs a shitload of work, and and the demolition of this KDE/GNOME barrier.
Choice (Score:2, Insightful)
You can merge Gnome and KDE into one desktop over my dead liquid cooled boxes pump!
RH is doing the same error again (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Unified Desktop (Score:3, Insightful)
I couldn't agree with RedHat's statement any more. I definately feel that a unified look and feel is something that Linux has always needed.
Yes, I think so, too.
For far too long I've watched two extremely talented and desktop teams produce excellent software and haven't seen as much cooperation and collaboration as I would like. Being open source projects, both teams have the advantage of being able to more easily "steal" good ideas from the other team. I think that's great.
I'm really glad not only that Red Hat, whose market size in Linux matters, is taking the initiative to draw the two desktops closer together, but also that the two desktops are open source and that Red Hat even has the ability to do this kind of unification.
That is, while they don't perhaps realize or care much about it, I, for one, am happy that both Gnome and KDE are unifiable.
That's a great thing.
I wouldn't even care to speculate how much needless user pain there has been between proprietary desktops (win32 and Mac) that absolutely positively would never be merged simply because they're closed source and used as marketing weapons.
Re:Why do we need "one unified" desktop? (Score:1, Insightful)
The point I'm trying to make is that there's nothing at all wrong with trying to consolidate those options that are out there a bit more than they are. I use GNOME, personally, but I like KDE..what I -don't- like is two of my applications, one written for KDE3, one for Gnome 1.4, looking and behaving much differently save for a few options and widgets. If they want to remove some of that confusion, why shouldn't it be welcomed? I can understand how people might be upset if Redhat, say, released their own modified versions of GNOME and KDE that performed far differently from the standard releases, in order to obtain their goals, but according to the article the changes are supposed to be cosmetic at best.
Aside from that, of course, there's always the option of using another distribution..that's what confuses me the most about this whole flamewar that's started. Even people who are running other distributions quite happily are complaining about Redhat's choices as if it affected them in some way, when they really haven't lost any of the choices their chosen distribution gives them. It's just an opportunity to take cheap shots at (god forbid) a successful Linux vendor.
Exactly how is this a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't like what Red Hat's doing, swap out their desktop for the one you want. If you don't like the theme, put in another one. Or simply don't use Red Hat. It seems simple to me.
All of this makes me think back to when Caldera decided to make KDE its default desktop environment to the point of removing pretty much all the WMs they used to ship. Lots of folks cried "You're dumbing down Linux! How dare you force people to use KDE!". How making KDE the default desktop affected peoples' ability to pull up an xterm, I haven't a clue.
And to the KDE developers who pissed and moaned over Red Hat changing their precious code, try reading the license under which KDE is distributed. Last time I checked, people were allowed to alter GPL'd code in whatever way they wanted and re-distribute their version provided they made their patches available. I don't recall the GPL saying "you can change the code all you want as long as you don't change anything from the way we distributed it". You chose the license, sunshine. If you don't like what Red Hat did, cry me a river but don't expect me to sympathise with you. I'm not a huge fan of Red Hat (truth be told, I don't like their products at all), but what they're doing is something you and the GNOME folks have been allowed WAY too much time to take care of but did not. Both teams dropped the ball (or at least dragged your asses), so don't whine when someone else steps in and does the right thing. If you want it done your way, stop complaining and do it.
'Nuff said.
Re:Why do we need "one unified" desktop? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't want Joe Windows on Linux and I don't want Linux development coopted by the desire to make it "easy enough for someone's mom to use". I don't want to use the same computer my mother uses because we use them for very different things. She, like most people, want a glorified typewriter. She, like most people's mothers, calls people she knows (like me) to fix her computer or teach her to use various functions(I'm what makes the computer "easy to use").
Maybe there should be a seperate "Glorified Typewriter" edition of Linux, so the rest of us don't have to be bothered.
Here's what it needs: A web browser, open office, an off switch, bookmarks to calendaring and webmail.
Re:Lack of Unification Killed My Linux Desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, die-hard linux user....
But the split between GNOME and KDE, and therein between GNOME 1.x and 2.x, prompted me to drop Linux as a desktop platform
Not!
This inflamatory message (yes, mod me down, yadda, yadda) is let you know that your seld description is far from "die-hard linux user". Sorry, you're just not. It matters not that you're a secretary of your local LUG.
Among the many things that come to mind associated with a "die-hard linux user" are:
Not all of these apply to all die-hard linux users, but there is a general trend here.
Above all that, anyone who could reasonably be considered a "die-hard linux user" appreciates that the linux desktops and particularly their applications are still in their formative stages. Whereas a consumer-oriented individual looks upon bugs and deficiencies and decides to switch to a mature and polished commercial project, the "die-hard linux user" appreciates the tremendous project and even in the absence of activly contributing (even in small ways like timely bug reports on the unstable bleeding edge), at least feels a sense of "being there" as it happens.
So the point of this little rant, is that "Lack of Unification" didn't kill your linux desktop. You killed your linux desktop when you deleted it. That's your choice to make... my only gripe involves you calling yourself a "die-hard linux user". It didn't all look the same, nice and pretty, and parts of it didn't work similarly to other parts, so you dropped it and went to the highly polished, but commercial closed-source MacOS-X desktop. How "die-hard" is that??
Convergence is a dead end (Score:3, Insightful)
Eventually, as with Windows and MacOS today, overhauling the system will become next to impossible (Apple pulled it off but it was a last gasp effort, like the Mac itself, before the company flatlined). If new ideas in desktop design come along they will be ignored not because they are not good but because they are different.
That is not a future I'm interested in for Linux and if the cost of avoiding that was that Linux never made it to the big-time on the desktop then that would be a sacrifice I'd be happy to make.
But, it doesn't even have to mean that. All this crap about KDE/GNOME is missing the truth:
THE DESKTOP DOES NOT MATTER
As many people here have said, the ordinary user just wants to get work done. Think about what that means (better yet, go and look at real users working in their offices). The normal user does not use the desktop. They use the Start menu but even that is because they have to. If they really had what they need it would be a screen with maybe six big buttons on it marked "Word Processor","Spread Sheet", "Email", "Web","Print Queue", and one custom button for whatever other app they use in their work (Quick Books, Photoshop, Quark, whatever).
These buttons would be for restarting the given app if it crashes; in normal use a window for each app would be started up on boot.
Give them a handy way to switch between them and that's all 90% of Windows users would ever want or need.
I know this because I've done it. WindowMaker can set this up very easily and it takes about 3 minutes to turn a Windows User into a Linux User like this, for the simple reason that the desktop is not what people use all day, every day. If you have the apps (and OpenOffice has gone a long way on this) they don't give a toss what the desktop is doing.
KDE and GNOME are not things normal users need! Power users like systems like KDE/Gnome because they are useful for handling large numbers of apps and file locations. Normal office users don't have lots of apps and keep all their files in "My Documents".
The only thing convergence does is ossify the system and make life harder for power users who want to be able pick and choose their environments to suit their, minority, needs.
So: package KDE, Gnome, WindowMaker, ICEbox, and as many other desktops with your distro that you can fit onto the CD, make them all options during install, and make the default choice one the simplest with a handfull of icons already set up to start the "usual" apps and leave Linux to celebrate diversity while Windows fades away as new ideas and innovations pass it by because they are "too radical" for users.
TWW
Re:Unified Desktop (Score:2, Insightful)
Consider this:
1. internet explorer in crossover office runs well enough to use all day. internet explorer in the public GPL tree crashes after about 15 seconds of use.
2. quicken doesn't install with the public GPL tree of wine. quicken under crossover office runs well enough to use for a long time.
I know these things because I've tested them myself. I'm comparing crossover office 1.2 to wine 20020804.
if you're looking to codeweavers to provide the community with a reliable wine while still trying to make a profit, you're not going to be happy.
Re:Why do we need "one unified" desktop? (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather than having one desktop that sucks hardly at all, we have two that each suck somewhat.
I don't say that you're wrong, but it's certainly not clear that you're right.
Your statement assumes that (a) there are a fixed number of developers interested in working on Linux desktops, and they're split between KDE and GNOME; and (b) that there is no beneficial competition between the two groups.
It appears to me that most GNOME developers are C programmers and that most KDE developers are C++ programmers. Yes other language bindings exist for both environments, but most of the work is done in those two. In my experience as a programmer working with other programmers, most of us have a pretty clear preference for one style of development. I, for example, prefer the ability to abstract myself further and further from the machine that C++ gives me (balanced against performance, of course). Others find all of the layers of abstraction confusing and distracting and prefer to work in the much simpler C environment.
Given that programmers have a preferred style and environment, it seems clear that many would feel more comfortable working on one desktop or the other. Thus, I don't think it's likely at all that if, say, KDE disappeared, all the KDE developers would hop over to that grungy mess called GNOME, or vice versa, with appropriate disparaging adjectives.
As for (b), well, that's hard to say. My only comment would be to point out that the world has discovered that competition is good for the consumer. It's not clear if the same benefit arises when the two projects are competing for the pleasure of having more users rather than the pleasure of having more users' dollars, but it certainly seems possible.
Re:Unified Desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
And I say again, that's nonsense.
BeOS had a nice desktop. Where is it? It's gone because it doesn't has any apps.
Windows succeeded because it was backwards-compatible. The PC was plagued by IRQ and DMA conflicts and still took away marketshare from Macs and Amiga.
Linux needs to become backwards-compatible to Windows and needs to run Win32 applications.
That's what is holding it back.
In all areas where the apps are available, Linux is doing fine
Examples? Webservers - Windows gets marginalized there. Professional 3D-animation: Just after the tools were ported, many movie studios moved right to Linux. Embedded systems: Except for PDA's which are ruled by Palm and WinCE (and now guess why? RIGHT! Because of the APPS!!!) Linux has become the standard.
Software will be ported to Linux when the users are there. C++ and Delphi apps will be ported to KDE and C-apps will be ported to GNOME. Period. All apps work on all desktops, no problem in sight. End of story.
People want applications.
Nobody will give a shit wether an application runs on Qt, GTK or Wine. It doesn't matter as long as the functionality is there.
Re:Why do we need "one unified" desktop? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why do we need "one unified" desktop? (Score:3, Insightful)
Alas, this says more for just sticking with MicroSoft Windows interface.
I went thru this last year with a demo of a software tool. The salesmen called me up and said he'd walk me thru the demo if I had the time; so I did.
Problem # 1:
Me: I click on the download link and nothing happens.
Them: Shift-click.
Me: Still nothing. Half-sec (alt-U) Ah! It's a javascript redirect. I don't do Javascript.
Them: You can turn it on in I.E. by...
Me: One, I'm not using IE; Two, I'm not going to enable Javascript just because your web developer feels a need to replace perfectly good hrefs with something that does exactly the same thing if you have scripting enabled, and nothing otherwise.
Them: Um, lemme talk to a tech...
A couple of days later the salesman emails me, and gives me a "direct" URL to the Solaris version of the software. I d/l it, read the README, follow the instructions, and install it.
Problem #2:
Them: Now, double-click on the installation icon.
Me: One, there isn't any such thing, and two, it's installed.
Them: There's no icon?
Me: No, this is a Unix machine, and I'm not using a window manager that shows disk icons, and I refuse to use a file manager.
Them: But it's installed?
Me: Yes.
Them: How?
Me: I read the instructions in the README.
Them: Oh.
And then we tried to actually do the demonstration...
Problem # 3:
Them: So click on the "Start" button...
Me: I don't have a start button.
Them: Um, you don't?
Me: Nope. You'll notice that I downloaded the Unix version. How about I just type in the name of the program from an xterm?
Them: Um, will that work?
Me: Apparently so, as it's now running.
Now, one of the "features" of this product was that it was supposed to be able to find "dangerous coding habits" and syntax errors, and it came with a bunch of code to demonstrate these bad habits.
Problem # 4: ...um, I mean wordpad... ...and you'll see a dialog that says, um, what did you say?
Me: Okay, example 3 compiles and runs. Now what?
Them: Now bring up Notepad...
Me: No notepad.
Them:
Me: No wordpad either. Remember, this is a UNIX machine.
Them: You just go to the Start menu...
Me: No start menu either.
Them: Well, how are you going to edit (path)?
Me: Thank you....I am now editing (path). What now?
Them: Select (foo) and hit control-X, then type (bar).
Me: You mean replace (foo) with (bar)?
Them: Ummmm, yeah.
Me: Done.
Them: Good. Now go to the File menu and select "save."
Me: No File menu. But it's saved.
Them: Now click on (button).
Me: Done. Nothing happens.
Them:
Me: Nothing happens.
Them: Try again.
Me: Okay...done. Nothing happens.
Them: Did anything show up in your system tray?
Me: What's a system tray?
It turns out that *any* source file that I touched with a Unix editor would kill their product. But that's beside the point -- a "consistent interface" means Microsoft Windows.
Re:Unified Desktop (Score:3, Insightful)
Free software zealots won't care one way or the other - indeed they might even prefer the GPL'd Qt rather than Lesser-GPL'd GNOME libraries - but businesses are perhaps more likely to choose GNOME if they decide which desktop to develop for.
Re:Hopefully this won't be necessary soon (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unified Desktop (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about that for a minute. Part of the reason that software vendors are loath to enter the linux desktop market is because there is so little standardization and they don't want to have to support 50 different ways of launching a program. Standardization makes it easier to guarantee that the software you'd like to distribute will work. The LSB is moving towards making that possible at the developer level, but having the biggest commercial distro standardize on a desktop will help to make the user interface less of a moving target.
Re:Yes, I was Joe Windows once... (Score:3, Insightful)
go to tucows. www.tucows.com and search for HTML editors for Windows.
Or ftp clients
Or pretty much anything...
Now ask the authors of these programs if we can get rid of the 100 text editors, ftp clients, irc clients, etc....
It's not a war of any sort, it's called choice, and it exists even in the windows world.
The difference is that since Linux and Unix Free and Open Source software allow redistribution, that Linux distributions are allowed to bundle anything they consider worthy with their distribution, and this usualy means at least a couple of versions each utility, so as to please the greatest number of people.