Bero Quits Red Hat Over Treatment of KDE 615
Vicegrip writes "In an article on leaked release notes on Redhat 8.0 CNet also revealed that Bernhard Rosenkraenzer, known here on Slashdot as berorh, has quit over objections he has on what Redhat is doing to KDE in the new release. Bero says that the new version of KDE in Redhat 8.0 is going to be crippleware.
I know I always found Bero's comments here on Slashdot helpful and insightful. His worries about what Redhat is doing to KDE for 8.0 have me rather concerned and thinking of switching distributions."
I am with Red Hat on this one... (Score:4, Insightful)
I am one of those who say that Red Hat should only support either Gnome *or* KDE, but allow through the libraries to run each other's applications, in a way that it is completely unified (apps to behave and look the same even if they are from different toolkits).
More discussion about this here:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=1808 [osnews.com]
"free" software (Score:5, Insightful)
Real free software people would be against (or at least oblivious) to the branding in the first place.
Crippleware? (Score:5, Insightful)
With Redhat on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
I use gentoo (Score:2, Insightful)
And it makes sence because gnome2 is the default DE, why is it bad for qt apps to have unified look?
Gezz!
It's rather sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll tell you why -- good old fashioned ego. Whereas the low end (kernel developers, compiler writers, etc.) and high end (clustering software, 3D modelling and rendering, etc.) of development is led by strong, well-organised teams of well-trained developers with vision and understanding, the middle ground of the Linux world is polluted with warring egos and silly spats like this. There are myriad competing, mutually incompatible yet separately inadequate office suites (Star Office, KOffice, Applix,...), desktop environments (KDE, Gnome, XFCE, CDE, UDE, ROX,...), and X servers (XFree86, MetroX, XiG). We can't even decide on a printing system! If all the man-hours poured into fighting over KDE and GNOME were combined into a common vision, we would have one perfect end-user desktop, instead of two poor imitations of Windows.
Don't give me the old "competition" argument either. There is only one Linux kernel, which seems to progress just fine without another competing project nipping at its feet and instigating flamewars. The endless KDE vs. GNOME, Applix vs. StarOffice, and other feuds have wasted more productivity than would be gained by and competitive drive.
I, for one, am somewhat miffed that while my operating system powers Hollywood blockbusters and NASA supercomputers, it still can't fully replace Windows on my office desktop. Linux is growing up; its users need to grow up with it, shed their egos and work towards the common goal of creating an excellent working environment.
Re:"free" software (Score:5, Insightful)
You people are missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
An employee of RH was being asked to work on something he disagreed with. So he left.
KDE is free to moan, RH is free to mod KDE, and this guy is free to get employment elsewhere.
Personally, it restores some of my confidence in humans. At least we're not all wage slaves who couldn't give a rats ass what they were working for and who they were serving.
Re:I wish (Score:3, Insightful)
Over reacting? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sad to see him go, I hope things work out for him.
Please explain crippleware. (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, it is my understanding that the default KDE themes are in there and simply need to be selected from the configurator. How is this crippling it.
To go one step further, I see a fair bit of ranting, especially on Slashdot(go figure), about how bad this new Red Hat theme is. The thing is, if you don't like it change it. How many people actually continue to use KDEs default themes? Few if any, I'll bet. Pretty much everybody changes the desktop to their own preferrences. So, what's the big deal about selecting your own preferrences over the Red Hat theme versus selecting your own preferrences over the KDE themes?
Much ado about nothing....
Red Hat has my vote of confidence (Score:1, Insightful)
Red Hat has taken flack in the past for choices that were ulitmately validated by history. Few companies pour as much money into Free Software as Red Hat.
Hats off to Red Hat!
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Redhat isn't violating anyones license, and they've done so much for the free software movement. If you don't like it, send em an email. Then, shut up. Its not your company.
Re:It's rather sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
When I implement rendering software, its very easy to tell if my approach or your approach is better; bench mark.
Now hell me how to objectively detemine which interface is better: KDE or GNOME?
I think its obvious that there is always going to be way more arguments about what the handles and knobs looks like than whether or not that engine is implemented in the best way possible. You can quantitatively test and compare all the kinds of software you say that doesn't suffer from the problems KDE/GNOME do
Re:what exactlly are they doing? (Score:5, Insightful)
AFAIK, it is the case. RedHat's trying to do something for people who aren't emotionally involved with either KDE or Gnome -- make a consistent, usable desktop. I think this is a good thing to do. KDE and Gnome are working together these days (see freedesktop.org). This is encouragement from RedHat to make KDE and Gnome more interoperable. If they don't interoperate, then there make as well be two entirely separate types of desktop linux -- KDE linux and Gnome Linux. Vendors would need to pick one (or both) to support.
Macs have a default interface. Windows has a default interface. Linux systems should as well. Note that you can run QT programs on Windows and MacOS -- similarly, you can use the toolkit of your own choice on a Linux system. But having a default desktop system would be a good thing for Linux in the desktop arena.
What should Red Hat do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now Red Hat is trying to integrate KDE into their distro seamlessly. The KDE guys don't like this at all.
What should Red Hat do to make these guys happy? I think the only way the KDE guys would be happy is if Red Hat puts in KDE without changing anything. Great, now Red Hat has two different install options that look and work very differently. What a support nightmare. So, Red Hat would have to budget more money for support of KDE, or else just say it isn't supported... in other words, push GNOME and ignore KDE.
So it looks like the only way the KDE guys will be happy is if Red Hat goes out of their way to increase their support costs. Let's face it, if it is going to cost money to keep the KDE guys happy, Red Hat isn't going to do it!
P.S. Calling the Red Hat version of KDE "crippleware" isn't helpful. Red Hat isn't trying to hurt KDE; they are a business, and how does hurting KDE make money for them?
Any bugs Red Hat introduces to KDE will increase their support costs. People who buy Red Hat call Red Hat when they have trouble.
Red Hat is doing this so that a user can run KDE apps or GNOME apps without really caring which is which. Some of the KDE guys are complaining that Red Hat will make KDE look bad. The idea is that no one will even notice whether they are using KDE or not.
steveha
Re:"free" software (Score:5, Insightful)
Real free software people wouldn't be emotionally offended by others taking advantage of their own freedoms to modify the software. RedHat is doing what the GPL allows. This is what it's all about, guys -- freedom with the software you use, develop with and distribute.
Re:Crippleware? (Score:2, Insightful)
http://people.redhat.com/otaylor/rh-desktop.htm
Re:Whooptie doo (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not trying to be a martyr. He's trying to have a job in which he agrees with the things he's asked to do. It's those who remain in the job at the expense of their happiness that are the dumb and childish ones. Whether or not KDE is "cripplewear" in RH is besides the point; he has set of values, he's actually going to do something about it
Re:It's rather sad. (Score:4, Insightful)
You missed the VM system flamewars? The scheduler fights? The CML2 flamewars starring ESR? The kernel developers are by no means an egoless hive-mind, noiselessly producing good code. Read kernel-traffic [zork.net] for a little taste, or delve into the linux-kernel list raw & unfiltered for more than you evidently expect in the way of competition.
If you want to look for "Not Invented Here" mentalities and competition between kernel projects in the free-software world, consider also Linux vs. BSD. As I understand it, there's no reason that OpenBSD's pf firewall module -- which has some serious advantages over Linux's netfilter -- could not be integrated with the Linux network stack. It hasn't been, though, and I don't imagine it will be.
Kernels can be fighty places, too.
Re:It's rather sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're mistaken in assuming that computationally enormous is equivalent to hard. Designing and optimizing a Unix-ish operating system is a solved problem. It's been done well for decades by some really smart, well-funded people and there's plenty of experience and available source to draw on.
The desktop is hard. Apple and Microsoft still haven't gotten it down pat and the CDE guys completely failed at it. I remember a few years ago the attitude was, "We have graphics toolkits, and we've made Windows-like desktops with icons and toolbars. Thanks to the power of open source, we'll have Mac/Windows quality desktop apps in two years!" (I'm quoting the royal "we" of Linux enthusiasts.) It turns out that it's a lot harder than that, and that the devs at Apple and Microsoft and Adobe are a lot smarter and more innovative than a lot of the Linux xealots gave them credit for.
Re:I am with Red Hat on this one... (Score:2, Insightful)
amen to that (Score:4, Insightful)
(for the KDE lovers out there, I find Gnome just about as annoying and "more unintegrated"
Specialized vs. diverse use of an OS (Score:4, Insightful)
This IS the way to better software . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
I must disagree with this. I think strong principles are a great virtue of the open source community. Instead of being less productive at a KDEless Redhat, Bero will be more productive somewhere else. This doesn't say anything bad about Redhat or Bero and only further supports the diversification (and competition) of the community.
I am sure that the majority of MS employees would not walk out if suddenly MS decided to do something as drastic as go Open Source. You may call this corporate strength, but I call it 40,000 "yes" men (and women) who don't give a fsck what their company does, as long as that paycheck comes on Friday.
Re:"free" software (MOD PARENT UP) (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like people have confused 'freedom' with 'freedom do you whatever the hell you want without actually being subjected to what other people _think_ of it'. Which is a shame, because peer discussion and judgement is about the most important check/balance in society. While we try and limit the actions that can result from peer judgement (to avoid mob justice, for instance), we should try and avoid attempting to squash criticism just because its not 'productive'
When people are free to do crap, don't forget others are well within their rights to freedom to voice dissatisfaction
Re:Amen (Score:1, Insightful)
If you want one desktop, use Windows.
I, on the other hand, *like* choice.
HERE IS THE ANSWER EVERYONE.... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
"Red Hat's new "Bluecurve" desktop interface, a customization of the traditional KDE or Gnome interfaces."
Translates too:
Red Hat decided - instead of using just KDE and Gnome to add Bluecurve which is a modified version of KDE that is "more user friendly"
Former RH employee
"I don't want to work on crippling KDE, and they (Red Hat) don't want an employee who admits (Red Hat) 8.0's KDE is crippleware,"
Translates too:
I think the majority of linux users will not want to use this "user-friendly" crap because linux users are all power users and red hat is dulling themselves down just to try and bring more noobs to linux and make some money and i'm too self-righteous to be involved in that hideous plot.
The words "Cripple KDE and former RH employee" appear on Slashdot and the masses go crazy....
Re:Amen (Score:4, Insightful)
And what about Debian or Slack, quite arguably the two most "pure" distros of all? What gives Redhat the power to dictate the desktop environment for them?
The fact is, for most desktop developers, having Linux take over the mainstream desktop isn't the priority. It's providing the best desktop software on the planet for themselves and their users. This whole "Linux vs. The World" is just some childish notion that attempts to shoehorn people. A big part of Linux is that it is Free Software, and with that comes the freedom to choose what you want. Distros have their default desktop, but that shouldn't interfere with me in any way.
Re:"free" software (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, so if I use your XSLTFilter on a Web site that displays XML-indexed goatse pictures, you'll suddenly become convinced they're the most attractive thing you've ever seen?
There's a deep divide between toleration and approval. As I understand it, RMS (for one) is generally speaking opposed to war. However, the GPL under which he releases his software contains no provisions preventing militaries from using it in the development and deployment of weapons systems. RMS tolerates the use of glibc in weapons -- that is to say, he doesn't try to stop it. That doesn't mean he approves of it, or wouldn't be offended by the thought of a missile guided by glibc-linked code blowing up a village in Iraq. (Hell, I'm offended by it, and I didn't even write glibc.)
The confusion between toleration and approval (or between taking offense and being intolerant) is a dangerous one, like the confusion so many people have between criticism and censorship. It is destructive of public discourse, because it leads people to react emotionally as if they were being threatened with force, when in fact they are merely being told someone's opinion.
Re:What should Red Hat do? (Score:3, Insightful)
On a side note, those who download RedHat for free don't get some of that support without paying. If it becomes a large known issue, a patch goes up. If it's a minor issue with only a few people, I would expect RH to charge them service fees.
How do you think companies with free software/OS's make money? One of the big ways is support.
Try it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Try it for god sakes. Before you bitch about it or even see it, just try it. Wait until Redhat 8.0 comes out, get a copy, install it, and check out the GUI.
If it sucks big-time, then flaming is somewhat justified. If it works better than what has gone before, then either use it or go crawling back to your old glitchy GUI versions and feel that hollow satisfaction that your whining was warranted.
Seems to me, the only way anyone wins is if it's an improvement - phorm
How you gonna fight MS (Score:1, Insightful)
It's mind boggling (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just more evidence for the idea that GNU/Linux users don't really want to win the battle... don't want GNU/Linux to become popular... that there is an elitist attitude among many out there (myself included) that relishes the role of the underdog, and wants things to stay with GNU/Linux in that position. So we all need to reconcile these two feelings... ask the question-- do you really want to see GNU/Linux become mainstream? Further, are you willing to see the use of open-source through to its end? So far, in my experience, both of these answers have been "no".
Re:This is not meant to start a flamewar (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. There is no legal reason for them not to - they are allowed to do this. I'm also allowed to walk up to your finace right before you get married and tell her that in my opinon, she's a mongrel whore, thus ruining your wedding. Both acts are not morally sound, however. RedHat has committed source patches to change some of the fundimental UI for KDE (including the one possible legal violation, removing the About KDE, which lists the authors as copyright owners and the GPL as the license the application is distributed under), and that's not, in the open source world, considered a nice thing to do. Sure, it's legal. Doesn't mean that they aren't being asses.
--
Evan (no reference)
Re:Please explain crippleware. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes. So? The alternative would be using all KDE apps in their place. So the KDE people are pissed off because RH isn't excising all competitors to their software from their distro and using only KDE? That's just silly.
Re:With Redhat on this one... (Score:2, Insightful)
I fail to see what Redhat is doing that could so offend Bero
Bero made his reasons pretty clear in his post to the kde-devel list:
I don't want to work on crippling KDE, and they don't want an employee who admits RH 8.0's KDE is crippleware.
That's pretty clear, isn't it?
he is only creating a larger problem...over something that appears to be rather benign
It may "appear benign" to you, but Bero has a different opinion. And I seriously doubt that you know more about KDE on RedHat than he does.
Looks like big egos will always get in the way of better software.
Sure, why not throw in a gratuitous personal attack? But isn't it at least as likely that Bero recognized RedHat's intention to covertly favor Gnome by crippling their KDE implementation, and chose not to be a part of it -- like he says?
If this is the case, as I strongly suspect, then we owe Bero our thanks for the warning. If RedHat or its users take heed, this will help us get better software in the long run.
What all the fuss is about (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows has a distinctive look-and-feel. The macintosh has a distinctive l&f. Why? Branding, branding branding! The same organisation that is responsible for the overall package -- the OS in Microsoft's case; computer in Apple's --- is responsible for the interface. The visual differences between KDE and Gnome exist for similar reasons. By replacing their respective brand-imagery with its own, RedHat now gets to gobble up the mindshare of both teams -- the only form of 'payment' that these projects really ask for --- without any sort of renumeration. Need I remind the reader how important mindshare is to the financing and ultimate success of any open source project? Would KDE have received funding from the German government if it had just been some grey nnonymous widget-maker for a couple of American software firms?
Sure, you could characterise this as a case of warring egos; but egos are essential to survival: The perfectly altruisitic quickly become fodder for the pragmatically selfish. KDE and Gnome are well within their rights to protest; their identities are their equity. That's how this market works --- regardless of the apparent legality or probity of such maneuvers under license.
Re:I am with Red Hat on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a common misconception in these discussions that people are mad about the unified look and integration between KDE and GNOME that Red Hat is promoting. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I hope I can speak for all KDE fans when I say the unified look is a step forward, and integration is good. After all, people have been crying out for both for years. But what Red Hat is including is not KDE, it is simply KDE's panel used to launch other applications. The panel is not what makes KDE compelling, it's the app integration. If Red Hat wants to use GNOME app defaults, then what are they doing including KDE at all? It is a joke, simply so they can put "KDE desktop" on their boxes.
I am also not trying to say that Red Hat should drop all KDE support. No matter what, Red Hat should include libraries to run KDE apps, and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. If they aren't going to use KDE app defaults, though, they might as well not include KDE as a choice on the login screen. There is no reason to.
Everything old is new again (Score:2, Insightful)
There is an old saying... "Vote with your feet."
I don't run either GNOME nor KDE. I run XFce [xfce.org]. That is the wonderful thing about Software Libre. Choices are a Good Thing<tm>.
There are two sides to this situation (Score:2, Insightful)
However, if you look at it from the KDE developers' point of view, it is different. Imagine that you are a konquerer developer. Until now, you know that if someone tries out KDE, they will try out konquerer and that makes you happy. They may not stick with it, but that is ok. However, with the new redhat, even if a user chooses KDE, they may never see konquerer! Now you begin to wonder what are you writing all this open source code for if no one will see it. I think that is why the KDE developers are so upset.
Re:Sooner or later... (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. That's like saying Window Maker wouldn't exist without KDE, or that FluxBox wouldn't exist without KDE. I believe there are certain irreconcilable differences between the two development groups, and that multiple Linux desktops are inevitable. Even if KDE or GNOME ends up "winning the war" and becomes the de facto standard for all the major distros, and more importantly, for ISV's, this will STILL not change the fact that there will be multiple Linux desktops. That's the double-edged sword of Free Software - if you don't like it, you're free to try something else. This leads to a lot of initial divisive fighting, but eventually it ends up creating incredible software - look at the great FreeDesktop.org standards! The more of those standards KDE and GNOME pick up, the lower the bar is for users to switch between desktops. Basically, we can have our cake, and eat it, too.
Re:Bollax (Score:4, Insightful)
Ehm, this must be a matter of opinion, since I believe KDE to be putting out better quality applications (in a shorter timespan too, they are not losing their head-start, they are increasing their lead). As for "political stunts", consider this: when I think of GNOME, I think of Ximian and Eazel (the millions wasted, the strange Google ads). When I think of KDE, I think of a team of developers "getting shit done." About the only bad mark that KDE has ever had was with the old Qt licensing, which all boiled down to wanting to "get shit done" instead of worrying about licensing. If you want to talk about politics, talk about GNOME.
Maybe if they had been developing instead of throwing tantrums their applications would be the ones Red Hat had chosen instead.
Red Hat chose GNOME way back in the day, as far as Linux desktops are concerned. KDE wasn't all that great back then, and GNOME was fully GPL. I think the licensing had to do more with their decision than quality of applications (especially considering that GNOME at that time was awful). Of course, it is harder to turn back now that Red Hat promoted GNOME so much. Considering that Red Hat is the only major distribution shipping GNOME as the default desktop, I wonder if Red Hat could end the desktop war by simply switching to KDE as default? Something to think about...
It is also important to remember that the people debating this are people like you and I, not the actual core KDE developers (or GNOME developers for that matter). They are not throwing tantrums, they are coding. I'd even guess that most of them don't even have Slashdot accounts. KDE continues to have a very strong developer community that generally does not worry about things like this. Please place blame appropriately.
Re:I wish (Score:4, Insightful)
As for me, personally I am curious and interested to see what RH has done with the desktop in v8, and don't feel too strongly about the KDE/GNOME/Bluecurve arguments -- and I don't know enough about whether I should agree with Bero's statements about crippling KDE.
-=Ivan
Re:I am with Red Hat on this one... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I'm planning on waiting for the imminent release, rather than the "null" work in progress, having a play around with it and then making up my mind. There is so much FUD on this issue from the KDE and Gnome developers, as well as Red Hat and the community that this is the *only* way to go.
As a firm KDE desktop user who runs a lot of Gnome apps within it I'm all for making KDE and Gnome look alike for a consistent desktop. I've basically done this so far by using very similar themes on both window managers and tweaking out the differences where possible, and it was my impression that Red Hat had just taken this one stage futher, which was fine by me. However, for Bero to take this step, especially given that this is the same Bero that so eloquently dispersed the FUD around Red Hat's recent compiler choices, I'm getting a little concerned they may have gone a bit futher than that.
Red Hat has an excellent track record for me; I've had problems with most of the the other popular choices that Red Hat didn't even bat an eyelid at. They are also pretty on the ball with the security patches, unlike some distros I could mention, which is essential when you are responsible for numerous boxes out on the Internet.
All in all, I do hope they are not going to spoil their track record over this, but a large part of using open source code is about having the freedom to make a choice, isn't it? I don't see any reason why that shouldn't extend to the distro packagers too, and frankly I think it somewhat hypocritical to believe otherwise.
Re:I wish (Score:2, Insightful)
I wish more people were stupid enough to quit their jobs just on principle. Then there might be less unprincipled actions by business.
Re:Amen (Score:4, Insightful)
This is little more than an elaborate theme and a default set of applications.
It has nothing to do with "slowing down" KDE or "removing choice". It has to do with delivering a common user experience across both desktops.
If you don't like it, don't use it!
If you don't like it, and have to use it, change the config to something YOU can live with.
I don't get what the hell is so hard to understand about this relatively straightforward concept.
Plagiarism is taboo for a reason (Score:2, Insightful)
This is plagiarism, and in academia it is taboo for a reason. Did you see how the kde logo got replaced with a red hat? Did you see how they got rid of all of those program names that had k's in them?
That is how marketers work, they maximize their brandname's recognition, and minimize that of their competitors. Marketers have never cared much for such academic concepts as fair attribution.
If you don't want to pay us developers money, fine, Einstein wasn't made wealthy either, but we don't go calling it Addison-Wesley's theory of relativity just cause they print it for us, do we? Well, the trend is that with RedHat we will never know what person other than RedHat wrote the code. It will be just like Microsoft stealing other people's ideas and never crediting them, except now it is code not ideas.
Stallman needs to get off his behind, and issue the new GPL with provisions requiring proper crediting, and restricting the removal of trademarks and logos, and if he doesn't do it (he has been thinking about it for how many years now?), then someone else needs to.
Kudos to Bero, a man of principle.
Re:"free" software (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup, they're silly buggers, no question there.
But I don't think it's valuable to call them "fake free software people", or whatever the antonym of your "real free software people" upthread was supposed to be. I don't even know what a "free software person" is meant to be in that context -- an advocate? user? developer? We have clear criteria for what makes a program Free Software but we do not have criteria for what makes a "free software person."
I find it disturbing sometimes how much resentment there can be in the community. Whenever one of these atrocious flamewars breaks out, it seems to me that it's more because people are looking for a fight, looking for some battle line on whose sides they can form up. Quite often, it seems it's the resentful impulse that was once called levelling that serves as the impulse for this. Levelling is the harmful side of envy: instead of raising yourself up to the level of the envied one, you knock them down to yours.
Many free-software users hate Microsoft, because they observe that Microsoft has done wrong and profited by it -- but a sizable minority envy Red Hat, because while Red Hat has done no wrong it has profited where others have failed. None in this matter of KDE in Red Hat 8.0 have presented a coherent argument that Red Hat has done wrong; rather, they have seized on something unusual that Red Hat has done and unfoundedly declared it wrong, as a justification for knocking down Red Hat.
It's foolish, and in the end it drags everyone down. The negative publicity hurts Red Hat directly and the rest of Free Software/Open Source by association. The attitude of intolerance towards modifications -- that if I want to modify your code I need your explicit permission -- creates a contradiction with the operating principles of FS/OSS and works to deprive us of its benefits. The inherent ugliness and acrimony of unnecessary hostility hurts us all.
Re:This is not meant to start a flamewar (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it considered "insightful" to compare Red Hat's effort to unify Gnome and KDE to calling someone's fiancee a mongrel whore on her wedding day?
Just to be safe: consider your wedding invitation from me to be cancelled :-).
If you insist on KDE's moral right to have an About box on the desktop, then every other author of everything on your system has the same right. This was the problem with the old BSD advertising clause (which required that blurbs of the author's choice had to be displayed by the system and appear in all documentation); the GPL folks have always rejected this concept.
Free software is a bazaar. If folks don't like the GUI changes, Red Hat will come under pressure to change them; if people do like the GUI changes, KDE will come under pressure to accept them.
If the KDE folks act too much like control freaks, they risk losing control of their own project. This happened to RMS a couple of times, with the emacs/xemacs split and the egcs split, although the latter split was healed when RMS surrendered control of GCC to the egcs team. Some aspects of what Red Hat did to KDE are arguably broken, others are arguably improvements. If the KDE folks have a good attitude, the result could be a better KDE. Otherwise, I predict that other distributors will emulate Red Hat's approach, and KDE will lose control of what KDE looks like on other distros as well.
Look and Feel (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect that significant number of you assume that a common look and feel means a common theme, style, appearance, etc. But that's just the look. The sticky part is the feel. A common feel means that KDE and GNOME behave identically. Think about that one a bit. In order for the goal of a common feel to be successful there has to be major surgery on one or both of the desktops.
Here is one example that should bring the point home. Lets imagine the Fubar Dialog. Both GNOME and KDE have a Fubar Dialog that allows the user to set their snafu level. Under KDE, this dialog is modeless applies to the application snafu level. Under GNOME it is modal but operates on the global snafu level. So how do you make a common Fubar Dialog? Do you make the KDE version act globally? And what about all those applications that used the Fubar Dialog? Will you change them as well? After all, a modeless dialog is pretty useless if the application still thinks its modal. And what about third party applications (that don't come with Redhat) using that dialog?
The point I'm trying to make here is that a common feel between two desktops is a MAJOR undertaking. It's so great a task that I seriously doubt Redhat is going to be able to pull it off.
Instead of assuming that we need a common look and feel just because the convicted monopolist has one, why not treat the existance of multiple desktops as an inherent advantage to Free Software operating systems?
Re:Bollax (Score:4, Insightful)
Asserting tht RedHat is trying to "neutralize" KDE is attributing political motives to their actions. Instead, I think, they're simply trying to sell more copies of RedHat Linux.
Re:Bollax (Score:4, Insightful)
Just the fact that RedHat and Sun both agree that GNOME is a better desktop should say a lot. Besides, even if KDE was just as good as GNOME, GNOME would still have quite a lead, as most apps are based on GTK. Loading and maintaining twice as many toolkits and libraries is a waste of system resources, and effort.
Re:I am with Red Hat on this one... (Score:2, Insightful)
Meanwhile, RedHat seems to be taking an approach normally called "middle-of-the-road". They appear to believe that Mozilla is the leading browser for the Free Software set, so they make that the default no matter which desktop you set up. Let's just be glad they decided to dump the unfree Netscape. They are making their distribution more and more Free by the day. This is a good thing, imo.
Having a choice of desktop environment is not something the average user wants much of, I believe. And businesses can't truly be excited about trying to support two completely separate work environments. Imagine the support calls: before you can ever start solving the user's problem you have to do a whole "animals" style question-answer game to find out what their system looks like? Forget it.
So if KDE and its default apps are all that popular wouldn't there be a market for a completely separate distribution centered on that instead? Perhaps bero will go to work for that company, or form his own company... and maybe they will crush RH in the marketplace. But that's all speculation. In the meantime, one has to assume that RedHat has done the consumer research and talked to its larger clients and prospective clients about this and made their decision based on what will drive revenue. Anything is a disservice to their customers, their employees, and their shareholders.
Re:I am with Red Hat on this one... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's for the damn normal people, newbies, who redhat wishes would use their product rather than m$ windows.
They don't want to think about anything like "choice of desktop", or two sets of default applications, they don't want to know ANYTHING at all about gnome, or kde. They want ONE SET, and go on happily using redhat default set without slightest worries or interests at all about whether app they are currently using is something called KDE app or maybe gnome app, or maybe it's product of neither project but independent work.
So RH puts in different software, they have to make choices, they take what they think is best, no matter which package it belongs to, they make 'em all look same so user doesn't have to give a crap about it either.
Those of us who know enought to care about this just CHANGE THOSE DEFAULT SETTINGS, insert their own favourite apps into quick launch bars and use kde or gnome like always before. That might take about five minutes, after the install so what the hell is the big deal here?