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."
Maybe he will join MandrakeSoft again! (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems a pity for Bero to leave RedHat over this (Score:2, Interesting)
However, I can understand why redhat is standardising its interface this and I'm not sure it is a bad thing. The difference between KDE and Gnome _IS_ confusing to new users, and it is somewhat ugly to mix GTK and QT apps on the screen at the same time. I think that KDE and Gnome should compete on the technical merits of their class libraries, not on how pretty their default install is.
Consider Ximian, Lindows, etc. They all modify kde to look like windows. Why is it ok for them to do that, but no ok for RedHat to give all their programs a similar look-and-feel.
Anyway, I hope financial reasons won't mean Bero is no longer able to contribute to the open source community.
This is not meant to start a flamewar (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides 'nicety' issues (it would be nice if RH didn't do this) and besides marketing reasons (obviously having a consistent interface is very desirable) can anybody explain any legal reason why RH isn't allowed to do what they are doing?
As far as I remember, when you GPL your software, anybody can do practically whatever they want with it as long as they provide it at cost (duplication costs) and as long as they publish their (modified) sources.
If you don't like the way RH ships their preconfigured Gnome/KDE desktop, well, uninstall the provided packages and install the ones you can download from ftp.kde.org and so on.
The people that would be interested in having a 'pure' KDE and/or a 'pure' Gnome, are technically inclined people which are more than capable of doing what I just outlined: I really doubt that your average non-power-user cares at all about this, as long as they can use mozilla, openoffice etc. I don't think they'd care.
If you have licensed your software under a specific license (GPL, BSD, Artistic...) and a licensee does things to your software that you don't like, well, maybe you didn't think long & hard enough before opting to use the license you've been using. The only solution is to decide on a new license (good luck in getting everybody to agree) and to fork the codebase under that new license, but it's definitely not a painless or sometimes even possible solution (given the 'viral' nature of the GPL).
KDE on RH 8 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You people are missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with you 100%. But I can also see where some people are worried. A respectable man disowns a company he works for over political reasons such as the modification of KDE, and it will make people question the company. Things like this will always bring rise to the Redhat/Microsoft comparison that happens way too often.
BUT the whole Lemming mentality happens way too often as well. Someone respectable leaves something like redhat behind, and all of the sudden people think it's tainted. Now, don't get me wrong. In a situation like this, questions do arise in my head. But I further research an analyze the situation. Perhaps our hero doesn't want to modify KDE because he thinks it works BEST the default way. Makes sense. But I'm willing to try out the new modified version before I agree with him.
So I announce now that I will go against the grain, and I will at least try out Redhat 8.0 before I denounce it. I will try Xandros too, and the latest Debian, and so on. I'm an OS mosquito, I go where the brightest light is.
Re:It's rather sad. (Score:2, Interesting)
>There is only one Linux kernel, which seems to progress just fine without another competing project nipping at its feet and instigating flamewars.
And how exactly can you say the kernel wouldn't have progressed faster with competition ? If you lack any comparison element how can you tell ?
And in the long run...See yourself in 10 years; you have this incredible feature to integrate in a desktop. But badluck, at this time the comitty steering the UNIFIED DESKTOP doesn't deem your idea interesting (always remember that very bright people can fail to see - planck's idea took a long time to get through, and he was talking with the best crop of physicist of his time). Well, if there's a second project...you have 100% more chances to get your idea through. And both might consider your idea a bit more, being cautious that they could lose it to the other side, just in case.
Or you don't have that second destop solution: maybe you'll fork the UNIFIED one yourself, thus ten years later proving yourself wrong.
Na, I think it's better with competition. Safer on the long run.
Re:It's rather sad. (Score:2, Interesting)
I disagree. Of course you might like to have everyone work on the same thing - but these are volunteers who work on what gives them enjoyment. You can't get them to work on a common environment - the best you can achieve is common interface standards, and that is happening.
With this environment then you do get competition, because each camp wants their side to win. This moves each side on faster than it would without the other. We don't know whether one environent will become THE ONE (the others will not disappear immediately - if at all - but will continue anyway as a minority solution).
As for your one kernel. The kernel development goes through the same thing, look at the number of competing file systems.
Re:It's rather sad. (Score:5, Interesting)
And even the lower levels have their problems. There might be one Linux kernel (excepting -ac and other myriad branches and patches), but there's also BSD, Mach, Darwin, and the Hurd out there.
As for "simple" things like reading Word documents, you try reading a document that's really and collection of embedded COM objects and see how well you do with it. Things like that aren't easy. On the other hand, I can read and write my windows partition, as well as many other file systems, quite easily in Linux, which is something Windows can't do now. I also have virtual desktops, which is simple to implement in your WM using X, but Windows can't do this "simple" thing by default. Every environment has its advantages and disadvantages.
All those diseparate projects like KDE/Gnome, OO/KOffice, etc. will either learn to cooperate or one will die out. KDE and Gnome have very very slowly been taking steps to meet on some levels, and distros can step in at other levels (like Debian's excellent menu system). OO and Koffice are working towards using the same file format, or at least being able to read and write the same formats. Things will get there, just be patient.
Oh, and incidentally, I get better frames in Q3 on Linux than I do in Windows.
Open Soap Opera (Score:5, Interesting)
On minute we have a bunch of Linux zealots beating their drums and putting a bead on the back of Microsoft, bent on unseating Microsoft whenever and where ever they can.
The next minute, someone actually in a position to move that goal forward, and they're crucified for it.
Get over it, or get your priorities straight so I can either dump my MSFT stock or buy more of it (seriously). If the goal is to make Linux a viable and flexible operating system, then people need to understand that their Open Source projects may be co-oped by someone else and modified. It's the rules of the game, the nature of the beast.
If the goal is to create software with your name all over it, a web site that tells everyone what chic and dastardly cool programmers you are, then that's ok too. But don't yell about Microsoft and how Linux would make it all different.
Re:bad news for Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
Would you care to explain exactly which KDE features are hidden? I'm using (null) now, and other than the theming I do not see any differences (I still can access the KDE control center to change my settings for example).
Re:Please explain crippleware. (Score:4, Interesting)
However, what they're doing is not very nice, and it isn't at all about themes and icons...if that's all it was, there would be no issue.
First there was the issue of the removal of the "About KDE" item in all KDE app help menus. From Redhat's point of view, they're trying to make a Redhat-branded desktop, so seeing "About KDE" in some of the apps might be confusing to the user. From KDE's point of view, if Redhat "de-brands" the desktop, then the about box is really their only chance to let the user know about the app's authorship. It *really* makes it seem like Redhat is, if not trying to take credit for the apps themselves, then at least trying remove credit from where it's due (the KDE devs).
I don't know for sure, but I think Redhat may have decided to replace the "About KDE" items. Time (or beta testers
Second, and more importantly, they have replaced KDE apps with equivalent apps, either from GNOME or independent projects. For example, they replaced konqueror with Mozilla, Koffice with OpenOffice, KMail with Evolution.
Some people say these alternatives are better anyway, so who cares? Is KDE just whining because they can't keep up? I don't think so. For one thing, even if you change the widget style, these apps aren't going to be very well-integrated into the rest of the desktop, both in terms of look-and-feel and interoperability with other apps. This tight integration is one of KDE's great strengths; without it, KDE is, well, crippled. Plus, since these apps depend on libraries that are not preloaded when KDE starts up, they will appear to be sluggish to the user, who might incorrectly conclude that KDE is slow and clunky.
In summary, it isn't about themes or icons. It's that Redhat removed all trace of KDE from the apps, and replaced core KDE components with alternatives that are likely to confuse and frustrate users.
Re:It's rather sad. (Score:4, Interesting)
For math papers, OpenOffice works *better* than the MS equivalent, and for many tasks, makes more sense than using Maple or Mathematica. And Open Office is wonderful for writing in French, or any other Western language.
When other people say "The Desktop" they're not talking about work, they're talking about Entertainment. And there are real shackles, very high barriers to entry in that arena, that have nothing to do with one piece of free software versus another, and everything to do with the hostility of hardware makers and industry associations!
But that's the "desktop" as an entertainment venue, and not as a workplace. Because of the current state of affairs where we are willing to accept (1) unnecessary expenses and (2) distractions from functions that apply to work tasks, we seem to find things like "windows" and "osx", or even "gnome" or "kde" to be reasonable items to have in a workplace -- because those are the things we are accustomed to.
Why is the Windows Solitaire program considered a tolerable standard feature on a business machine? Why is it that even in environments demanding hardcore accountability, strict adherence to schedule, and zero loss, we find any such systems? What stopped there being a "next level" in workplace equipment?
Amen (Score:5, Interesting)
KDE people whining about this are going to be ignored. The GNOME people have accepted the loss of their icons without throwing fits, though it certainly changes RH GNOME's "look and feel". I can't figure out why the KDE people can't do the same for the changes that affected their "look and feel."
Re:"free" software (Score:4, Interesting)
The rhetoric being levelled at Red Hat from the KDE zealots goes way beyond mere criticism.
Re:Anyone who's used it likes it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Since KDE has never released a proper announcement of what their issues with Red Hat beyond some generally false stuff in their forums (cheers Mosfet) and as an extensive KDE user I haven't encountered them, I may indeed not know everything.
I didn't put a RH spin on anything. Users should pick the best apps. RH aren't trying to turn KDE into Gnome - 2 of 3 non KDE their `best apps' aren't Gnome apps either. And Konq, KMail etc still work (apart from the plugin bug you mentioned). I'm a Konq fan, but at the end of the day, Mozilla can render more pages (such as www.ninemsn.com.au, the most popular site in the country) and Konq can't. And as I said, every KDE app I've rebuilt for Null has been fine.
The Xft additions seem to work well enough that I haven't noticed them negatively at all - just that for once I got Xfthack quality font rendering out of the box on a Linux distro without having to screw around. This is a good thing. I don't know what's buggy about it and when I do notice something, I spend a bit of time in Bugzilla reporting it or checking it out.
Konqueror plugisn are broken, huh? Flash works fine on www.xdude.com works fine (using the Flash 6 beta under Konqueror on the current Null). Quicktime / Crossover also work fine, albeit a little slowly than I'd like. But I accept there are likely remaining bugs in Konq plugins, as Macromedia.com doesn't work properly, and last time I looked its also in Mozilla marked for RH to fix, along with the latest Nautilus fuckups. How is this malicious? What have Red Hat done to deliberately break it? And why would they deliberately break it if they're going to fix it? You haven't said so I'll treat RH as innocent until proven guilty.
I don't know about what applications vfolders you're talking about, or what `service names are'. Care to tell or give us a bugzilla link?
Using GCC3 does not equate to sabotage. (Score:4, Interesting)
- Broke plugin handling
The gruesome details are all in bugzilla.
If I'm uninformed, then you sir, are a liar. Read the actual bug report [redhat.com] sometime. Red Hat have done nothign of the sort - they've just compiled KDE with the current GCC - Macromedia has yet to release a GCC 3 based Flash (tho it would seem Flash 6 corrects the problem). You're trying to make out that Red Hat have deliberately sabotages KDE plugins. When Suse, Mandrake, and every other distro also compile KDE with GCC3, will you accuse them of the same?
I hope RedHat improves KDE, Moz, OO integration... (Score:2, Interesting)