Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
KDE Software GUI Linux

UserLinux May Go Without KDE 964

Anonymous BillyGoat writes "For the past few days, there has been considerable debate at the UserLinux mailing list about the (proposed) non-inclusion of KDE in the distro. The KDE developers have written a proposal opposing the decision to go with GNOME as the sole UserLinux GUI, while Bruce Perens has posted a response."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UserLinux May Go Without KDE

Comments Filter:
  • Options are good. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ActionPlant ( 721843 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @07:03PM (#7769661) Homepage
    I don't primarily use KDE, but I still like the idea that should I want it, I can have it. I do use Gnome, but I like just knowing it's not my only option, even if I never get around to using KDE. Although it's not the end-all be-all (in my opinion), it would still be a mistake to not include it.

  • by Murmer ( 96505 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @07:07PM (#7769705) Homepage
    Having used both, I have likes and dislikes about both of them - Gnome does look better, and "feels", whatever that means, like a more complete and professional product.

    That said, KDE is faster. Much, much faster; On older hardware, this is a pronounced difference. Every time my old P2/233 goes bobbing for objects in the Corba barrel, it takes an awfully long time to come up for air.

    If the UserLinux project is only meant to run on hardware made from this day forward, that's cool, I'd go with Gnome. But if not, I'd definitely include KDE - It's cruel to say so, but the choice between Gnome and KDE is, in my house, very much dependent on the choice between new or old hardware.
  • I agree with Bruce (Score:2, Interesting)

    by BigBuckHunter ( 722855 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @07:08PM (#7769719)
    I have never fully understood why distros come with both GUI environments. I realize that there is a lot of great software that one will miss out on either way, but users want simplicity.
    I view Bruce's approach as being better than what Redhat has historically delivered (Gnome with half-assed KDE support). I would rather have KDE left out than finding broken features and diminished functionality after the install.
  • The question is... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @07:12PM (#7769753) Homepage Journal
    Why hasn't anyone made an OSS implementation of Qt? I don't see why it would be to hard to come up with a drop-in replacement, maybe even based on GTK, (though hopefully more low level).
  • Good Choice (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 19, 2003 @07:12PM (#7769757)
    Although it might not be a good choice to select Gnome over KDE, I agree with this move.

    I don't think Linux will become widely accepted on the desktop until there is a standard for installations. The amount of software you include in your packages is also taken into effect when you need to support these products (or not have to support them). I think this is why certain packages (i.e. Debian) will include every package, rather than selecting which goes in. Most of the support is kind of fix-it-yourself, and providing all packages allows them to do anything or fix any problem right? This approach is great for Geeks with the do-it-all-yourself type attitude, but it doesn't work elsewhere. This also relates to having to choose which windows manager to use when installing the OS. This division among windows managers has caused and will cause alot of problems in the future when relating to interoperability between applications and elsewhere. I personally feel that every Linux distro should go with 1 windows manager, and not allow people to chose between them (unless this is a Linux distro that caters to the "expert" - but which distro doesnt claim this?).
  • And in the end (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Eberlin ( 570874 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @07:13PM (#7769761) Homepage
    There can be only one!

    Why GNOME over KDE, I don't know. Then again, I'm sure we all have our personal biases. (I happen to like KDE).

    A possible danger here would be the road to .NET -- and how heavily Novell/Ximian will be pursuing it. If this is the direction GNOME itself is going and MS suddenly pulls a patent-fit (released as open standards, blah blah...note SCO distributing their code under GPL doesn't shut them up).

    Support for both would be great, if not needed, though. I like kuickshow too much to give it up. I know that's a trivial app, but put a more heavily-relied-upon app in its place. There are people who couldn't work without at least KDE app support.

    If in the end, there can be only one, I hope it's a product of convergence, and not the demise of one environment (to be technical, the rest of the environments).
  • Re:It's the license (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 19, 2003 @07:13PM (#7769763)
    Choosing KDE would practically have forced the companies that want to ship closed source software to buy a expen$ive license for Qt (if they want to have the uniform "look", of course).

    These would be the companies which currently buy expensive licenses for Windows and Microsoft's developer tools? The same companies that were scorning Linux completely until Red Hat started charging enterprise-level prices?

    Free-as-in-beer doesn't impress big business. I don't think it's as critical an issue as you make out.
  • by Fefe ( 6964 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @07:18PM (#7769807) Homepage
    If Bruce Perens honestly wants this to be a Linux for business people (instead of the unwashed masses of normal users), he should not call it UserLinux but BusinessLinux or whatever.

    I'm a user and I want KDE. Most people agree that KDE is more mature and robust than GNOME anyway, so from a business point of view it is obviously better suited. KDE also has more stability from other points of view, for example it doesn't change the default window manager for each major release, the groupware and the kiosk mode are very important as well. I'm not talking down on GNOME here, but KDE is more mature and all the major business wins Linux has had so far were with (and because of) KDE.

    I think the maintainability argument is a fallacy. Admins already are completely unable to contain the complexities of different applications. Each major application and framework calls for its own class of admins. In large companies you have a Cisco admin for the networking infrastructure, you have an Oracle DBA, you have the Apache guy, you have the SuSE/RedHat/whatever admin, and the 5000 Windows reboot monkeys. Nobody expects all of this to go away if they switch to Linux. There will still be complexity. Deciding to standardize on GNOME will not make OpenOffice any less daunting to install and maintain in a multi-user environment. Or Mozilla. Or Apache.

    And if we accept the argument, we would clearly choose the platform with the more robust administration interface, which clearly is KDE. kcontrol is integrated and pretty much all-encompassing, while GNOME is constantly shifting from CORBA over XML to a binary registry and back. GNOME has become so bad that they actually added a regedit style "config editor" and apparently really expect users to use it to configure applications. Hint: This is the kind of nightmare people want to get rid of when they switch from Windows to Linux.

    Anyway, I don't see why we need to standardize on a GUI, and if we do, we standardize on KDE, of course, as it fulfils more of the requirements businesses have, hands down.
  • by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @07:26PM (#7769867) Homepage Journal
    Not trying to troll or anything, I just want a reasonable answer to this one:

    I heard a ton of arguments why ther should be only One. Okay, development, toolsets, all that crap.

    So, if KDE IN and GNOME IN is not an option, they go with KDE OUT, GNOME IN.
    Why not KDE IN, GNOME OUT?

    How is GNOME better than KDE?
  • Re:It's the license (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ultrabot ( 200914 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @07:27PM (#7769879)
    Free-as-in-beer doesn't impress big business. I don't think it's as critical an issue as you make out.

    Yes it is. It may not matter for 1-4 licenses, but free scales a lot better for hundreds of licenses.

    Plus, there is no license management. With free beer, there is no hassle.
  • Re:It's the license (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ultrabot ( 200914 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @07:32PM (#7769915)
    If you want to prove to the business world that there's money to be made writing GPL software, Qt is a great example, so why not thrust it in front of the corporate types?

    Being a good example of a business model doesn't make an argument for choosing it as a foundation of a distro. It's Trolltech's business model, and a good one I admit (it's a great thing they abandoned their old Evil license), but why should UserLinux give Trolltech a free gift of larger userbase?

    I tend to think that Trolltech could "let go" of their desktop toolkit, and rake in the cash from Embedded/Mobile stuff. That could send the popularity of Qt and KDE booming through the roof in corporate circles.
  • by mfearby ( 1653 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @07:44PM (#7770015) Homepage
    I personally prefer KDE over gnome, but if Linux is ever going to make it into the corporate world in decent-sized rollouts, some hard decisions are going to have to be made. The Gnome interface looks less sophisticated than KDE, but I know for darn sure that I don't want to ask my users "are you using KDE or Gnome" and have them replying "I dunno", then having to figure out the difference. Yes, I *realise* that IT departments would set the standard and possibly would uninstall one or the other, but does anybody care about Windows not having a plethora of other desktop-systems?

    As much as I bag the shit out of Microsoft for their products, their Windows interface is consistent and you know what you're dealing with. Linux will eventually be all the better for it if KDE and Gnome can just ditch one in favour of the other and focus their collective development efforts on one, kick-arse, desktop environment. I used to use WindowMaker before we had desktop environments, but I don't lose sleep at night because I switched to KDE.

    You people might think that Gnome vs KDE are holy wars that must be fought, but it is this division that Microsoft are tickled-pink to witness. Ever heard of the saying "Divide, and conquer" (or should that be "Divide, and konquer"?

    Get with the program you religious zealots and do something that benefits Linux for a change! At the end of the day, I couldn't care less which desktop environment wins out, just as long as one of those frigging things is a clear winner.

    This is one of the main reasons why I still keep booting into Windows XP for a lot of things - because things are consistent and they interoperate seamlessly without me having to run memory-hogging applications like klipper just so the many different clipboard protocols appear to work "seamlessly"
  • by Malor ( 3658 ) * on Friday December 19, 2003 @07:45PM (#7770017) Journal
    (this is an almost verbatim copy of a post I made at Linux Weekly News, so if you've seen this before, my apologies.)

    Bruce says: "UserLinux is intended to be a system for business people."

    OK, that's great, but why on earth call it UserLinux then? Shouldn't it be BusinessLinux?

    Names are important. UserLinux sounds like a Linux distro intended for end users. Someone like my Mom, not someone like HP. Bruce may be right about GNOME being a better solution for business. I will, however, bet nickels to dollars that much of the controversy is because people assume that a distro called UserLinux should be about, well, users, and that's KDE's main focus.

    I have assumed ever since the initial announcement that UserLinux might end up being my distro of choice, and I was upset when I heard about KDE's exclusion. Now that I read further, I see I have no reason to be upset, because UserLinux isn't intended for me.

    It wouldn't surprise me to see the whole project fail because of this fundamental naming problem. Is a distro called UserLinux even going to register on a CIO's radar?

    BusinessLinux might have. I don't think UserLinux will.

  • by bfields ( 66644 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @07:47PM (#7770035) Homepage
    Sure, to your average ./ linux geek, not having the _choice_ of desktop environment is sacreligious

    As a geek, I'm frankly pretty sick of going to the geek next door to help with some debugging only to discover that their desktop is configured so differently from mine that I have to ask their help to get a friggin' terminal window.

    I'm thankful every day that the rest of the world isn't like this--I appreciate being able to use someone else's car, or stove, or whatever, without having to read the user's manual.

    ...we really need a distro that is consistent, and doesn't compromise on security


    --Bruce Fields

  • by 7-Vodka ( 195504 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @08:37PM (#7770410) Journal
    It's too bad the admins can't then take advantage of kde's brilliantKIOSK framework. *shrugs*
  • by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @08:49PM (#7770506)
    What the *fuck* is going on in Linux-land? It keeps getting trippier and trippier.
  • by mini me ( 132455 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @08:54PM (#7770540)
    like the complete inability to do MDI-style interfaces

    Why would you ever consider that a bad thing? MDI-style interfaces are the worst thing ever.

    I don't really like GNOME either though. KDE provides a great framework and is structured well. KDE may have a few usabilty problems vs. GNOME at this point for the inexperienced user. But KDE should win out on technical merit, the rest can follow later.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 19, 2003 @09:00PM (#7770571)
    The idea that Joe User will be confused by choices of desktop is somewhat bogus. He'll use whatever the default is. The reason for including both is that they can run each others apps. If the default is Gnome and he wants to fire up this konqueror browser someone told him about, he just does it and it works. He doesn't even need to know that KDE is a desktop environment.
  • by Suppafly ( 179830 ) <slashdot@suppafly. n e t> on Friday December 19, 2003 @09:01PM (#7770578)
    Honestly not trying to troll here, but both kde and gnome, as they are installed by most popular distros atleast, suck. I've seen a lot of linux systems that boot into windows faster than they boot linux and start up gnome or kde.

    KDE and Gnome are not good examples to use if you are against bloat of any kind. It'd seem wiser, albeit harder, to take a simpler window/desktop manager and build upon it to make something that was halfway useable and consistant in design.
  • by KewlPC ( 245768 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @09:02PM (#7770588) Homepage Journal
    Well, if you want to see things like Photoshop running natively on Linux, Adobe will have to use a toolkit that can do multiple document interfaces, and that rules out GTK.

    The #1 reason people prefer Photoshop over The GIMP is the interface.
  • by a.ameri ( 665846 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @09:05PM (#7770599)
    A few days ago, when I read Bruce Perens response (or rather defence) on his choice of GUI, there was one part of his response that caught my eye: He said that individual support companies can add KDE and support it if they want. "It's not that we are removing KDE from Debian" he said.

    I contacted the UserLinux mailing list on behalf of a group/company that is considering becoming a support company for UserLinux in Iran. We badly need an Iranian distro with full support for the Farsi language, in Iran and as far as I can see there is a good market here for such a product. For months we have been thinking about wether we should roll out our own Debian-based distro, but haven't yet made our decision. (Well we have made Shabdix, which is a Live CD distro based on Knoppix). As everyone knows, maintaining a Linux distro is not a trivial task, and there is not enough financial incentive in it. UserLinux with it's proposed structure would have made an excellent choice for us.

    The problem is, during the past 1.5 year, our small group of Linux enthusiasts translated KDE to Farsi. Currently it has (near) full Farsi support, and right now offers something which Windows does not: a Farsi Graphical User Interface. KDE is the only environment which has been translated to Farsi, and as far as I know no one is planning on translating Gnome to Farsi, anytime soon. The situation here, is that if people are going to use Linux in Iran, the only player here is KDE. Gnome (currently) lacks Farsi support.

    Bruce's decision on GUI has made life hard for us. I Contacted UserLinux discussion mailing list to ask a couple of questions and to make things clear for myself (namely to ask how I as a support company will be able to add KDE, and still be considered UserLinux). Unfortunetely I didn't get a single reply on the mailing list. What actualy surprised me was that on UserLinux's only mailing list, most people were just trolls, engaging in endless flame wars. I didn't saw a single developer there, nothing cunstructive, just flame wars. Bruce Perens loudly speaks everywhere of UserLinux' more than 200 posts a day. What he doesn't speak about, is that these are mostly just flame wars.

    However Aaron Seigo, a respected KDE developer took the time to address some of my questions, and he made me aware of the other side of the coin: what KDE developers are doing. I am posting some parts of his mails, so that the slashdot community can also use his thoughts.

    He Wrote:
    "I've cc'd the kde-debian list on this, since doing User Linux but with KDE is what this project is about! there's no need to sacrifice KDE, or deal with putting KDE into User Linux on your own. simply join our efforts and we can all work together on this solution. we have dozens already involved and code is being written.

    After congradulating on his work I also wrote:
    " However I should note that while I will look with greatinterest to your project, it is a shame that such an old issue (GnomeVs. KDE) has seperated the community in this way.

    His responded:
    "please note that this old issue was not raised by us (people interested in KDE) but by Bruce Perens and some random GNOME fanatics. my position was and is based on market realities and inclusivity that does not suffer from choice proliferation (e.g. the "10 CD players, 20 text editors" problem) nor from economic drags on support (as Bruce tried to submit).

    I don't think GNOME should be excluded from User Linux, and i feel the same way about PostgreSQL vs MySQL as I do about GNOME vs KDE in User Linux, despite note liking MySQL as a RDBMs solution very much ... so you see it isn't so much a "KDE passion", but a realism."

    I also wrote:
    "UserLinux was/is a great idea, but it's strengh lies in the power of it's core organization,and how much it will be successful in getting IHV and ISV support Having two such projects competeing with each other will only damage both of these projects, as we all know that ISVs (and to so
  • Re:It's the license (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RoLi ( 141856 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @09:13PM (#7770656)
    want to ship closed source software to buy a expen$ive license for Qt

    Obviously, you don't get it.

    From a software maker's point of view, choosing Qt, you get:

    • An application that runs pretty much everywhere (Linux, Windows AND MacOSX)
    • A modern C++ based toolkit
    • Included RAD-tools

    With GTK, you save a week's salary but:

    • You have only a tiny fraction of potential customers
    • You have moronic decisions that change every month (Now do we want a registry in Gnome or not? Do we want to push everything to Mono or not? Which window manager do we want to use this time?)
    • You have to confront the pains of GTK+ which are lack of tools, documentation and an modern API

    Sorry to break your believes, but for a commercial software vendor to choose GTK over Qt is just plain stupid.

    Choosing KDE for UserLinux would have been smart: You could tell corporations: "See, you can develop your in-house apps with Qt and so you can have a slow painless transition - and you can also go back if it doesn't work out."

  • The white paper (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 19, 2003 @09:34PM (#7770759)
    In Perens original white paper he writes:
    "There are a number of Debian-derivative distributions that are naturals for this project. Notable are Skolelinux ("School Linux"), a project supported by governments and educational institutions of several European nations, the non-commercial projects Knoppix and Morphix, and the commercial Debian derivatives Progeny, Xandros, Libranet, and perhaps Lindows."
    Well most of these are KDE-centric so how likely is it they are going to follow his path of dumping KDE. Not a chance
  • by zhenlin ( 722930 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @09:59PM (#7770860)
    Is MDI a good thing? I say, no. Each document has its own menu that overrides, no, inexplicably magically merges with the parent's window. It is a poorly designed system, most likely designed to emulate Apple's One Menu system. Apple has never had it. Microsoft is moving away from it. GNOME doesn't want it. (Instead, they have TABBED Multiple Document Interface?! They're better, but by quite a bit: Easy access to most of the documents, as opposed to having multiple windows (anywhere))
  • I think you ment... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Natalie's Hot Grits ( 241348 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @10:00PM (#7770862) Homepage
    .. What I can't understand is that the development effort is *much* bigger [In the United States] for Gnome than for KDE"

    In fact, KDE has a larger developer and user base than any other desktop environment (besides windows) in the world.

  • by omega9 ( 138280 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @10:24PM (#7770979)
    Some quick quotes:

    I am interested in seeing the GUI argument end, as I've just read all of the postings in it and didn't learn much during those several hours.

    That's what happens when you make up your mind before you even start the conversation. It's common in people who think they're smarter then everyone else and believe they know what's best.

    But the most ludicrous aspect of the Fedora project is that with Fedora, Red Hat seeks to achieve what Debian did long ago.

    Fedora is a fellow Linux distribution, worked on by people like you and me, hackers with ideas. There's no reason to call them ludicrous. It's rude and uncalled for.

    The goals of UserLinux are compatible with Debian's Social Contract, which I created.

    I'm starting to get numb to you tooting your own horn. Your achievements are impressive, but they're soured by all your boasting. Yeah, yeah.. you're great... blah blah blah

    Mandrake sent an inquiry and we don't yet know how they'd fit. .... There are a number of Debian-derivative distributions that are naturals for this project.

    This is interesting, as you're basing merit on whether or not a distro is Debian based. The initial mention of Mandrake could possibly have been from a corporate standpoint, but it's followed allmost immediately by the Debian reference, which assumes their worth simple because of their distro heritage. Clearly, being a Linux advocate/hacker isn't good enough unless you're a Debian advocate/hacker. This attitude is given more weight by the following line.

    There have been suggestions regarding Linux platforms other than Red Hat and Debian, which I have classified as partisan.

    Considering the previous, I guess this is no suprise.

    You've got good goals Bruce. I don't think you'll find an arguement concerning you're overall idea. But you've got to stop being so self-centered and treat your fellow community with a little more respect, else you'll be dancing alone with your ego. Even if you do help to construct "billion dollar contracts", money can't buy you love, happiness, or my respect.
  • by Sunnan ( 466558 ) <> on Friday December 19, 2003 @10:47PM (#7771114) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, I like GConf from a UI point of view, but how is it implemented "under the hood"? I heard MS are moving away from having the registry as one big clunky file and I just hope the gnome folk have had the forethought to do it right from the start.

    Some random opinion on GNOME vs KDE that I really ought to shut up about since noone's listening but hey, it's saturday morning:
    • GNOME 1.x sucked, 2.x is hmm, better, but has a long way to go
    • I'm aesthetically displeased with KDE all versions. This is a personal quirk of mine but it's strange.
    • The usability progress in Gnome is interesting and it makes me curious.
    • I honestly find zsh+ the gnu fileutils a lot easier to use and figure out than Konqueror.
    • Nautilus is still slooow.
    • KDE seems haunted by bad luck - everyone with a name (contrary to the polled masses, maybe) picks Gnome over them.
    • I never liked the TigerT-icon-fashion of gnome fame, even though I like some of his other art. (Though I hate rubbish "crystal" KDE icons where the folders just look like square blobs instead of folders. Eazel had some good shit going in the art division, and KDE's Slicker looks ok.)
    • The war between them is harmful and I wish they could merge. Like seriously merge. Like having qt use gtk. Like choosing gconf. And kwin. Or whatever. I have no preferences, I just think that they're both horribly incomplete when compared to each other. We have plenty of competition from non-free shit already. Time to drink each other's peace-kool-aid.
    • Like using the same widget tool kit and share subsets of each other's HIG. No need to share philosophy (like the number of options) yet, but things like button placement and other mundane non-hot buttons.

  • by Natalie's Hot Grits ( 241348 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @10:50PM (#7771133) Homepage
    ISV's who program for windows don't seem to be having any problems paying for the Microsoft Visual C++ License they must purchase in order to program for the windows environment...

    (or borland compiler, or other commercial development environment)

    This is what Proprietary software is ALL ABOUT. Integrating someone else's technology into yours, pay royalties for it, and then sell it at a profit. Have you ALL LOST YOUR MIND???? This is how it has been done for YEARS. Closed source software has ALWAYS worked on this model, and the price of QT licensing is negligable compared to the cost of paying developers to use GTK+, and longer development cycles which exist for non OO based GUI tools. If a closed source software company can't afford a few thousand dollars for QT licenses, they need to seriously reconsider their business model.

    Considering PyQT and PerlQT now, the LARGEST developer and user DE on linux, and the top notch and stable KDE, there is really no reason whatsoever to even imply this measly licensing fee for non GPL apps excuse for this one. Its the most ridiculous excuse I have ever been exposed to. Seriously.

    The main point? Closed source proprietary technology houses HAVE NO PROBLEM paying negligable royalties when the alternative is increased cost due to longer development cycles forced by GNOME/GTK+, and smaller and less helpful community based almost exclusively in the US.

    This does NOT exclude smaller companies from the competition. They always have the option to use GTK+ with themes to match the target DE (this functionality already exists and is being extended every day) if they need gratis GUI libraries for use in proprietary software. It is also not a problem to write GTK+ applications that integrate into KDE's libraries for printing, file browsing, etc.

    In a nutshell, licensing should have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with choosing GNOME.
  • Re:Good choise Bruce (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 20, 2003 @12:15AM (#7771514)
    > But if you have to choose only one...

    But the problem is that UserLinux _isn't_ picking one. It's picking at least three: GTK (for GNOME), XUL (for Mozilla), and VCL (for OpenOffice). His reasoning seems broken at that point.
  • by bflong ( 107195 ) on Saturday December 20, 2003 @01:30AM (#7771804)
    I'm not really a developer. I've compiled and configured an entire network of free software, but I could not code "hello world" without looking at a "{programing language} for dummys" book to save my life. I've used Gnome 2.4. I used if for a month both at work and at home. At the end, I was *so* happy I could go back to KDE. KDE just works. Now. I couldn't even get printing to be uniform in Gnome. I wish OpenOffice and Mozilla would have the option to use KDE's dialogs, but at least I have a consistant printing system with kprinter. KDE is lightyears ahead of Gnome. Gnome has no consistancy whatsoever. Things don't mesh well at all. It feels like a bunch of parts just thrown together. I have dabbled in programing. I've thrown together little bits and pieces to see how they go together. Never really gotten anywhere simply becouse I don't like programing enough. However, I do know that if I ever wanted to make an app, I would use QT. And it wouldn't matter if I wanted to use the GPL or make it commercial. The fee for a commercial license is pocket change for a commercial project. I would be able to call TrollTech for support. I have easy to read documentation for every single funtion in QT. I have no one to call for gtk support. Also, I have the assurance that if TrollTech ever went under, I would have the QT code since they have agreed to release it under a BSD style licence [] if that were to happen.
    Here's a quick test using google seaches:
    QT toolkit Technical Support []
    GTK toolkit Technical Support []
    Now, if I were a comercial company, which toolkit would I want to use? One with full technical support, excelent documentation, and a contract that assures I'm never left without the code that costs money?
    Or a toolkit with no technical support, inferior documentation, no guarantee that development will continue thats free?
    Using Gnome for a distribution geared toward business is a bad idea. Mark my words: This will end badly, even if the distribution is successful.
  • by KewlPC ( 245768 ) on Saturday December 20, 2003 @04:04AM (#7772225) Homepage Journal

    The argument is that including two software packages that are themselves as complex as the Linux kernel is not a good idea. I'm not a KDE/GNOME developer, but I can understand this. Why can't you?

    No, see, I do understand it. I just don't agree with it. Especially since other distros can do it just fine.

    By not even including both on the installation CDs they are effectively limiting how useful the distro is to the user. Yes, anybody can go and download KDE or GNOME. How many people can properly build and install them? But how many people will want to, when they can just pick a different distro that includes KDE on the installation CDs (as prebuilt binaries with the dependency problems already sorted out)?

    The whole point of a Linux distribution is to include Linux and essential Linux software on a CD (or 3) in a nice, easy, prepackaged form so that users don't have to download it, build it, and install it by hand. If a distro is intentionally leaving what for some people is a core application (and not even offering it as an option) off of the installation CDs, then that distro is useless to those people.

    To each and every corporate KDE user, UserLinux has become effectively worthless in one fell swoop.

    Yes, just what I thought. You're not considering what is best for open/free software, you are simply thinking of yourself. Well, look at the bright side: KDE is open and free, and you are free to compile it under any Linux distro you want.

    Have you ever tried writing programs for GTK? If not, please kindly shut up. GTK sucks, plain and simple.

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall