Mark Shuttleworth interview (Linux Format) [LWN.net]

Mark Shuttleworth interview (Linux Format)

Posted Oct 3, 2006 9:14 UTC (Tue) by micampe (guest, #4384)
In reply to: Mark Shuttleworth interview (Linux Format) by Janne
Parent article: Mark Shuttleworth interview (Linux Format)

KDE has quite solid infrastructure. Has had them since KDE2 really. KIO-slaves, Kparts, DCOP, Arts and the like existed in KDE long before GNOME got anything comparable.

Probably. But in my opinion (from the Gnome side of the fence), it looks that Gnome pushed (more actively, I know there are KDE developers that share these ideas) much more for its "standards" to be accepted outside of it (and it has often been harshly criticized for doing so) and for the creation of freedesktop.org, making them now standards without quotes.

KDE had Arts long before Gstreamer was around.

Well, they're not really comparable...

If that is the case, why did KDE get working and functional backends (KIO-slaves, Arts, DCOP, Kparts etc. etc.) before GNOME got theirs?

I think the best example here is transparency and shadows: KDE had them for ages, Gnome refused to implement them as "hacks" insisting that that's not the job of the GUI tool kit and a true solution would involve changes to the X server. Some years later we have a composited desktop.

This is the main clear difference in perspective I see.

(Log in to post comments)

Mark Shuttleworth interview (Linux Format)

Posted Oct 3, 2006 9:44 UTC (Tue) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

it looks that Gnome pushed (more actively, I know there are KDE developers that share these ideas) much more for its "standards" to be accepted outside of it (and it has often been harshly criticized for doing so) and for the creation of freedesktop.org, making them now standards without quotes.

On the contrary, fd.o was explicitly a forum to develop standards for BOTH GNOME and KDE. At the time it started, KDE was far ahead, but some people on both sides recognised the advantage of having compatible implementations for desktop icons, system tray icons, etc.

Transparency and shadows: KDE had them for ages, Gnome refused to implement them as "hacks" insisting that that's not the job of the GUI tool kit and a true solution would involve changes to the X server.

KDE's solution involves changes to the X server (specifically, the composite extension, which is needed and has been available for some years). Gnome even today doesn't implement it, as far as I can tell (unless you use the recent XGL/AIGLX stuff).

KDE was the first to implement:

Anti-aliased fonts (using Keith Packard's render extension and XFT)
Transparency and shadows (using the composite extension)
Integrated support for resizing the display (using the XRANDR extension)
and much else...

Even for something as simple as running an alternate program, like xplanet, for your background: compare and contrast the instructions for KDE and GNOME.

Mark Shuttleworth interview (Linux Format)

Posted Oct 3, 2006 10:00 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]

"But in my opinion (from the Gnome side of the fence), it looks that Gnome pushed (more actively"

Maybe it just seemed like that? I know that there were plenty of KDE-folks involved in formation of freedesktop, maybe they just wrote less press-releases about it? Or maybe GNOME-folks were pushing for things like that because they did not have them, whereas KDE did?

"Well, they're not really comparable..."

They are both sound-servers. And point stands: KDE had sound-server long before GNOME had one.

"I think the best example here is transparency and shadows: KDE had them for ages, Gnome refused to implement them as "hacks" insisting that that's not the job of the GUI tool kit and a true solution would involve changes to the X server. Some years later we have a composited desktop."

So the GNOME-way is automatically the better one, and we now have composited desktop, thanks to GNOME? And like it was said, the KDE-way also involved changes to X.

Mark Shuttleworth interview (Linux Format)

Posted Oct 3, 2006 10:49 UTC (Tue) by micampe (guest, #4384) [Link]

Or maybe GNOME-folks were pushing for things like that because they did not have them, whereas KDE did?

I think it was this one, and I see it as a good thing: "We need this thing, let's do it together with somebody that already knows how to do it, in a way that everybody can use the new, interoperable, version."

They are both sound-servers. And point stands: KDE had sound-server long before GNOME had one.

I never denied the point (I don't even know - nor care - if it's true or not), but surely enough Gstreamer is not a sound server at all, in the same way that Phonon isn't.

So the GNOME-way is automatically the better one, and we now have composited desktop, thanks to GNOME?

I never said nor implied anything like that. I am merely describing the differences as I perceive them (as I said before, from the GNOME side of the fence, as that's what I know).

I think we have a composited desktop thanks to the people that wrote the code.

Another thing worth noting, in my humble opinion, is that KDE supporters posting around (I know there are a lot more who just don't post at all) seem often quite defensive and inflammatory in their comments. I was amazed by how this thread was polite and insightful until a couple of the more recent entries.

Mark Shuttleworth interview (Linux Format)

Posted Oct 3, 2006 11:31 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]

"think it was this one, and I see it as a good thing"

But, like I said, there were (and are) plenty of KDE-folks involved in freedesktop.org, so you can't credit GNOME alone for it.

"never denied the point (I don't even know - nor care - if it's true or not), but surely enough Gstreamer is not a sound server at all, in the same way that Phonon isn't."

Well, you claimed that Gnome was the forerunner in this area. They weren't, KDE was there first. Unless by "forerunner" you mean "first to use Gstreamer", then you would be right. But that's not what you are saying, now is it? Because if you did, then you could make just about anything in to a "forerunner".

"I never said nor implied anything like that. I am merely describing the differences as I perceive them (as I said before, from the GNOME side of the fence, as that's what I know)."

Never considered that your perception might be wrong? I have noticed that GNOME is better at PR and that they make bigger announcements about their involvement in various projects. But that does not mean that they are the only ones doing something, whereas KDE just sits there and does nothing.

"Another thing worth noting, in my humble opinion, is that KDE supporters posting around (I know there are a lot more who just don't post at all) seem often quite defensive and inflammatory in their comments."

Another thing worth noting: The GNOME-users quite often post messages like "Well, I think KDE sucks because...." and/or "I think KDE is a steaming pile of crap, but I digress". And if we then have someone defending KDE against such comments, we get comments like "Why are you so defensive and inflammatory about this?"

"I was amazed by how this thread was polite and insightful until a couple of the more recent entries."

So it's "polite" and "insightful" to say things like "GNOME pushes standards, whereas KDE does not" or "GNOME emphasises infrastructure, whereas KDE does not"? And if someone dares to defend KDE against such accusations, it's "unpolite" and "uninsightful"?

I actually went back to re-read the discussion. And there aren't any bad comments as such. True, there are comments that defend KDE (from me, for example). But they are not rude or anything like that. So am I to assume that defending KDE in itself is considered "unpolite"?

And like I already said: I actually use GNOME every day. I could use KDE if I wanted to, but I choose to use GNOME instead.

Mark Shuttleworth interview (Linux Format)

Posted Oct 3, 2006 12:51 UTC (Tue) by micampe (guest, #4384) [Link]

But, like I said, there were (and are) plenty of KDE-folks involved in freedesktop.org, so you can't credit GNOME alone for it.

I didn't credit GNOME alone, in my original comment I said precisely: "I know there are KDE developers that share these ideas"

Well, you claimed that Gnome was the forerunner in this area.

I didn't. I precisely said that I don't know - nor care - who was the forerunner. All I said was that Arts and Gstreamer aren't comparable.

Never considered that your perception might be wrong?

Sure, this is why I'm not saying anywhere that what I say is the truth, this is just what I see.

So it's "polite" and "insightful" to say things like "GNOME pushes standards, whereas KDE does not" or "GNOME emphasises infrastructure, whereas KDE does not"?

I'm pretty sure I didn't say any of this. As I know there are KDE developers working on fdo and many other transversal projects, that would be quite dumb on my part.

Well, I have my idea on the respective philosophies and approaches, it doesn't involve arguments like A is better than B or B did this before A but I obviously failed to explain it as the argument keeps drifting on useless comparisons like those.

Mark Shuttleworth interview (Linux Format)

Posted Oct 3, 2006 12:58 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]

My apologies, it was ajross who made those comments, and not you. I didn't notice that the person I was replying to changed midway through the discussion :)

Mark Shuttleworth interview (Linux Format)

Posted Oct 4, 2006 0:51 UTC (Wed) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link]

GStreamer has nothing to do with a sound server.

ESD is GNOME's sound server (and it is, AFAIK, quite a bit older than Arts).

GStreamer is a framework for decoding mediafiles, and pushing the encoded soundstreams to a soundserver or directly to the HW, and the videostreams to video output. It can also send streams somewhere else, i.e. soundstreams to a visualization program. KDE has nothing like it.

The Amarok devs are (or maybe was, I didn't follow the discussion lately) pushing for GStreamer inclusion in KDE, but ofcourse KDE did the NIH, and want to make their own thing, can't remember it's name...

Mark Shuttleworth interview (Linux Format)

Posted Oct 4, 2006 5:26 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]

"The Amarok devs are (or maybe was, I didn't follow the discussion lately) pushing for GStreamer
inclusion in KDE, but ofcourse KDE did the NIH, and want to make their own thing, can't remember
it's name..."

Phonon? Phonon is an abstraction-layer that lets KDE use any media-framework that comes along,
including Gstreamer. I do believe that Gstreamer was the first mediasystem that Phonon supported.
And what makes you think that KDE suffers from NIH? Do you have any examples?

Mark Shuttleworth interview (Linux Format)

Posted Oct 4, 2006 10:52 UTC (Wed) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link]

You claim that KDE did the NIH thing, but at the same time you say that you didn't follow the discussion. In other words, what you're saying is pure FUD, sorry.

If you had actually checked out why the KDE developers are creating Phonon, you would also know that there are quite good reasons for creating it.

Here is a comment from a KDE developer:
http://lwn.net/Articles/183462/

As he writes, he posted more about it in a post on his blog which he links to. I suggest reading that as well.

Mark Shuttleworth interview (Linux Format)

Posted Oct 5, 2006 7:39 UTC (Thu) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link]

I certainly read that before, and it boils down to, "because we screwed up our own junk, we wont use other people's stuff"

This still is NIH, just a scared version of it.

There's no reason to collaborate with KDE devs, they screw it up every single time. In 20 years it STILL will be impossible to make a simple skin change to support different desktops because of these morons.

"OH NO, there's a G in it, let's wrap it in tons of junk to make it seem like we don't use it"

Mark Shuttleworth interview (Linux Format)

Posted Oct 5, 2006 8:18 UTC (Thu) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link]

Ah, this must be the famous civility that KDE users so infamously lack.

Mark Shuttleworth interview (Linux Format)

Posted Oct 5, 2006 8:30 UTC (Thu) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link]

The same NIH that is responsible for implementing freedesktop.org
standards like D-Bus in KDE4?

Phonon doesn't mean that KDE4 isn't going to use Gstreamer. In fact,
Gstreamer was the first to be supported IIRC. I'm not sure what exactly
the problem is?

AFAIK, the KDE devs are very much supporting the freedesktop.org
initiative and are making sure KDE implements support for it. Do you have
any examples of the opposite?

Mark Shuttleworth interview (Linux Format)

Posted Oct 5, 2006 11:56 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Yes, and ESD and arts have one thing in common: they're awful. They're simultaneously implementing lots of things nobody uses (especially arts), and barely capable of playing a simple sound stream without stuttering the hell out of it and eating vast amounts of CPU (especially esd).

polypaudio recently restarted development and got a name change (to pulseaudio) and even more nifty (yet actually *useful*) features like a system-daemon mode and modules to do things like HAL lookup of sound sinks. Plus it's got esd library compatibility (though not arts yet). Also its CPU usage is much lower now (unless you do something like ask for high-quality interpolation).

Strongly recommended. How the hell Lennart finds the time to work on so many things at once is quite beyond me: he must have a time machine. (Plus they're all so well-written...)