KDE 4: the ultimate business desktop? (Computerworld) [LWN.net]

KDE 4: the ultimate business desktop? (Computerworld)

Posted Dec 20, 2006 6:58 UTC (Wed) by DarkPhoenix (guest, #42333)
In reply to: KDE 4: the ultimate business desktop? (Computerworld) by khim
Parent article: KDE 4: the ultimate business desktop? (Computerworld)

And what you're asking is that the KDE developers change it so that you don't have to worry about filesystems, but they have to write versions of KDE for Linux, BSD, Mac, Solaris...

It's done this way so that they can abstract the differences between the kernels. If they rely on a specific kernel's features, then it won't work on other systems.

(Log in to post comments)

KDE 4: the ultimate business desktop? (Computerworld)

Posted Dec 22, 2006 8:55 UTC (Fri) by hein.zelle (guest, #33324) [Link]

> And what you're asking is that the KDE developers change it so that you
> don't have to worry about filesystems, but they have to write versions of
> KDE for Linux, BSD, Mac, Solaris...

I can see the problem for both sides, but I'm not sure the gnome or KDE approach is the right one. For people that want a single desktop environment that does everything for them, it probably is the most practical, since it's likely the only way to achieve file-system transparency in all KDE or GNOME applications, and yet remain portable across systems.

On the other hand, this is ignoring the fact that kde and gnome are most often used with operating systems that largely depend on command-line programs doing basic low level tasks. It's also used in an environment (X) with a whole slew of existing programs that are not focused on kde or gnome. This leads to the trend of replacing every program that is working perfectly well by at least two versions starting with g or k, most of which are effectively only a user interface shell around the original program. It's getting better these days, but I used to think that most of those cloned programs suck, too (take [kg]gv as an example, if you wish).

I myself pick the programs that I like best. That includes a mix of an XFCE desktop, gnome-terminal, gqview, gimp, k3b, kimdaba, gv, xpdf, a whole slew of command-line programs and a bunch of others that will likely never be converted to any desktop system, like ferret and matlab.

I don't see how the approach taken by kde or gnome is ever going to provide a solution for me as long as they build very nicely portable solutions that only work within kde or gnome. Although I have sympathy for the portability argument, on my machine I care about compatibility between programs.

I'm probably not the typical target user for which kde or gnome are designing their desktops, but it bugs me nonetheless. I think the energy spent on all this cloning could be better spent on designing more ground-level infrastructure on which all desktops could build. Hey - you might even take the code from kioslaves / gnome-vfs and offer to build a kernel-level solution ... I'm sure BSD and other systems would be interested in that as well.

KDE 4: the ultimate business desktop? (Computerworld)

Posted Dec 22, 2006 9:18 UTC (Fri) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link]

I'm pretty sure you are a typical user though. There are 50 or so Linux users in my office and I don't think a single one of them gives a hoot whether the app begins with g or k, they just want it to work. The same for my colleagues in other offices. If I hadn't been at an after-conference party for a KDE conference, I think I could safely say I've never met anyone who cares. The K and G people have a mission and they're doing the work so they're entitled to set their own goals but I don't really believe that (all of) these goals are in line with what is most useful for the people who actually use their software.

KDE 4: the ultimate business desktop? (Computerworld)

Posted Dec 22, 2006 9:55 UTC (Fri) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link]

It is getting better through the coorperation between Gnome and KDE on freedesktop.org.

In regards to the kioslaves and other similar. Maybe a solution would be to use the "ground-level infrastructure" if it was available and if not, use the DE solution?