[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde
Subject:    Re: GNOME Desktop Project
From:       "Adam D. Moss" <adam () uunet ! pipex ! com>
Date:       1997-08-20 10:04:36
[Download RAW message or body]


Miguel de Icaza writes:
 > 
 > Guys: take it easy;  Both Linux and FreeBSD have beneffited from the
 > fact that they are competing.  We will both benefit from this :-).

I hope that's the case.  Due to the nature of unices, Linux and BSD
can use each others applications (at source, at least) quite
trivially.

But as these desktop environments evolve, how interoperable will they
be?  I feel that the nature of a real integrated desktop system as
these environments strive to become, is that they begin to employ
utility libraries and processes specific to each environment, to
provide services above and beyond the integration which 'raw' X, unix,
and window managers provide.  EG. kwm's interation with kpanel,
ktaskbar, and the reliance of almost all KDE apps on KFM/kioslaves.

This in itself wouldn't be bad, but when a developer wants to start a
new cool application which could make good use of such utility
libraries, which system would they choose to build on top of?

Which half of the *nix desktop world do they develop for?  Both?  Why,
in the name of sanity, should the developer code for two APIs
developed at the same time by two teams who were (or should have been)
in communication with each other, with the same goal and same
function?  Why should the user of a desktop system have to make a
decision to choose i.e. KDE other GNOME and miss out on those major
applications which have been bound to eg. GNOME's VFS/DND functions?
Should they install/run both systems simultaneously to be able to use
the full gamut of apps?  Will it be possible?  Will it be practical?

Take a deep breath and a step back and have another think.  If, f.e.,
KDE's main usability facets (kio, kdelink data and drag-and-drop) can
be recoded without Qt and safely reused in GNOME, or GNOME's own
equivilent libraries written with a view for interoperability, then
maybe we really CAN have the best of both worlds.

I can't see anyone being so desperately unhappy with that. :^)

--Adam

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]