- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Torvalds pours scorn on De Icaza's desktop claims
|
|
|
Comments (33)
13 earlier comments in the full thread.
Forcing of the KDE netbook environment? I run a few KDE distros on my netbook and have never seen the netbook interface unless I ask it to be there. That it is an option is a good thing, but I don't like or use it. Also, all that semaantic desktop stuff can easily be disabled, and in some cases is actually useful (or so I hear). Gnome does a whole lot more "forcing" of alleged features upon the end user, at least from my perspective as a non-technical person.
Quoting:The KDE developers still take the attitude that they know better than the users how the desktop should be used ...
@JaseP,
Obviously you haven't seen some of the changes in attitude on KDE web sites, I suggest taking a look at
http://forum.kde.org/viewforum.php?f=9
http://www.planetkde.org/
http://wadejolson.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/membership-survey...
I believe that FOSS projects can't be successful if they were guided by democratic forum. If developers were to listen to every opinion and idea posted on blogs, forums, and web sites, where many of them are conflicting and influenced by preferences and biases, the project would turn to mediocracy.
Meritocracy is a better approach. Users would make their suggestions and opinions heard, developers would hash things among themselves and make final decisions about users input and determine the direction the project should go. Frameworks are specially sensitive to too many opinions & suggestions. I believe that is the model being followed by the KDE team now. There were issues before, but currently, I think they are listening quite a bit.
As for KDE being made to the taste of its developers, I believe this is not entirely accurate. May be the default settings by a specific distribution is not to the taste of some, but is perfectly likable by others. KDE is extremely flexible and extensible to the extent that distributors and users alike can tailor it any way they choose. I don't think anyone can deny that.
Quoting:as is the "forcing" of the KDE netbook environment on machines with a certain screen dimension.
"forcing" is a too strong of a word for something that is chosen as the default and can easily be changed by the user. Again, that could have been changed when a distribution is created.
Edited: Note: At one point, when KDE is launched, it detects the size of the display and determine whether to use Plasma Desktop or Plasma Netbook interface. I believe when the user does change it, it retains that setting after reboots. I am not sure whether that is still the case or not.
Actually, it seems to me that Mono has actually ended up better than .NET as far as stability and modularity are concerned (I have seen .NET bring a system to its knees and require a complete operating system reinstall more than once). However, I'm not sure that it's really better than, or even as good as, the alternatives, like Python, Java, Ruby, etc. I tend to respect some of those other systems more than Mono (way more than .NET itself). Since Qt is a toolkit and not a virtual machine or interpreter it's not comparable.
@Fettoosh
Not really a copy of Java. Aguably better, but only because it is language agnostic, while Java is well Java.
C# is a copy of Java, with some changes that are claimed to make it better, Yes, but .NET isn't a copy of Java, .NET is a language agnostic framework, as is Mono, Mono also be OS agnostic, and it works very well on Linux, development of MonoDevelop for all platforms continues, no it's quite successful.
Here's the reason I was given for why there is no Linux version of the toolset. A perceived difficulty.
"Thank you for contacting Xamarin!. We currently don't have any plans to do so, as most software is built and distributed by the distro. This would require cooperation by the groups themselves (Suse, Debian, Ubuntu) which means maintaining multiple code bases."
This is of course bullshit, but it's in line with de Icaza's thinking re GNOME and the desktop.
Quoting: It was a copy from Java and it wasn't that much better than Java i
Not really a copy of Java. Aguably better, but only because it is language agnostic, while Java is well Java.
C# is a copy of Java, with some changes that are claimed to make it better, Yes, but .NET isn't a copy of Java, .NET is a language agnostic framework, as is Mono, Mono also be OS agnostic, and it works very well on Linux, development of MonoDevelop for all platforms continues, no it's quite successful.
Here's the reason I was given for why there is no Linux version of the toolset. A perceived difficulty.
"Thank you for contacting Xamarin!. We currently don't have any plans to do so, as most software is built and distributed by the distro. This would require cooperation by the groups themselves (Suse, Debian, Ubuntu) which means maintaining multiple code bases."
This is of course bullshit, but it's in line with de Icaza's thinking re GNOME and the desktop.
Quoting:Not really a copy of Java. Aguably better, ...
@TA,
What I meant is what I said in a previous statement "I was just pointing out that De Icaza failed in cloning it on Linux." , by copying ideas from .Net
In my opinion, the bottom line is that Mono is a handicapped clone and in my opinion is not worth the trouble.
Quoting:We currently don't have any plans to do so,
Could it be that patents have something to do with their decision?
@Fettoosh
This would require cooperation by the groups themselves (Suse, Debian, Ubuntu) which means maintaining multiple code bases."
This would require cooperation by the groups themselves (Suse, Debian, Ubuntu) which means maintaining multiple code bases."
> ...they just made a mistake in the roll out of an innovative product.
And Krakatoa was just a volcano.
> Red Hat didn't bash Linux Desktop and they continue to support it.
For their selected customers, yes. For the masses, no.
But those are really minor nitpicks in the main flow of your argument.
And Krakatoa was just a volcano.
> Red Hat didn't bash Linux Desktop and they continue to support it.
For their selected customers, yes. For the masses, no.
But those are really minor nitpicks in the main flow of your argument.
@Fettoosh
Patents are irrelevant. The development tools (Mono For Android) are a commercial product not available as source code, they are maintaining the code base, any alleged patent licenses are part of their costs, and are passed on to the purchaser of the product in the usual manner.
Patents are irrelevant. The development tools (Mono For Android) are a commercial product not available as source code, they are maintaining the code base, any alleged patent licenses are part of their costs, and are passed on to the purchaser of the product in the usual manner.
Quoting:For their selected customers, yes. For the masses, no.
I wasn't aware they stopped supporting Fedora, did they?
> I wasn't aware they stopped supporting Fedora, did they?
In the sense you seem to be using the word, Red Hat has never "supported" Fedora. They supported Red Hat Linux. They now support Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop. They don't support Fedora.
In the sense you seem to be using the word, Red Hat has never "supported" Fedora. They supported Red Hat Linux. They now support Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop. They don't support Fedora.
Actually, the Java Virtual Machine is not locked into one language either. The list of available languages includes Clojure, Groovy, Scala, Kotlin, Ceylon, JavaFX Script, JRuby, Jython, Rhino, AspectJ, JNAT (Ada), Jawk, BBj, Boojay, C, COBOL, ColdFusion, Common Lisp, Component Pascal, Erjang (Erlang), myForth, jgo, Logo, Lua, Oberon-2, OCaml, Oxygene (Object Pascal), Pascal, PHP, Rexx, Scheme, and TCL. .NET and Java are quite similar as general concepts.
Of course another virtual machine, and one that has been open source from its inception, is Parrot, which is the basis for Perl 6, but was intended from the beginning to host multiple languages.
My problem with .NET is that it's tied closely into Windows, both to the extent that .NET issues can make Windows itself unstable, and it doesn't run on anything else. That's why Mono is actually better than .NET in some ways. However, as long as they are chasing .NET, Mono developers will always be a step behind. They don't really have as much leeway to forge ahead on their own, and that's really a shame. There are also concerns that Mono may leave a bigger opening for patent suits from Microsoft, but that may or may not amount to much difference in the long run.
Of course another virtual machine, and one that has been open source from its inception, is Parrot, which is the basis for Perl 6, but was intended from the beginning to host multiple languages.
My problem with .NET is that it's tied closely into Windows, both to the extent that .NET issues can make Windows itself unstable, and it doesn't run on anything else. That's why Mono is actually better than .NET in some ways. However, as long as they are chasing .NET, Mono developers will always be a step behind. They don't really have as much leeway to forge ahead on their own, and that's really a shame. There are also concerns that Mono may leave a bigger opening for patent suits from Microsoft, but that may or may not amount to much difference in the long run.
Quoting:In the sense you seem to be using the word, Red Hat has never "supported" Fedora. They supported Red Hat Linux. They now support Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop. They don't support Fedora.I disagree. They pay the salaries of a number of people working on the Fedora project. They don't offer the kind of support for the end user/customer that they do for the enterprise product, but to say they don't support Fedora at all is simply not accurate.
> They pay the salaries of a number of people working on the Fedora project.
Supporting the development of a product is not the same thing as supporting the product itself.
> They don't offer the kind of support for the end user/customer that they do for the enterprise product
Exactly.
> ...but to say they don't support Fedora at all is simply not accurate.
I did say "In the sense you seem to be using the word", didn't I? If you use a different definition, then you are correct, but that's not the definition I was using.
Supporting the development of a product is not the same thing as supporting the product itself.
> They don't offer the kind of support for the end user/customer that they do for the enterprise product
Exactly.
> ...but to say they don't support Fedora at all is simply not accurate.
I did say "In the sense you seem to be using the word", didn't I? If you use a different definition, then you are correct, but that's not the definition I was using.
"Supporting .."
Fedora, Red Hat, Gnome, KDE, etc. are no different from most other Free Software projects. The _projects_ get dedicated, organized support and sponsorship. The _users_ either pay for an expert, rely on neighborliness, or work it out for themselves and gain expertise.
Fedora, Red Hat, Gnome, KDE, etc. are no different from most other Free Software projects. The _projects_ get dedicated, organized support and sponsorship. The _users_ either pay for an expert, rely on neighborliness, or work it out for themselves and gain expertise.
Quoting:Red Hat didn't bash Linux Desktop and they continue to support it.
@jdixon,
In the context of the Linux Desktop subject, it wasn't in relation to furnishing support to its users, it was in relation to the development of Linux Desktop. May be I should have said "Red Hat didn't stop supporting the development of Linux Desktop".
Thanks Caitlyn for clarifying that.
You're welcome, Fettoosh.
In general, of course, most free/community versions of Linux distros don't offer support at all. Fedora, like Ubuntu or Mint, has a very large and very active community. The net result is that you can get answers and support in the forums when you need it. Of course, there may be some bad answers with the good, but the community support is there and it is helpful most of the time. Fedora also has some of the most thorough and complete documentation I've seen and Red Hat does pay to develop that :)
In general, of course, most free/community versions of Linux distros don't offer support at all. Fedora, like Ubuntu or Mint, has a very large and very active community. The net result is that you can get answers and support in the forums when you need it. Of course, there may be some bad answers with the good, but the community support is there and it is helpful most of the time. Fedora also has some of the most thorough and complete documentation I've seen and Red Hat does pay to develop that :)
> May be I should have said "Red Hat didn't stop supporting the development of Linux Desktop".
If you were using it in that sense, then yes, Caitlyn is correct and I misunderstood your meaning.
If you were using it in that sense, then yes, Caitlyn is correct and I misunderstood your meaning.
Quoting:If you were using it in that sense, then yes, Caitlyn is correct and I misunderstood your meaning.You're actually quoting Fettoosh so I can't take any credit for the line. OTOH, I agree with Fettoosh and that is part of what I call support. Of course, they're developing GNOME 3 and I imagine some folks here aren't thrilled with that.
On the other hand, they may well be thrilled that the mess is at arm's length.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
No, it's bigger than that,... The KDE developers still take the attitude that they know better than the users how the desktop should be used... Nepomuk, Stringi and Akonadi server are examples, as is the "forcing" of the KDE netbook environment on machines with a certain screen dimension. When you go to the KDE developer forums, they are always defending and justifying their poor decisions despite overwhelming user feedback and criticism to the contrary.