Bero Quits Red Hat Over Treatment of KDE

Vicegrip writes "In an article on leaked release notes on Redhat 8.0 CNet also revealed that Bernhard Rosenkraenzer, known here on Slashdot as berorh, has quit over objections he has on what Redhat is doing to KDE in the new release. Bero says that the new version of KDE in Redhat 8.0 is going to be crippleware. I know I always found Bero's comments here on Slashdot helpful and insightful. His worries about what Redhat is doing to KDE for 8.0 have me rather concerned and thinking of switching distributions."

Maybe he will join MandrakeSoft again!

Mandrake 9.0 seems to respect KDE & GNOME, and Bero has been part of MandrakeSoft in 1999!

I am with Red Hat on this one...

Plain overreacting. Red Hat is doing the right thing about their business and products.
I am one of those who say that Red Hat should only support either Gnome *or* KDE, but allow through the libraries to run each other's applications, in a way that it is completely unified (apps to behave and look the same even if they are from different toolkits).

More discussion about this here:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=1808 [osnews.com]

Re:Bollax

This strikes me as a bit of a fuss by prima donna developers. If I can take the KDE source and muck about with it, why can't RedHat?

Asserting tht RedHat is trying to "neutralize" KDE is attributing political motives to their actions. Instead, I think, they're simply trying to sell more copies of RedHat Linux.

Re:Bollax

It seems the KDE community chooses to concentrate much more on their endless whining and political stunts than on development, and the comparitive quality of KDE and GNOME applications bears this out. Especially considering the head-start the KDE project had.

Ehm, this must be a matter of opinion, since I believe KDE to be putting out better quality applications (in a shorter timespan too, they are not losing their head-start, they are increasing their lead). As for "political stunts", consider this: when I think of GNOME, I think of Ximian and Eazel (the millions wasted, the strange Google ads). When I think of KDE, I think of a team of developers "getting shit done." About the only bad mark that KDE has ever had was with the old Qt licensing, which all boiled down to wanting to "get shit done" instead of worrying about licensing. If you want to talk about politics, talk about GNOME.

Maybe if they had been developing instead of throwing tantrums their applications would be the ones Red Hat had chosen instead.

Red Hat chose GNOME way back in the day, as far as Linux desktops are concerned. KDE wasn't all that great back then, and GNOME was fully GPL. I think the licensing had to do more with their decision than quality of applications (especially considering that GNOME at that time was awful). Of course, it is harder to turn back now that Red Hat promoted GNOME so much. Considering that Red Hat is the only major distribution shipping GNOME as the default desktop, I wonder if Red Hat could end the desktop war by simply switching to KDE as default? Something to think about...

It is also important to remember that the people debating this are people like you and I, not the actual core KDE developers (or GNOME developers for that matter). They are not throwing tantrums, they are coding. I'd even guess that most of them don't even have Slashdot accounts. KDE continues to have a very strong developer community that generally does not worry about things like this. Please place blame appropriately.

Re:Bollax

Many people do not like KDE... The only reason KDE is the default desktops on many distros is simply because it looks a lot more like windows...

Just the fact that RedHat and Sun both agree that GNOME is a better desktop should say a lot. Besides, even if KDE was just as good as GNOME, GNOME would still have quite a lead, as most apps are based on GTK. Loading and maintaining twice as many toolkits and libraries is a waste of system resources, and effort.

Re:I am with Red Hat on this one...

Before you respond, read up on what Redhat is ACTUALLY doing to KDE rather than what you have heard from some gossip source.

Actually, I'm planning on waiting for the imminent release, rather than the "null" work in progress, having a play around with it and then making up my mind. There is so much FUD on this issue from the KDE and Gnome developers, as well as Red Hat and the community that this is the *only* way to go.

As a firm KDE desktop user who runs a lot of Gnome apps within it I'm all for making KDE and Gnome look alike for a consistent desktop. I've basically done this so far by using very similar themes on both window managers and tweaking out the differences where possible, and it was my impression that Red Hat had just taken this one stage futher, which was fine by me. However, for Bero to take this step, especially given that this is the same Bero that so eloquently dispersed the FUD around Red Hat's recent compiler choices, I'm getting a little concerned they may have gone a bit futher than that.

Red Hat has an excellent track record for me; I've had problems with most of the the other popular choices that Red Hat didn't even bat an eyelid at. They are also pretty on the ball with the security patches, unlike some distros I could mention, which is essential when you are responsible for numerous boxes out on the Internet.

All in all, I do hope they are not going to spoil their track record over this, but a large part of using open source code is about having the freedom to make a choice, isn't it? I don't see any reason why that shouldn't extend to the distro packagers too, and frankly I think it somewhat hypocritical to believe otherwise.

amen to that

personally, I find the default KDE look and behavior irritating. if Redhat is going to skin it up and make it purty, then more power to 'em.

(for the KDE lovers out there, I find Gnome just about as annoying and "more unintegrated" ... it just has a little better graphics). from what I've seen in the pre-release, RH80 has a much more polished and professional UI than anything else out there.

Amen

Very true. Red Hat is doing something that consumers have wanted (and Linux tweakers have been doing for some time with themes) -- making their KDE and GNOME apps look similar.

KDE people whining about this are going to be ignored. The GNOME people have accepted the loss of their icons without throwing fits, though it certainly changes RH GNOME's "look and feel". I can't figure out why the KDE people can't do the same for the changes that affected their "look and feel."

Re:Amen

I don't think anyone would have complained if RedHat had just changed the default look. Other distros have been doing this forever. The fact that they introduced bugs, broke some third-party app compatability, and made KDE slower as a whole (replacing konq with Moz, etc.)

RedHat should have given the user a choice at least. If the user installed KDE (not default), then by gosh, they probably wanted to run KDE.

Re:Amen

Note: They aren't aiming this at people who can go in and simply reset the configuration the way they want.

This is little more than an elaborate theme and a default set of applications.

It has nothing to do with "slowing down" KDE or "removing choice". It has to do with delivering a common user experience across both desktops.

If you don't like it, don't use it!
If you don't like it, and have to use it, change the config to something YOU can live with.

I don't get what the hell is so hard to understand about this relatively straightforward concept.

Re:I am with Red Hat on this one...

I am not with Red Hat. If they want to include KDE, they should do KDE: Konqueror browser, Konqueror file manager, KMail mail, the whole package. Without its apps, KDE is nothing but a mediocre panel.

It is a common misconception in these discussions that people are mad about the unified look and integration between KDE and GNOME that Red Hat is promoting. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I hope I can speak for all KDE fans when I say the unified look is a step forward, and integration is good. After all, people have been crying out for both for years. But what Red Hat is including is not KDE, it is simply KDE's panel used to launch other applications. The panel is not what makes KDE compelling, it's the app integration. If Red Hat wants to use GNOME app defaults, then what are they doing including KDE at all? It is a joke, simply so they can put "KDE desktop" on their boxes.

I am also not trying to say that Red Hat should drop all KDE support. No matter what, Red Hat should include libraries to run KDE apps, and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. If they aren't going to use KDE app defaults, though, they might as well not include KDE as a choice on the login screen. There is no reason to.

Re:what exactlly are they doing?

AFAIK, it is the case. RedHat's trying to do something for people who aren't emotionally involved with either KDE or Gnome -- make a consistent, usable desktop. I think this is a good thing to do. KDE and Gnome are working together these days (see freedesktop.org). This is encouragement from RedHat to make KDE and Gnome more interoperable. If they don't interoperate, then there make as well be two entirely separate types of desktop linux -- KDE linux and Gnome Linux. Vendors would need to pick one (or both) to support.

Macs have a default interface. Windows has a default interface. Linux systems should as well. Note that you can run QT programs on Windows and MacOS -- similarly, you can use the toolkit of your own choice on a Linux system. But having a default desktop system would be a good thing for Linux in the desktop arena.

I wish

I wish I was stupid^H^H^H^H^H^Hwealthy enough that I could quit my job just on principle.

Re:I wish

I wish more people cared enough to put their principles before money or even security. You don't have to be stupid or wealthy to be a person who tries to always do what they think is right.

As for me, personally I am curious and interested to see what RH has done with the desktop in v8, and don't feel too strongly about the KDE/GNOME/Bluecurve arguments -- and I don't know enough about whether I should agree with Bero's statements about crippling KDE.

-=Ivan

"free" software

Let me be the first of 100's to point out that when you write free software, people are free to do what they like with it. No one seems to get up in arms when Redhat enhances "ls" to make it more friendly for their users...what's got everybody up in arms is that Redhat is trying to enhance its *brand* by hacking KDE.

Real free software people would be against (or at least oblivious) to the branding in the first place.

Re:"free" software

Let me the first to point out that permitting someone to do something, and approving of all are different. In other words: if you believe in freedom of speech, it doesn't mean that you can't critize someone for saying something; if you believe in freedom of softwrae, you surely cna also critizie them for making stupid use of that freedom?

Re:"free" software (MOD PARENT UP)

Hello dolly!

It's like people have confused 'freedom' with 'freedom do you whatever the hell you want without actually being subjected to what other people _think_ of it'. Which is a shame, because peer discussion and judgement is about the most important check/balance in society. While we try and limit the actions that can result from peer judgement (to avoid mob justice, for instance), we should try and avoid attempting to squash criticism just because its not 'productive' ... ripping shit down to rebuild, rejecting norms, rejecting opinions and denouncing things we percieve as misguided or wrong is a key part of the process required to arrive at newer and superior solutions.

When people are free to do crap, don't forget others are well within their rights to freedom to voice dissatisfaction .. and even quit your job if you like, although the way people go on here, you'd think they were envious or scared of the freedom to do just that.

Re:"free" software

There's been a bit more than "criticising". Trying to think up ways that the book could be thrown at Red Hat through the GPL because of this is downright dirty. Wondering if there was a way to keep Red Hat from incorporating KDE at all in some kind of pointless "revenge".

The rhetoric being levelled at Red Hat from the KDE zealots goes way beyond mere criticism.

Re:"free" software

Real free software people wouldn't be emotionally offended by others taking advantage of their own freedoms to modify the software. RedHat is doing what the GPL allows. This is what it's all about, guys -- freedom with the software you use, develop with and distribute.

Re:"free" software

Real free software people wouldn't be emotionally offended by others taking advantage of their own freedoms to modify the software.

Okay, so if I use your XSLTFilter on a Web site that displays XML-indexed goatse pictures, you'll suddenly become convinced they're the most attractive thing you've ever seen?

There's a deep divide between toleration and approval. As I understand it, RMS (for one) is generally speaking opposed to war. However, the GPL under which he releases his software contains no provisions preventing militaries from using it in the development and deployment of weapons systems. RMS tolerates the use of glibc in weapons -- that is to say, he doesn't try to stop it. That doesn't mean he approves of it, or wouldn't be offended by the thought of a missile guided by glibc-linked code blowing up a village in Iraq. (Hell, I'm offended by it, and I didn't even write glibc.)

The confusion between toleration and approval (or between taking offense and being intolerant) is a dangerous one, like the confusion so many people have between criticism and censorship. It is destructive of public discourse, because it leads people to react emotionally as if they were being threatened with force, when in fact they are merely being told someone's opinion.

Re:"free" software

Tell that to the people who are really forceful in their criticism. The people who seem to be morally offended at RedHat's new user interface.

Yup, they're silly buggers, no question there.

But I don't think it's valuable to call them "fake free software people", or whatever the antonym of your "real free software people" upthread was supposed to be. I don't even know what a "free software person" is meant to be in that context -- an advocate? user? developer? We have clear criteria for what makes a program Free Software but we do not have criteria for what makes a "free software person."

I find it disturbing sometimes how much resentment there can be in the community. Whenever one of these atrocious flamewars breaks out, it seems to me that it's more because people are looking for a fight, looking for some battle line on whose sides they can form up. Quite often, it seems it's the resentful impulse that was once called levelling that serves as the impulse for this. Levelling is the harmful side of envy: instead of raising yourself up to the level of the envied one, you knock them down to yours.

Many free-software users hate Microsoft, because they observe that Microsoft has done wrong and profited by it -- but a sizable minority envy Red Hat, because while Red Hat has done no wrong it has profited where others have failed. None in this matter of KDE in Red Hat 8.0 have presented a coherent argument that Red Hat has done wrong; rather, they have seized on something unusual that Red Hat has done and unfoundedly declared it wrong, as a justification for knocking down Red Hat.

It's foolish, and in the end it drags everyone down. The negative publicity hurts Red Hat directly and the rest of Free Software/Open Source by association. The attitude of intolerance towards modifications -- that if I want to modify your code I need your explicit permission -- creates a contradiction with the operating principles of FS/OSS and works to deprive us of its benefits. The inherent ugliness and acrimony of unnecessary hostility hurts us all.

Re:"free" software

what's got everybody up in arms is that Redhat is trying to enhance its *brand* by hacking KDE.

Anyone who's used the 8.0 beta can tell you they're enhancing their usability, nmot their brand with their changes. The grab bag of different applications, inconsistent themes, and desktop specific panel apps are there if you want them. But Red Hat have made themes and panel apps consistent by default and put what they consider the best apps forward by outting them on the quick launch area of the taskbar. Its no big deal, and Red Hat 8.0s KDE runs every KDE app I've built and packaged for it.

Crippleware?

Can someone who's actually USED a beta of RH8 talk about whether the KDE implementation is in fact crippleware? I was under the impression that it was just subjected to some Red Hat skinning and rejiggered so that some of the "scares the newbies" features were off by default. That doesn't sound like crippleware, but someone out there must know more.

Anyone who's used it likes it.

I'm a KDE user whose been using Null since release:

Red Hat have:

• Unified the default QT, GTK 1, GTK 2, and XMMS look. Someday every Linux distro will do the same.
  
• Red Hat patched KDE to support the freedesktop.org standard taskbar system - yay, panel apps working in both KDE and Gnome. Older KDE taskbar apps still seem to work fine. Again, someday I think KDE will ship with this by default.
  
• Selected what they consider the best applicatioon for each category (web browsing, email, office etc) and used those as default quick launchers on both the Gnome and KDE taskbar. This makes sense: users pick apps based on quality rather than toolkit. Mozilla renders more pages than Konqueror. OpenOffice is more capable than Abiword or KOffice. Evolution matches more of a Windows users understanding of a good PIM than KMail / Konrganizaer / Sylpheed, etc. This isn't a bias towards Gnome - 2 of the three main apps aren't even based on Gnome or GTK, and OpenOffice actually integrates better with KDE than Gnome. They haven't removed Konq, KMail or any other major KDE apps, they've just changed what's in the quicklaunch bar. Konq stil exists, and its still in the menu. So is Kmail. Again, I think someday every Linux distro will do the same. Most desktop users don't know, or care what a toolkit is, and they shouldn't have to.
  
• Removed the About KDE dialog. Not that every copyright, author credit, and license are still there - in About -> App. The About KDE screen is a just an ad for KDE. Its not a big deal, I don't really care either way.
  
• Made KDE use double click for desktop items - this was the only thing I disliked about 8.0 - its a really dumb idea and violates just about everything anybody's written on the subject of usign a mouse. Someone buy Havoc Pennington a Jacob Nielsen book. Then make KDE single click again, fix Gnome 2 to do the same, and thus don't require new users to click desktop items twice in the space of 500ms - and keep desktop icons consistent with web pages, and all their other apps. Ask anyone involved in usability - double click makes no sense.
  

Re:Anyone who's used it likes it.

> I'm a KDE user whose been using Null since
> release:

But not an informed one. You left a lot out, in addition to putting the RH spin on what you included. RH has also:

- Added lots of buggy Xft stuff to QT
- Buggy changes to support vfolder
- Broke service name compatibility
- Broke plugin handling

The gruesome details are all in bugzilla.

These are off the top of my head, I've probably left some out.

Re:Anyone who's used it likes it.

But not an informed one. You left a lot out, in addition to putting the RH spin on what you included.

Since KDE has never released a proper announcement of what their issues with Red Hat beyond some generally false stuff in their forums (cheers Mosfet) and as an extensive KDE user I haven't encountered them, I may indeed not know everything.

I didn't put a RH spin on anything. Users should pick the best apps. RH aren't trying to turn KDE into Gnome - 2 of 3 non KDE their `best apps' aren't Gnome apps either. And Konq, KMail etc still work (apart from the plugin bug you mentioned). I'm a Konq fan, but at the end of the day, Mozilla can render more pages (such as www.ninemsn.com.au, the most popular site in the country) and Konq can't. And as I said, every KDE app I've rebuilt for Null has been fine.

The Xft additions seem to work well enough that I haven't noticed them negatively at all - just that for once I got Xfthack quality font rendering out of the box on a Linux distro without having to screw around. This is a good thing. I don't know what's buggy about it and when I do notice something, I spend a bit of time in Bugzilla reporting it or checking it out.

Konqueror plugisn are broken, huh? Flash works fine on www.xdude.com works fine (using the Flash 6 beta under Konqueror on the current Null). Quicktime / Crossover also work fine, albeit a little slowly than I'd like. But I accept there are likely remaining bugs in Konq plugins, as Macromedia.com doesn't work properly, and last time I looked its also in Mozilla marked for RH to fix, along with the latest Nautilus fuckups. How is this malicious? What have Red Hat done to deliberately break it? And why would they deliberately break it if they're going to fix it? You haven't said so I'll treat RH as innocent until proven guilty.

I don't know about what applications vfolders you're talking about, or what `service names are'. Care to tell or give us a bugzilla link?

Using GCC3 does not equate to sabotage.

RH has also:
- Broke plugin handling

The gruesome details are all in bugzilla.


If I'm uninformed, then you sir, are a liar. Read the actual bug report [redhat.com] sometime. Red Hat have done nothign of the sort - they've just compiled KDE with the current GCC - Macromedia has yet to release a GCC 3 based Flash (tho it would seem Flash 6 corrects the problem). You're trying to make out that Red Hat have deliberately sabotages KDE plugins. When Suse, Mandrake, and every other distro also compile KDE with GCC3, will you accuse them of the same?

With Redhat on this one...

I fail to see what Redhat is doing that could so offend Bero that he would quit his job with them. Redhat has already acknowledged that they have more Gnome experience on their staff, and Bero quitting will only exacerbate that problem. It seems to me that he is only creating a larger problem for KDE by leaving a position of influence at Redhat over something that appears to be rather benign, and actually insightful on Redhat's part. Looks like big egos will always get in the way of better software.

This IS the way to better software . . .

"Looks like big egos will always get in the way of better software."

I must disagree with this. I think strong principles are a great virtue of the open source community. Instead of being less productive at a KDEless Redhat, Bero will be more productive somewhere else. This doesn't say anything bad about Redhat or Bero and only further supports the diversification (and competition) of the community.

I am sure that the majority of MS employees would not walk out if suddenly MS decided to do something as drastic as go Open Source. You may call this corporate strength, but I call it 40,000 "yes" men (and women) who don't give a fsck what their company does, as long as that paycheck comes on Friday.

He should change his name ...

to Zero, to reflect his new income level.

It's rather sad.

Linux has started to become the platform of choice for extremely complex and involved multimedia production, powering enormous render farms and video storage RAID arrays, yet still, Linux falls on its face for mundane day-to-day productivity work. Linux can render the incredibly lifelike texturing and animation exhibited in "Monsters Inc." and "Titanic", yet it can't even open a simple Word document without formatting errors. While delivering superior performance rendering these intensely detailed and hard-wrought movie scenes, Linux stills falls short of Windows when playing Quake. How did we get into this perplexing state of affairs?

I'll tell you why -- good old fashioned ego. Whereas the low end (kernel developers, compiler writers, etc.) and high end (clustering software, 3D modelling and rendering, etc.) of development is led by strong, well-organised teams of well-trained developers with vision and understanding, the middle ground of the Linux world is polluted with warring egos and silly spats like this. There are myriad competing, mutually incompatible yet separately inadequate office suites (Star Office, KOffice, Applix,...), desktop environments (KDE, Gnome, XFCE, CDE, UDE, ROX,...), and X servers (XFree86, MetroX, XiG). We can't even decide on a printing system! If all the man-hours poured into fighting over KDE and GNOME were combined into a common vision, we would have one perfect end-user desktop, instead of two poor imitations of Windows.

Don't give me the old "competition" argument either. There is only one Linux kernel, which seems to progress just fine without another competing project nipping at its feet and instigating flamewars. The endless KDE vs. GNOME, Applix vs. StarOffice, and other feuds have wasted more productivity than would be gained by and competitive drive.

I, for one, am somewhat miffed that while my operating system powers Hollywood blockbusters and NASA supercomputers, it still can't fully replace Windows on my office desktop. Linux is growing up; its users need to grow up with it, shed their egos and work towards the common goal of creating an excellent working environment.

Re:It's rather sad.

People are naturally going to fight over interfaces more than blackboxes.

When I implement rendering software, its very easy to tell if my approach or your approach is better; bench mark.

Now hell me how to objectively detemine which interface is better: KDE or GNOME?

I think its obvious that there is always going to be way more arguments about what the handles and knobs looks like than whether or not that engine is implemented in the best way possible. You can quantitatively test and compare all the kinds of software you say that doesn't suffer from the problems KDE/GNOME do .. interface stuff is way more shades of grey when it comes to the Right Way or the Wrong Way.

Re:Amen

And who is Redhat to decide this? They can do whatever they want to their distro, it's theirs. But I'll be damned if they choose what happens to everyone else. Mandrake, if faced with the choice, would more than likely choose KDE, as would SuSE.

And what about Debian or Slack, quite arguably the two most "pure" distros of all? What gives Redhat the power to dictate the desktop environment for them?

The fact is, for most desktop developers, having Linux take over the mainstream desktop isn't the priority. It's providing the best desktop software on the planet for themselves and their users. This whole "Linux vs. The World" is just some childish notion that attempts to shoehorn people. A big part of Linux is that it is Free Software, and with that comes the freedom to choose what you want. Distros have their default desktop, but that shouldn't interfere with me in any way.

Re:It's rather sad.

Don't give me the old "competition" argument either. There is only one Linux kernel, which seems to progress just fine without another competing project nipping at its feet and instigating flamewars.

You missed the VM system flamewars? The scheduler fights? The CML2 flamewars starring ESR? The kernel developers are by no means an egoless hive-mind, noiselessly producing good code. Read kernel-traffic [zork.net] for a little taste, or delve into the linux-kernel list raw & unfiltered for more than you evidently expect in the way of competition.

If you want to look for "Not Invented Here" mentalities and competition between kernel projects in the free-software world, consider also Linux vs. BSD. As I understand it, there's no reason that OpenBSD's pf firewall module -- which has some serious advantages over Linux's netfilter -- could not be integrated with the Linux network stack. It hasn't been, though, and I don't imagine it will be.

Kernels can be fighty places, too.

Re:It's rather sad.

(A little off-topic, but I'd rather argue about this than join round 5 of hundreds of posters arguing about a desktop almost none of them have seen...)

I think you're mistaken in assuming that computationally enormous is equivalent to hard. Designing and optimizing a Unix-ish operating system is a solved problem. It's been done well for decades by some really smart, well-funded people and there's plenty of experience and available source to draw on.

The desktop is hard. Apple and Microsoft still haven't gotten it down pat and the CDE guys completely failed at it. I remember a few years ago the attitude was, "We have graphics toolkits, and we've made Windows-like desktops with icons and toolbars. Thanks to the power of open source, we'll have Mac/Windows quality desktop apps in two years!" (I'm quoting the royal "we" of Linux enthusiasts.) It turns out that it's a lot harder than that, and that the devs at Apple and Microsoft and Adobe are a lot smarter and more innovative than a lot of the Linux xealots gave them credit for.

Re:It's rather sad.

The problem with the desktop is that it is perceived as an Entertainment device on top of whatever it was supposed to be before the focus on entertainment. And implementation here is not just a technical challenge, but also a legal and political one. Linux is ready for MY desktop, but the kind of *work* I do on my desktop involves writing mathematics papers, creating 2-d graphs on polar coordinates, writing correspondence, and lately, writing a research paper in French for a lit class.

For math papers, OpenOffice works *better* than the MS equivalent, and for many tasks, makes more sense than using Maple or Mathematica. And Open Office is wonderful for writing in French, or any other Western language.

When other people say "The Desktop" they're not talking about work, they're talking about Entertainment. And there are real shackles, very high barriers to entry in that arena, that have nothing to do with one piece of free software versus another, and everything to do with the hostility of hardware makers and industry associations!

But that's the "desktop" as an entertainment venue, and not as a workplace. Because of the current state of affairs where we are willing to accept (1) unnecessary expenses and (2) distractions from functions that apply to work tasks, we seem to find things like "windows" and "osx", or even "gnome" or "kde" to be reasonable items to have in a workplace -- because those are the things we are accustomed to.

Why is the Windows Solitaire program considered a tolerable standard feature on a business machine? Why is it that even in environments demanding hardcore accountability, strict adherence to schedule, and zero loss, we find any such systems? What stopped there being a "next level" in workplace equipment?

Re:It's rather sad.

Whereas the low end (kernel developers, compiler writers, etc.) and high end (clustering software, 3D modelling and rendering, etc.) of development is led by strong, well-organised teams of well-trained developers with vision and understanding, the middle ground of the Linux world is polluted with warring egos and silly spats like this. There are myriad competing, mutually incompatible yet separately inadequate office suites (Star Office, KOffice, Applix,...), desktop environments (KDE, Gnome, XFCE, CDE, UDE, ROX,...), and X servers (XFree86, MetroX, XiG).

That's funny, you must never read the LKML if you think there's no bickering going on. Perhaps you're too young to know about the gcc/egcs split of a few years back. How about the emacs/xemacs feud? Even stable, mature projects have their splits and their differences, including those on the lower levels of the tool chain.

And even the lower levels have their problems. There might be one Linux kernel (excepting -ac and other myriad branches and patches), but there's also BSD, Mach, Darwin, and the Hurd out there.

As for "simple" things like reading Word documents, you try reading a document that's really and collection of embedded COM objects and see how well you do with it. Things like that aren't easy. On the other hand, I can read and write my windows partition, as well as many other file systems, quite easily in Linux, which is something Windows can't do now. I also have virtual desktops, which is simple to implement in your WM using X, but Windows can't do this "simple" thing by default. Every environment has its advantages and disadvantages.

All those diseparate projects like KDE/Gnome, OO/KOffice, etc. will either learn to cooperate or one will die out. KDE and Gnome have very very slowly been taking steps to meet on some levels, and distros can step in at other levels (like Debian's excellent menu system). OO and Koffice are working towards using the same file format, or at least being able to read and write the same formats. Things will get there, just be patient.

Oh, and incidentally, I get better frames in Q3 on Linux than I do in Windows.

Specialized vs. diverse use of an OS

How can you compare a specific, detailed task like animation to the diverse needs of common end-users? That's like comparing a single piston to a automobile with options. I'm surprised the parent post was modded up to 5.

You people are missing the point

Its not about whether RH or KDE is right.

An employee of RH was being asked to work on something he disagreed with. So he left.

KDE is free to moan, RH is free to mod KDE, and this guy is free to get employment elsewhere.

Personally, it restores some of my confidence in humans. At least we're not all wage slaves who couldn't give a rats ass what they were working for and who they were serving.

Re:You people are missing the point

Wish I had mod points right now...I'd mod you up rather than reply.

I agree with you 100%. But I can also see where some people are worried. A respectable man disowns a company he works for over political reasons such as the modification of KDE, and it will make people question the company. Things like this will always bring rise to the Redhat/Microsoft comparison that happens way too often.

BUT the whole Lemming mentality happens way too often as well. Someone respectable leaves something like redhat behind, and all of the sudden people think it's tainted. Now, don't get me wrong. In a situation like this, questions do arise in my head. But I further research an analyze the situation. Perhaps our hero doesn't want to modify KDE because he thinks it works BEST the default way. Makes sense. But I'm willing to try out the new modified version before I agree with him.

So I announce now that I will go against the grain, and I will at least try out Redhat 8.0 before I denounce it. I will try Xandros too, and the latest Debian, and so on. I'm an OS mosquito, I go where the brightest light is.

Please explain crippleware.

I'd really like for him to explain "crippleware". How are they crippling it? While he has seen it and I have to wait for another week, so far everything points to Red Hat simply changing the default themes and icons. I connot see how this is crippling KDE.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that the default KDE themes are in there and simply need to be selected from the configurator. How is this crippling it.

To go one step further, I see a fair bit of ranting, especially on Slashdot(go figure), about how bad this new Red Hat theme is. The thing is, if you don't like it change it. How many people actually continue to use KDEs default themes? Few if any, I'll bet. Pretty much everybody changes the desktop to their own preferrences. So, what's the big deal about selecting your own preferrences over the Red Hat theme versus selecting your own preferrences over the KDE themes?

Much ado about nothing....

Re:Please explain crippleware.

First of all, let me say that Redhat is free to do whatever they like with KDE, since it is GPL'd.

However, what they're doing is not very nice, and it isn't at all about themes and icons...if that's all it was, there would be no issue.

First there was the issue of the removal of the "About KDE" item in all KDE app help menus. From Redhat's point of view, they're trying to make a Redhat-branded desktop, so seeing "About KDE" in some of the apps might be confusing to the user. From KDE's point of view, if Redhat "de-brands" the desktop, then the about box is really their only chance to let the user know about the app's authorship. It *really* makes it seem like Redhat is, if not trying to take credit for the apps themselves, then at least trying remove credit from where it's due (the KDE devs).
I don't know for sure, but I think Redhat may have decided to replace the "About KDE" items. Time (or beta testers :) will tell.

Second, and more importantly, they have replaced KDE apps with equivalent apps, either from GNOME or independent projects. For example, they replaced konqueror with Mozilla, Koffice with OpenOffice, KMail with Evolution.

Some people say these alternatives are better anyway, so who cares? Is KDE just whining because they can't keep up? I don't think so. For one thing, even if you change the widget style, these apps aren't going to be very well-integrated into the rest of the desktop, both in terms of look-and-feel and interoperability with other apps. This tight integration is one of KDE's great strengths; without it, KDE is, well, crippled. Plus, since these apps depend on libraries that are not preloaded when KDE starts up, they will appear to be sluggish to the user, who might incorrectly conclude that KDE is slow and clunky.

In summary, it isn't about themes or icons. It's that Redhat removed all trace of KDE from the apps, and replaced core KDE components with alternatives that are likely to confuse and frustrate users.

So what?

Redhat's decision to standardize the desktop look and feel has many strong opponents as well as supporters(myself included). If Bero feels this one issue is worth enough to him then so be it. Redhat has to do what it(and many others, myself included) feel it needs to do.

Redhat isn't violating anyones license, and they've done so much for the free software movement. If you don't like it, send em an email. Then, shut up. Its not your company.

This is not meant to start a flamewar

But I really don't quite understand the vast resentment about this latest RedHat move: will somebody please enlighten me why it's so out of line?

Besides 'nicety' issues (it would be nice if RH didn't do this) and besides marketing reasons (obviously having a consistent interface is very desirable) can anybody explain any legal reason why RH isn't allowed to do what they are doing?

As far as I remember, when you GPL your software, anybody can do practically whatever they want with it as long as they provide it at cost (duplication costs) and as long as they publish their (modified) sources.

If you don't like the way RH ships their preconfigured Gnome/KDE desktop, well, uninstall the provided packages and install the ones you can download from ftp.kde.org and so on.

The people that would be interested in having a 'pure' KDE and/or a 'pure' Gnome, are technically inclined people which are more than capable of doing what I just outlined: I really doubt that your average non-power-user cares at all about this, as long as they can use mozilla, openoffice etc. I don't think they'd care.

If you have licensed your software under a specific license (GPL, BSD, Artistic...) and a licensee does things to your software that you don't like, well, maybe you didn't think long & hard enough before opting to use the license you've been using. The only solution is to decide on a new license (good luck in getting everybody to agree) and to fork the codebase under that new license, but it's definitely not a painless or sometimes even possible solution (given the 'viral' nature of the GPL).

ha ha

I win! I win!

Developers developers developers developers developers!

What should Red Hat do?

Red Hat used to be pushing GNOME, and pretty much ignoring KDE. The KDE guys didn't like this.

Now Red Hat is trying to integrate KDE into their distro seamlessly. The KDE guys don't like this at all.

What should Red Hat do to make these guys happy? I think the only way the KDE guys would be happy is if Red Hat puts in KDE without changing anything. Great, now Red Hat has two different install options that look and work very differently. What a support nightmare. So, Red Hat would have to budget more money for support of KDE, or else just say it isn't supported... in other words, push GNOME and ignore KDE.

So it looks like the only way the KDE guys will be happy is if Red Hat goes out of their way to increase their support costs. Let's face it, if it is going to cost money to keep the KDE guys happy, Red Hat isn't going to do it!

P.S. Calling the Red Hat version of KDE "crippleware" isn't helpful. Red Hat isn't trying to hurt KDE; they are a business, and how does hurting KDE make money for them?

Any bugs Red Hat introduces to KDE will increase their support costs. People who buy Red Hat call Red Hat when they have trouble.

Red Hat is doing this so that a user can run KDE apps or GNOME apps without really caring which is which. Some of the KDE guys are complaining that Red Hat will make KDE look bad. The idea is that no one will even notice whether they are using KDE or not.

steveha

Not quite.

The only way a lot of the KDE guys would be happy is if RH excised GNOME, ditched every gtk+ app, fired everyone who worked on GNOME, and ran a Stalinesque show trial where everyone publicly humiliated themselves for having ever dared to do anything other than pour money into KDE.

Re:Whooptie doo

Holy crap, what does it say about the state of labour in the IT world when quitting a job because you're being asked to do something you don't want to do is grounds for others suggesting you're trying to be a martyr??

He's not trying to be a martyr. He's trying to have a job in which he agrees with the things he's asked to do. It's those who remain in the job at the expense of their happiness that are the dumb and childish ones. Whether or not KDE is "cripplewear" in RH is besides the point; he has set of values, he's actually going to do something about it .. thats cause for applause, even if I have no personal opinion on the nature of the disagreement between him and his former employer.

KDE on RH 8

i use RH 7.3 because it included KDE 3. when i tried limbo (RH 8 beta) it was hard to tell what WM i was using. i gave up on it because it didn't even resemble anything i was used to, and it was very slow. if i wanted to learn a new GUI setup i'd go buy a MAC and learn OS X. the thing i have always like most about RH is that it used standard GNU\Linux apps, but made installing and upgrading them a cinch. if i can't install the next version of RH and easily get into KDE or Gnome's default setups i'll just switch to mandrake or debian, both of which are now just as easy to install or upgrade new packages with.

Re:Sooner or later...

RedHat pushes GNOME and GNOME was only created to kill KDE. (Yes, you can mod this down, but it's still the truth and you know it.)

Actually, it's false, and I suspect you might not know it. GNOME was created by the GNU folks as an alternative to KDE at a time when KDE was dependent on a piece of non-free software, specifically the Qt libraries. Though it's now Free, Qt was at the time "shared source," more or less. Once Qt became Free, people kept developing and using GNOME because they were used to it and had come to prefer it.

They did it for the same reason RMS started GNU in the first place: to give people who insist on Free Software a good system to use. RMS didn't start GNU to "kill" SunOS or HP/UX or BSD, but to have the kind of system that his ethics and aesthetics preferred. Yes, BSD was non-free when GNU was started: BSD depended on AT&T proprietary Unix code. That quit being the case in 1994 or so -- but you wouldn't expect all the GNU and Linux developers to suddenly jump ship for BSD, would you? Of course not; as with GNOME and KDE, they had come to prefer their own system and kept developing it because they wished to.

That's called freedom. Not "killing" -- freedom. Learn to recognize it.

Re:Sooner or later...

Of course I do know that and it doesn't change the fact that GNOME would not exist without KDE.

If you know the truth of proposition P (viz., that the purpose of the creation of GNOME was other than to "kill" KDE) but you assert in debate proposition not-P (that the purpose of creating GNOME was to "kill" KDE) then you engage in a wrongful act of lying. There is no place in intelligent debate for lying. The only purpose lying can serve in discussion is to attempt to lead another astray -- to cause another to think or act on the basis of information you know is wrong. Though lying may serve some useful purposes in certain social occasions (contra Kant) it has no justification in debate and is wholly immoral.

Now, back on topic -- license problems may not be a "real life" issue to you if you are neither a Free Software developer or distributor, nor of the opinion that secret-source, thought-monopoly software is harmful. However, not all the world is in the same boat you are. To a substantial number of people -- among them the GNU and GNOME core developers, self-evidently -- these are issues most assuredly real. They would be remiss in their ethical duties to set aside their own principles simply because a fool might someday mock them as impractical.

Who do I

send my resume to for the newly open posistion? ;)

Open Soap Opera

Can we please stop the schoolyard spats?

On minute we have a bunch of Linux zealots beating their drums and putting a bead on the back of Microsoft, bent on unseating Microsoft whenever and where ever they can.

The next minute, someone actually in a position to move that goal forward, and they're crucified for it.

Get over it, or get your priorities straight so I can either dump my MSFT stock or buy more of it (seriously). If the goal is to make Linux a viable and flexible operating system, then people need to understand that their Open Source projects may be co-oped by someone else and modified. It's the rules of the game, the nature of the beast.

If the goal is to create software with your name all over it, a web site that tells everyone what chic and dastardly cool programmers you are, then that's ok too. But don't yell about Microsoft and how Linux would make it all different.

HERE IS THE ANSWER EVERYONE....

Let me summarize what I have read:

From the article:
"Red Hat's new "Bluecurve" desktop interface, a customization of the traditional KDE or Gnome interfaces."

Translates too:
Red Hat decided - instead of using just KDE and Gnome to add Bluecurve which is a modified version of KDE that is "more user friendly"

Former RH employee
"I don't want to work on crippling KDE, and they (Red Hat) don't want an employee who admits (Red Hat) 8.0's KDE is crippleware,"

Translates too:
I think the majority of linux users will not want to use this "user-friendly" crap because linux users are all power users and red hat is dulling themselves down just to try and bring more noobs to linux and make some money and i'm too self-righteous to be involved in that hideous plot.

The words "Cripple KDE and former RH employee" appear on Slashdot and the masses go crazy....

Try it?

The simplest solution for anything I've ever seen is this:
Try it for god sakes. Before you bitch about it or even see it, just try it. Wait until Redhat 8.0 comes out, get a copy, install it, and check out the GUI.
If it sucks big-time, then flaming is somewhat justified. If it works better than what has gone before, then either use it or go crawling back to your old glitchy GUI versions and feel that hollow satisfaction that your whining was warranted.

Seems to me, the only way anyone wins is if it's an improvement - phorm

So how does he get income now?

As an out of work programer, I can tell you first hand that this is not the enviorment to quit in if there is any other choice. Mind you his reasons for leaving are good, but it is aweful hard to get a job today. Maybe he has name recignition to get one, but there are a lot of good programers (and many bad ones too I suppose) who are looking for work.

Good luck is all I can say. If you find a job, please think of the rest of us without work, and see if you can do something for us. (hint, get me a job. :)

not berorh anymore?

is there a slashdot id berounemployed?

It's mind boggling

that many in the open-source community are so violently against the implementation of the open-source idea. Most of us hate Microsoft and their domination, and hope that GNU/Linux will be able to start making real inroads in this fight. But when Red Hat, the company that already makes the most user-friendly distro and offers the best support for its product, decides to integrate the look and feel of the desktop and so stop this stupid pissing fight between KDE and GNOME, people start yelling that this is creating "crippleware" or that Red Hat is somehow in the wrong to use the basic principle of open source. The thing is, Red Hat understands that too much choice can be just as paralyzing as no choice at all.

This is just more evidence for the idea that GNU/Linux users don't really want to win the battle... don't want GNU/Linux to become popular... that there is an elitist attitude among many out there (myself included) that relishes the role of the underdog, and wants things to stay with GNU/Linux in that position. So we all need to reconcile these two feelings... ask the question-- do you really want to see GNU/Linux become mainstream? Further, are you willing to see the use of open-source through to its end? So far, in my experience, both of these answers have been "no".

What all the fuss is about

The underlying phenomenon here was illuminated many moons ago by ESR in his 'noosphere' essay, and is broadly obvious to anyone with a background in marketing.

Windows has a distinctive look-and-feel. The macintosh has a distinctive l&f. Why? Branding, branding branding! The same organisation that is responsible for the overall package -- the OS in Microsoft's case; computer in Apple's --- is responsible for the interface. The visual differences between KDE and Gnome exist for similar reasons. By replacing their respective brand-imagery with its own, RedHat now gets to gobble up the mindshare of both teams -- the only form of 'payment' that these projects really ask for --- without any sort of renumeration. Need I remind the reader how important mindshare is to the financing and ultimate success of any open source project? Would KDE have received funding from the German government if it had just been some grey nnonymous widget-maker for a couple of American software firms?

Sure, you could characterise this as a case of warring egos; but egos are essential to survival: The perfectly altruisitic quickly become fodder for the pragmatically selfish. KDE and Gnome are well within their rights to protest; their identities are their equity. That's how this market works --- regardless of the apparent legality or probity of such maneuvers under license.

Look and Feel

Post after post after post are wondering what the brouhaha is over a common look and feel.

I suspect that significant number of you assume that a common look and feel means a common theme, style, appearance, etc. But that's just the look. The sticky part is the feel. A common feel means that KDE and GNOME behave identically. Think about that one a bit. In order for the goal of a common feel to be successful there has to be major surgery on one or both of the desktops.

Here is one example that should bring the point home. Lets imagine the Fubar Dialog. Both GNOME and KDE have a Fubar Dialog that allows the user to set their snafu level. Under KDE, this dialog is modeless applies to the application snafu level. Under GNOME it is modal but operates on the global snafu level. So how do you make a common Fubar Dialog? Do you make the KDE version act globally? And what about all those applications that used the Fubar Dialog? Will you change them as well? After all, a modeless dialog is pretty useless if the application still thinks its modal. And what about third party applications (that don't come with Redhat) using that dialog?

The point I'm trying to make here is that a common feel between two desktops is a MAJOR undertaking. It's so great a task that I seriously doubt Redhat is going to be able to pull it off.

Instead of assuming that we need a common look and feel just because the convicted monopolist has one, why not treat the existance of multiple desktops as an inherent advantage to Free Software operating systems?

Re:Make the switch

>Go with Mandrake. It's not just for newbies
>anymore. They go to the edge...
>
>Postfix over sendmail

Postfix was added to Red Hat in 7.3.

>Postgres over MySQL

Postgres has been in since 5.0, about five years ago. (On a side note, MySQL didn't make it in until 7.0).

>i586 over i386

Red Hat compiles -mcpu=i586 -march=i386, which means optimization for i586, but without using instructions that are incompatible with i386. The performance increase for doing -march=i586 is negligable except in a few corner cases.

However, the kernel and glibc are shipped with optimizations for multiple architectures, so as to provide most of the benefits without locking out non-pentium architectures.

Matt