If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I hadn't heard that KDE was tying themselves to systemd.
They are not although some functionality might not be available. For example there seems to be intrest in using systemd for user sessions in KDE (leading to faster and better managed user session startup). That doesn't mean system without systemd won't be supported, kdeinit will be "maintained" (it hasn't changed much at all in many years). Display managers usually aren't tied to desktop environments so even if KDM is dropped and adopted SDDM it wouldn't tie KDE into it. SDDM doesn't even depend on systemd at the moment and I'm not aware of any such plans.
I hadn't heard that KDE was tying themselves to systemd. That's a good thing, IMHO, but surprising since I'd thought they'd described themselves as very much a crossplatform environment. I think gnome is doing the same thing, and is also the the right choice since being able to assume systemd makes things a decent amount simpler.
I have clarified this before but it keeps cropping up. GNOME does not assume systemd at all. It uses a D-Bus API that is implemented by systemd but not limited to it. Alternative implementations are possible and already exist. http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Soft...tabilityChart/
You can't upstream free code to Qt. Doing so requires you to sign a contributor agreement stripping away the copyleft. KDE is blind to Qt's non-free nature just as Ubuntu users are blind to Canonical's non-free nature. Expressing concerns why this is very wrong is as valid as caring about software freedom.
I consider many of the tweak tools features to be anti-features. Including some I use. Just like some extensions. I suffer from old habits and Im very happy to consider my self more bugged than the software I use I think the developers have very good reason to put certain anti-features in the tweak tool instead of the control center. And the tweak tool is still the smelly kid in class, but this cycle it at least got dressed up with style. Still I can do what ever I want in Gnome. Gnome is just more focused on the core UX and support that very well. KDE is a mess trying to support everything. Both Gnome and KDE fails at being high quality for every kind usage, naturally because they lack developers caring about corner cases. At least Gnome is honest about, where as KDE is mess. I really can't see why Gnome should be hated for being honest and admitting they can't support everyone.
So you are now admitting that GNOME is under resourced, well at least you are starting to see the light! However the problem is the "core UX", mainly the GNOME Shell. Since the adoption of "it's our way or the highway" mantra, they seem fully intent on stripping out features and functionality. Sure you can restore some of them by extensions, but they are a kludge rather than a solution as they can be buggy and cause breakages.
None of the SDDM developers work for Red Hat. It looks likely that KDE will adopt it as the default display manager along with Hawaii and probably "LXDE/Razor-qt". Fedora using it for 20 is great though.
Compare recent Gnome and KDE releases. Who gained most features? Gnome by far. Just like they are way ahead on wayland development and adoption.
KDE devs just can't win. When they focus on features, people complain that they aren't doing enough bugfixing and polishing. When they focus on bugfixing and polishing (the explicit goal of the last couple of releases), people complain that they don't have enough new features.
But ignoring that, you are just being intentionally dishonest now. You know full well most of the efforts in KDE are going towards frameworks 5, and that the release of a Wayland-ready version of KDE workspaces is dependent on the release of frameworks 5. This has been explained over and over and over again. But you insist on ignoring this and pretending that the lack of new features recently is some fundamental problem with KDE rather than a symptom of efforts going towards a new major release (which Gnome also had for Gnome 3).
Gnome is under resourced to the level where development pace have reached a maximum yes. Doing more requires extra resources. That is why saying no is so important. KDE's situation is much worse because they can't say no. So how does the ever fewer KDE developers manage to maintain the huuuge code base and develop new features? Answer: They don't. That is why ebarrasing bugs are left unfixed and new release features are something to dream of.
The GNOME devs seemed to get on just fine with managing the functionality of GNOME 2, so I fail to see why they would need to remove functionality, that could suggest there are fewer developers now.
Regarding KDE, they release bug fixes just like any other active project, and KDE already enjoys a wide range of features so you are either hopelessly misinformed or just spreading more FUD as usual.