Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KDE, GNOME, Unity, Razor-Qt Developers Met Up

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • KDE, GNOME, Unity, Razor-Qt Developers Met Up

    Phoronix: KDE, GNOME, Unity, Razor-Qt Developers Met Up

    Last week at the SUSE offices in Nürnberg there was a meeting between developers of the KDE, GNOME, Unity, and Razor-qt desktop environments...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM1NDM

  • #2
    Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
    I was hoping for at least a fist fight. Some blood shed something....god....
    Or at least Linus showing up to tell everyone what desktop he's using

    Comment


    • #3
      Finally, something like this needed to happen, though I'm not sure if anything useful will come out of it. Canonical is very narrow-minded, GNOME has a "trust me, this will work" attitude, and KDE was formed specifically because of not liking how GNOME worked. However, it's not fair to the users that things are so fragmented and incompatible because people decide to do their own thing rather than attempt to improve what already exists - one of the nice things about having an open-source OS is you're allowed to contribute. So, lets hope they come to agree on something.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
        Finally, something like this needed to happen, though I'm not sure if anything useful will come out of it. Canonical is very narrow-minded, GNOME has a "trust me, this will work" attitude, and KDE was formed specifically because of not liking how GNOME worked. However, it's not fair to the users that things are so fragmented and incompatible because people decide to do their own thing rather than attempt to improve what already exists - one of the nice things about having an open-source OS is you're allowed to contribute. So, lets hope they come to agree on something.
        You got your history wrong. KDE was the first desktop environment but depended on Qt which was a non-free toolkit. GNOME was developed as a fully free software alternative but thats all in the distant past. You can have completely different ideas about UI but still work together on core elements like trash cache spec.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
          Finally, something like this needed to happen, though I'm not sure if anything useful will come out of it. Canonical is very narrow-minded, GNOME has a "trust me, this will work" attitude, and KDE was formed specifically because of not liking how GNOME worked. However, it's not fair to the users that things are so fragmented and incompatible because people decide to do their own thing rather than attempt to improve what already exists - one of the nice things about having an open-source OS is you're allowed to contribute. So, lets hope they come to agree on something.
          Yeah, Schmidt, what Rahul said. KDE was actually the FIRST desktop environment. Gnome got created because the license wasn't up to bar with the GNU standards for freedom.

          Comment


          • #6
            Let us dump all these DE and start fresh! Unite.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by hax0r View Post
              Let us dump all these DE and start fresh! Unite.
              No! Unite the standards on similar meetings and let everyone implement them in any way they like. That's probably the best way. One-DE-to-rule-them-all approach just won't work.

              Comment


              • #8
                I think he was making fun of Unity.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Invite?

                  Maybe invite Xfce and LXDE?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Any standard that requires D-bus is a failed standard.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Honton View Post
                      Anyway fdo has a very broad scope. Covering Linux desktops instead of free desktops would be much better for Linux.
                      What do you mean?

                      Originally posted by curaga View Post
                      Any standard that requires D-bus is a failed standard.
                      What is wrong with D-Bus?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by curaga View Post
                        Any standard that requires D-bus is a failed standard.
                        No, it's actually great idea to use D-bus, because it's not available in BSD. It's Linux community that's driving FLOSS and there's no contribution coming from BSD tiny word. Just ask KDE, Gnome or X developers about this or check which bug reports are meaningful. For example: PC-BSD has debugging disabled while even Ubuntu has this turned on (which makes Ubuntu vs BSD benchmarks quite unfair).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          lets hope they come to agree on something.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                            What is wrong with D-Bus?
                            It's a bloated, slow, and unnecessary daemon. My systems are usually dbus-less.

                            Re Pawlerson, I don't know about it on BSD. If it's not available there, then that's another good reason against it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by curaga View Post
                              It's a bloated, slow, and unnecessary daemon. My systems are usually dbus-less.
                              We should have kdbus ("kernel dbus") before the end of the year that makes it fast, lean and daemon-less.

                              Originally posted by curaga View Post
                              Re Pawlerson, I don't know about it on BSD. If it's not available there, then that's another good reason against it.
                              D-Bus is available for BSDs. According to Greg K-H some BSD developers are interested in kdbus too.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X