Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The final Catalyst 10.7 is stable now *Trumps Up*

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

  • Originally posted by monraaf View Post
    Well, I think it's fair to say that GNOME powers the most popular desktop distros (Ubuntu, Fedora). And really nobody is out to kill KDE.
    This also has historic reasons. Ubuntu is based on Debian, and Debian has had a long-standing hatred towards KDE. Debian is very close to FSF, who hated KDE because back in the day KDE was not completely Free.

    You're right, nobody is trying to kill KDE today, but it's a well known fact that this is the reason GNOME was started, and the only reason it was started.

    LOL. KDE is just bling-bling, the core is still relying on obsolete technologies such as HAL.
    Nah, KDE has made a complete switch to a clean redesign two years ago, which will provide a solid platform for the coming years.

    The GNOME desktop is still a Frankensteinean hodge-podge of stolen technology like Compiz and the like.

    If you've ever tried to develop for either, you would understand.

    HAL is being phased out, it will take time.

    And dbus is not KDE tech, GNOME had it before KDE and AFAIK Red Hat had a big hand in it. You sound like an Apple fanboy, who thinks every smartphone copies from the iPhone, because Steve Jobs is feeding them some BS how every feature Apple adds to their products is something they invented.
    Don't be silly.

    Dbus is a platform-independent reimplementation of dcop. It has exactly the same functionality and even the same command-line arguments. When KDE swapped dcop for dbus, nothing changed except the command name. Because dbus works exactly the same way as dcop did.

    To be fair, dbus is a Free Desktop collaboration in order to provide a unified message passing framework. Technologically, it is equivalent to dcop minus any KDE dependencies.

    Remember that KDE had working IPC back in early 2000s, GNOME didn't have one until dbus was adopted as a network standard. They were too busy with CORBA stuff and Bonobo, which nobody ever used and which never worked. Bonobo, like many other GNOME technologies, was influenced by MS design and was modelled after COM.

    Then when it didn't work, they adopted dcop/dbus which worked in practice.

    Perhaps Ubuntu does not make these things very clear. I've met an Ubuntu user who was convinced that Firefox, Compiz and OpenOffice were all written by the GNOME team. But this is not a good reason to pull the Steve Jobs number on me :P

    Comment


    • I also have to point out that it is extremely ironic that so many Ubuntu users (I'm not talking about monraaf here) are adamant about using both GNOME and Nvidia proprietary drivers.

      GNOME was developed in order to kill a non-Free desktop. The fact that so many GNOME users are now
      championing binary-only kernel modules means that GNOME as a project has done something very wrong.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by monraaf View Post
        Really? That's strange, because I can remember very well KDE folk complaining that Windows 7 stole/copied from the KDE UI.

        e.g. http://www.internetling.com/2008/12/...e-3-5-wannabe/

        Personally I think it's probably the other way around.
        It can't be the other way around since KDE4 designs were floating openly around the web 6 years ago, and Windows7 designs weren't.

        And the problem with the stolen look is not an issue, given how easy it is to change look and feel, and how the default KDE4 look and feel is very different from that of Windows 7.

        Comment


        • i think it makes more sense to say that they wanted to protect the free software desktop by releasing something that was actually free software.
          If you actually remember the flamewars from those days, you would know that killing KDE was the number one priority back in the day.

          Nowadays, people find even binary kernel modules OK. Times have changes, Linux users too.

          LOL. KDE is just bling-bling, the core is still relying on obsolete technologies such as HAL.
          There isn't a single technology in the currently stable GNOME desktop which KDE 3 didn't have 8 years ago.

          GNOME 3 will try to catch up with KDE 4 a few years later, with the difference that they still have to go through all the growing pains KDE 4 had to go through.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
            This also has historic reasons. Ubuntu is based on Debian, and Debian has had a long-standing hatred towards KDE. Debian is very close to FSF, who hated KDE because back in the day KDE was not completely Free.
            If you'd take a look at Ubuntu Forums, you'll see a lot of people there who are new to Linux. From 14 year old kids to older people, and they all chose Ubuntu not Kubuntu or some other KDE based distro. But I'm sure the KDE apologists have some other excuses why Ubuntu is more popular than Kubuntu

            The GNOME desktop is still a Frankensteinean hodge-podge of stolen technology like Compiz and the like.

            If you've ever tried to develop for either, you would understand.
            No not at all. If you'd actually take a closer look at GNOME technology, and I'm talking about core technologies, not KDE bling-bling 'tech', you'd see that part of the core is based on GType and the GObject system. A system that also forms the basis of the GStreamer media framework and the Clutter toolkit. I'm not sure what Compiz has to do with GNOME, I don't need it and don't use it.

            Dbus is a platform-independent reimplementation of dcop. It has exactly the same functionality and even the same command-line arguments. When KDE swapped dcop for dbus, nothing changed except the command name. Because dbus works exactly the same way as dcop did.
            Dbus is a platform-independent implementation of IPC/RPC so it's bound to have the same functionality and similarities with dcop and other such technologies.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by monraaf View Post
              If you'd take a look at Ubuntu Forums, you'll see a lot of people there who are new to Linux. From 14 year old kids to older people, and they all chose Ubuntu not Kubuntu or some other KDE based distro. But I'm sure the KDE apologists have some other excuses why Ubuntu is more popular than Kubuntu
              Ubuntu is a slick product which uses GNOME due to inertia (it's the Debian default).

              Ubuntu certainly isn't popular because of GNOME. Before the Ubuntu craze, KDE was always considerably more popular than GNOME. Despite millions of dollars pumped into different marketing activities trying to establish it as some quasi-standard, despite the mud slinging and shit fighting, despite Sun and Novell joining the GNOME foundation, despite Eazel and the multi-million dollar file manager, despite RMS's statement that KDE is more free, but "go get them, gnomes!", despite being banned from RedHat and Debian repositories for many years, and all that.

              Only with the influx of many new Ubuntu users who use whatever is provided as default did GNOME catch up in popularity. No sane person would try both and pick GNOME

              And Kubuntu is sadly not an alternative. It is a broken distro which breaks KDE badly.

              No not at all. If you'd actually take a closer look at GNOME technology, and I'm talking about core technologies, not KDE bling-bling 'tech', you'd see that part of the core is based on GType and the GObject system.
              Neither GType nor GObject are necessary if you use C++. Actually, they are inferior to simply using C++. It's a tool for people who prefer to use pure C, and not a core technology.

              Is there any core technology which is actually used by more than a handful apps? GNOME apps are a collection of GTK+ apps with the same UI guidelines and nothing more. A gnome desktop consists mostly of non-GNOME apps. With GTK grafted on top of them to make them look like they were GNOME apps and some Ubuntu polish.

              I don't know how long you have been using GNOME, but GNOME was traditionally considered to be the inferior but prettier desktop due to some great artists who made excellent icons. Nowadays KDE is all visual bling, but there is still not a single GNOME technology that is superior to what KDE has. Can you name one technology GNOME has today which KDE didn't have in 2002?

              The GNOME/KDE war has never been about quality or features. It has always been about politics. It used to be about the license (for a VERY short time), then it became about whether RedHat or Trolltech/Nokia controls the development. You're using last decade's technology due to politics. There is a more advanced, more featured desktop out there that doesn't feel like you're stuck in 2000 with a panel applet, window decoration and 100 apps all doing their own stuff.

              Dbus is a platform-independent implementation of IPC/RPC so it's bound to have the same functionality and similarities with dcop and other such technologies.
              Yes, but it is exactly the same as dcop. It was directly based on dcop. It's the same thing. Compare the two sometime. Take any dbus command line option, it was taken directly from dcop.

              Comment


              • And, ironically, the requirement that all computers running GNOME 3 must have 3d acceleration is political suicide.

                This means that a huge number of users (those running Nvidia hardware) will be forced to use proprietary software. A desktop created to kill dependency on closed software forces you to use binary blobs.

                I wonder what RMS thinks about that.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                  Ubuntu is a slick product which uses GNOME due to inertia (it's the Debian default).

                  Ubuntu certainly isn't popular because of GNOME.
                  Well we have to disagree here.

                  Only with the influx of many new Ubuntu users who use whatever is provided as default did GNOME catch up in popularity. No sane person would try both and pick GNOME

                  And Kubuntu is sadly not an alternative. It is a broken distro which breaks KDE badly.
                  So? There are many other KDE based desktop distros, why aren't they more popular than Ubuntu?


                  Neither GType nor GObject are necessary if you use C++. Actually, they are inferior to simply using C++. It's a tool for people who prefer to use pure C, and not a core technology.
                  Wrong. The GObject system is actually superior to C++. Just because it's written in C doesn't mean you have to use C to use it. There are many bindings to other languages. You know there's a reason why C is sometimes called a library language and C++ not. Look it up sometime And btw. if C++ is such a wonderful language then why does Qt need to extend it with signals/slots and their moc compiler?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                    And, ironically, the requirement that all computers running GNOME 3 must have 3d acceleration is political suicide.

                    This means that a huge number of users (those running Nvidia hardware) will be forced to use proprietary software. A desktop created to kill dependency on closed software forces you to use binary blobs.

                    I wonder what RMS thinks about that.
                    RMS buy AMD hardware and use KDE ;-) and he think : "nvidia/gnome fail"
                    Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                      And, ironically, the requirement that all computers running GNOME 3 must have 3d acceleration is political suicide.

                      This means that a huge number of users (those running Nvidia hardware) will be forced to use proprietary software. A desktop created to kill dependency on closed software forces you to use binary blobs.

                      I wonder what RMS thinks about that.
                      I think they are working on it (the driver part) at Red Hat. Btw. Last time I tried gnome shell it worked fine with radeon just not with fglrx

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X