Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME & KDE Developers Go To Battle Over A Name

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    Just curious, what are the use cases where you need both installed (switching between Gnome and KDE ?) and is there a use case where you want the System Settings from one DE visible and useable in the other ? Is this just a package name collision (in which case presumably a DE prefix would fix the problem) or is the technical issue a requirement to have cross-DE useability ?
    Do you really need someone to explain how idiotic it is to have two programs that are named the same being placed in /usr/bin?

    Comment


    • #52
      No, and if I had time I would consider being offended that you asked

      My questions were related to understanding why the obvious solution (adding a DE-based prefix to package and binary names) wouldn't work. What I *do* need someone to explain is :

      1. Whether there is a need to have both System Setting programs available side-by-side to the same user in the same DE instance (haven't heard one yet), ie whether there is a need to be able to run KDE System Settings under Gnome and vice versa. It seems unlikely.

      2. If the answer to Q1 is "no", then the next question is whether there is a mechanism to allow a program named "<DE> System Settings" to appear as "System Settings" in menus.

      If the answer to Q2 is "yes", then I don't understand the debate at all. If the answer to Q2 is "no", ie if KDE users would now have to choose "KDE System Settings" rather than "System Settings" then I understand why there might be a bit of reluctance to make the change.
      Last edited by bridgman; 07-24-2011, 10:12 AM.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by bridgman View Post
        Um... no. I'm asking why the obvious solution (prefixing the System Settings programs with the DE name to avoid collisions) doesn't work. What I don't know, however, is (a) if there is a need to run KDE System Settings under Gnome and vice versa (haven't heard one yet) and (b) if not, if there is a mechanism to allow a binary named <DE> System Settings to appear as System Settings in menus etc...
        Multi-user systems may have KDE, Gnome, FVWM, and Blackbox installed. If any of their individual utilities conflict there is a problem.

        Even the most ardent developer should realize that his particular monoculture is not the only one available.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
          Multi-user systems may have KDE, Gnome, FVWM, and Blackbox installed. If any of their individual utilities conflict there is a problem.
          I understand that multiple DEs may be installed at the same time, and that package and/or binary name collisions would be a problem. Everyone is happy to answer that question multiple times, but it is *not* the question I am asking.

          What I *am* asking is whether there is a need for the two utilities to appear in the menus of a specific user/DE instance at the same time, ie whether the DE menu systems can largely hide the DE-specific naming required to avoid collisions.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by bridgman View Post
            What I *am* asking is whether there is a need for the two utilities to appear in the menus of a specific user/DE instance at the same time, ie whether the DE menu systems can largely hide the DE-specific naming required to avoid collisions.
            I imagine that you would want to configure the behavior of your KDE applications even if you're running Gnome. And without needing to log out and then back in to KDE, do the configuring, and then log out again and back in to Gnome.

            Comment


            • #56
              Seriously ? If so, would you expect KDE system settings to appear in the Gnome desktop menus, or would you have to go run the KDE-specific binary anyways and would there be any problem if that binary were named "KDE System Settings" ?
              Last edited by bridgman; 07-24-2011, 11:14 AM.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                He named it "gnome childishness", with a prefix. Since it is in its own namespace, there is no collision. You should rename your childishness to "kde childishness" as a result.
                So, it seems we've got a solution.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
                  do you people actually believe that the average joe user understands or will care about details like that or know the difference??

                  the average user sees the whole computer as a system (which it is in a sense)

                  the name is just a name. the technical conflicts that might occur must be solved and the user shouldn't care at all
                  "If you create a system that any idiot can use, then only idiots will find it useful."?
                  if you want to make your stuff useful for clueless, making it more arbitrary probably will not help. in the opposite, you should be more thoughtful.

                  it's nice for you to actually say "whole computer as a system" while my exact point that this config tools are not about configuring the whole system therefore should not pretend as if they do.

                  Originally posted by energyman View Post
                  since you can do system wide settings from system settings:
                  you are wrong.
                  like what, exactly ?

                  how do i, for example, generate a system-wide xorg.conf.d-file with my default keyboard configuration from there instead of punching settings every time for every account ?

                  Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
                  Too bad, you got it wrong. KDE System Settings can configure the system. In fact it can configure anything for which a KCM is available. Heck, even KPackageKit hooks into KDE System Settings for software management if it's installed.
                  and open graphic stack is completely capable of OpenGL 4, DX11 and accelerated ray tracing. when you write that support and enable it afterwards, of course.

                  so you know many distributions where right after installation you can config pretty much every aspect of it from KDE's "System settings" ?
                  i recently installed Sabayon and it's pretty good in that regard but i still had to shin around console for a while.

                  besides, even with that stretch they can configure only policykit-enabled stuff and by no means affect anything else in /etc.

                  Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                  1.Both "Settings" fall FAR beyond of simple "Desktop Environment Settings". System Settings is CORRECT.
                  it's so sad that for so many people changing icons and stuff like that qualifies as "system configuration".

                  Originally posted by sabriah View Post
                  I am an ardent KDE-fan and see little use for Gnome. But, the sentence

                  signed by a maintainer named Ben Cooksley is just too much. THAT is not how to contact the Gnome camp and without being a developer for either side I apologize on anyone's behalf for vitriolic statements like that. I don't care if this has a "history" preceded by informal contacts. Any first public reaction should be polite.

                  If this was the first public reaction, in my view that Ben Cooksley may better be removed from being the maintainer as soon as possible, unless he makes a public apology. This is really sad.
                  yes, his post is completely idiotic with any context, even more than situation itself.
                  BUT you know what even more sad ?
                  fact that there thousands or more self-righteous bastards such as yourself who decided that if something (completely subjectively) offends them that it means that it's not only offends the public but commits outright crime against whole human race and should be immediately abolished and the "perpetrator" should apologize not only to you but to everyone alive or be ostracized forever. and even kicked out from freaking voluntary work ! the kind of people who demand public apologies from actors they saw them on TV someday who did something ugly to someone.

                  What The Fuck Is Wrong With You ?!
                  you even go as far as declaring yourself a martyr of horrors of this "crime" who is going to heroically throw himself into the world with apology of his own to nullify "the impact" and preserve it. preserve your distorted, self-centered view of the world.

                  they will sort this out, throw some more poo at each other and stop at some half-assed solution as always unless someone neutral disband them into separate corners, formulate all feasible solutions well and strongly would suggest them to pick some to settle on.
                  if you are not that person then i suggest to go preach your morals to your peers and remember that no one is obligated to follow your moral view even if many actually do so.

                  Originally posted by marek View Post
                  I think he should be banned from making any public statements on behalf of the KDE project, regardless of whether he will make an apology or not. This is a very bad PR move for KDE.
                  i have never understand what kind of "PR" can an open DE have.
                  there are only 2 mainstream DEs and they quite different from each other. so, how inept someone should be to pick between them while being guided by rumors of how much spit was spewed in discussions around them ?
                  how is that relevant to anything other than futile attempts to build an image of our bellowed OSS-developers as mythical kind-hearted knights ? in that case, no, thank you very much, i do not want to delude myself in fairytales anymore - let clueless people be clueless people.

                  Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                  Just curious, what are the use cases where you need both installed (switching between Gnome and KDE ?) and is there a use case where you want the System Settings from one DE visible and useable in the other ? Is this just a package name collision (in which case presumably a DE prefix would fix the problem) or is the technical issue a requirement to have cross-DE useability ?

                  As a user, I kinda like the idea of using the same name for the same function on different systems, but maybe that's just me
                  two people, one PC. one likes KDE, other - Gnome.
                  you are right that it makes a little to no sense for unused DE config tool to be accessible from other DE.
                  BUT both ideas of prefixes and partial temporary inaccessibility of something are not very pleasant ones for such an orderly multiuser OS as GNU/Linux. prefixes support for KDE is being dropped by distributions and even KDE itself, if i'm not mistaken. and hiding something in some particular circumstance which has nothing to do with access authorization and security looks kinda wrong in an open OS and as a bad design overall.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Even if you're running Gnome, you might want to change the settings for KDE apps. Many people mix and match KDE and Gnome apps.

                    KDE System Settings control things like icon theme, widget theme (Qt), etc. You can't change that from the Gnome's control centre.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      I believe they already decided to call them "Gnome System Settings" and "KDE System Settings", but with the prefix removed under native DE.

                      And a possible long term solution is to remove the need to use both.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X