Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #172174

Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/6/13 4:44 PM, in article 20130407011905.59@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
<tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2013-04-06, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> On 4/6/13 5:01 AM, in article kjp2m0$475$1@dont-email.me, "TomB"
>> <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 8<
>  
>>> Well, clearly it is their choice *not* to do this. If they wanted
>>> to do this, they already would've.
>>> 
>>> You (and others I'm sure) want KDE and Gnome to agree on "some
>>> back-end things"; KDE and Gnome *choose* not to.
>>> 
>>> Now, would it be a bad thing if KDE and Gnome /did/ choose to agree
>>> on "some back-end things"? No, I definitely don't think so. But in
>>> the end it's their choice, and their decision to make. And I don't
>>> see it happen. They are *competing* environments - just like
>>> Windows and OSX - that happen to run on top of various UNIX-like
>>> operating systems.
>>> 
>>> Do I /want/ them to cooperate? It simply doesn't matter; it's up to
>>> them. They are the ones that should want it, and if they don't then
>>> so be it.
>>> 
>>> Personally I think it's pretty naive to believe that there can be a
>>> level of cooperation between KDE and Gnome in the face of spin offs
>>> like Unity, Cinnamon and Mate, which takes the diversity (and thus
>>> "fragmentation") even further. That alone should be a *huge* eye
>>> opener for people like you.
>>> 
>>> As a good GNU/Linux advocate I simply accept that one of the big
>>> strengths of GNU/Linux (diversity) also introduces a number of
>>> downsides.
>>> 
>> I think you are misunderstanding my point. The fact that you have
>> spinoffs such as the ones you list *back* my view - they do not
>> contradict it.  Programs made for Gnome work well in any of those
>> environments. And let me define "work well": I do not mean they just
>> run, or to run without crashing, I mean they "fit in" with each of
>> the environments
> 
> Not at all. While programs developed with Gnome 3 in mind will generally look
> well under Cinnamon (which is a fork of Gnome 3), they will look out of place
> under Mate, because Mate is a fork of Gnome 2 and still is based on Gtk2
> instead of Gtk3. Try it out if you like.
> 
I have worked with Cinnamon some and Mate even less. But if Gnome made it so
that programs that are made for Gnome 2 do not work well under Gnome 3 they
made a big mistake. Not that there might be *some* changes - after all, that
is how progress happens - but they should work mostly (and from what I have
seen they do). Do you have any examples?

>> - in the ways I have described that are well accepted to benefit
>> productivity, efficiency, and error reduction.  These are goals shared by
>> *all* of these projects that you list (and many more in the open source
>> community). For simplicity sake let's just refer to this as "usability" (not
>> that the things I have discussed are the only things that help build
>> usability, but they are a major factor).
>> 
>> Here, to show my point: Can you give an example of how a program written for
>> Gnome would not work well in a Cinnamon environment? In the Unity
>> Environment? In Mate? In what way are the competing options working against
>> the working *against* usability, intentionally or not? I have not worked
>> extensively with all of the environments so perhaps there are some ways, but
>> none come to mind off hand for me. If you cannot think of any then I think
>> this is a very strong sign that your claims are faulty.
>> 
> See above. Basically it boils down to Gtk3 vs. Gtk2 styles.

Can you give some examples of the differences you are thinking of?
 
>> With KDE and Gnome: Just because they have not co-operated more
>> fully than they already do
> 
> Already do? Can you give some examples of the Gnome and KDE teams
> actively working together?

Below I quote the KDE team talking about it. But just a few seconds on their
sites will show more examples. Here, just searching the KDE site for a few
seconds (literally):

<http://accessibility.kde.org/developer/atk.php>
    -----
    GNOME Accessibility Architecture (ATK and AT-SPI)

    This description of the GNOME Accessibility Architecture was written
    by Gunnar Schmi Dt as part of our development efforts for
    interoperable accessibility solutions.
    ----- 

There is also the KDE and GNOME Desktop Summit and other areas where they
work together.

Seriously, look at each site and see how much they speak of the other:

<http://bit.ly/14NBkyM>
<http://bit.ly/16D1f8X>

It is not as if each project is unaware of or hostile toward the other, nor
as if they are not aware of how their actions affect the other.

>> is not, to me, an indication that they will not work to achieve
>> their mutual goals in even better ways than they do now. Current
>> lack of success and a current lack of a specific focus to achieve
>> what they both want is not a sign that they will *always* fail.
>> 
>> Imagine if they always had shown the same level of defeatism as you
>> are showing here. The KDE project would never have been started (as
>> you have been shown, the primary goal of the project was - and
>> largely still is - to succeed in the ways I have described). Even if
>> started that would not have been enough. You are the one who
>> recently pointed me to Kubuntu to show how successful they have been
>> over the last few years... how much progress and success they *have*
>> had in the very ways I have been talking about *would* happen. I
>> have been proved, in that area, to be correct... and this was when
>> many of the "advocates" in COLA told me that what I was describing
>> was not needed, was not wanted, was not possible, or was even in
>> some way against the open source philosophy. I have *always*
>> disagree with that - to the contrary, improving usability is a very
>> big part of the wishes of most people in the open source community,
>> and I do not think anything will be able to stop the community from
>> improving in this area (and others) and getting better and better.
>> 
>> Remember: much of what I spoke of as a benefit for desktop Linux and
>> predicted would happen, and the "advocates" insisted I was wrong
>> about, *has* happened... so I have a good track record of showing an
>> understanding of these issues. This does not mean, of course, that
>> my predictions of the future are assured to come true, but I think
>> it is a bad idea to bet against me on this one.
>> 
>> One last thing: I did a quick search of the KDE and Gnome sites. I
>> did not find anything on the Gnome site to back what I am saying,
>> but read this from the KDE site:
>> 
>> <http://www.kde.org/presspage/>
>>     -----
>>     It is important to make the distinction described above. An
>>     application written with the KDE Development Platform can run
>>     anywhere and not just in the KDE Workspace, fitting in well on a
>>     Windows, Mac or Gnome desktop. Likewise, the KDE Workspace works
>>     well even with applications not written with the KDE Development
>>     Platform. It integrates application notifications and other such
>>     functionality thanks to extensive efforts to support
>>     standardization on the Free Desktop.
>>     -----
>> 
>> The KDE team recognizes the benefit of doing the very thing I speak
>> of!
> 
> KDE has always been more about standardization than Gnome. It may
> surprise you, but it's one of the reasons why I prefer KDE over Gnome.
> 
> One good example is how KDE adopted the "appmenu" thing from
> Canonical's Unity for the 4.10 release. They took an existing and very
> useful framework to offer even more flexibility to their users.

Thank you for an excellent specific example of the general behavior I expect
to see more of over the next few years.

> Where Canonical more or less forces Unity users to use the "detached" menus,
> KDE took and expanded that idea to offer their users more options. '

For better or worse, KDE does like to toss in lots and lots and lots of
options for users. There is good and bas to this, but the fact is they do.
But that does not go against what I am speaking about. They certainly do not
need to change this to achieve what I am talking about (nor would I expect
them to!)

> KDE users now can have the menu inside the application (ie. the "classic"
> method, detached at the top of the screen (ie. the Unity or OSX way)

Just a side note, but the "top of screen" menu is handled very differently
on Unity and OS X. 

> or in a button on the titlebar (a KDE novelty). I immediately switched to the
> last option, because - to me - it's the best one.
> 
> But this doesn't mean at all that there's even the slightest bit of
> cooperation between the Gnome and KDE teams to make both environments
> integrate with each other.

I do not think anyone is asking to have the environments themselves
"integrate" with each other - the idea is to allow program to integrate well
with either. 

>> You speak of competition. I am all for it. But competition does not
>> mean that cannot also cooperate - and they do.
> 
> Examples please?

See above... esp. the links to their own sites where they mention each
other. Other examples from merely moments of Googling:

An older story: 
<http://bit.ly/14NDT3F>
    -----
    Now that KDE and Gnome have decided to combine their Human Interface
    Guides, it can be done right--by the developers themselves. Note:
    they also want to involve 'people working on other non-KDE non-GNOME
    HIGs.'"
    -----

Now clearly that did not happen, but it is not like I am the only one noting
the value of them working together to make things better for users.

I think *both* teams (and many others) share the goal of making things
better for users. I have trust that the open source community can succeed
here. You seem not to. Time will tell.

>> It is not as black and white as you seem to believe - either all
>> cooperation or all competition. They can - and do - engage in both.



-- 
"It is absurd to punish anyone for having sex with someone of age 15 ‹ it is
normal for Americans of age 15 to have sex." -- Richard Stallman

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 22:26 +0000
  Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-03 16:48 -0700
    Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 06:08 +0000
      Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 00:24 -0700
        Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 14:01 +0200
          Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-06 08:33 -0400
            Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 13:53 +0100
              Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-06 08:57 -0400
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 14:05 +0100
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:53 -0700
              Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:52 -0700
            Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:50 -0700
          Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:35 -0700
            Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 23:44 +0000
              Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 18:15 -0700
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 16:56 +0000
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-08 10:39 -0700
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 20:12 +0200
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2013-04-09 16:19 -0400
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 15:31 -0700
              Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2013-04-07 08:49 +0200
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-07 09:06 -0700
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-07 17:02 +0000
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-07 10:43 -0700
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2013-04-08 07:36 -0500
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2013-04-08 11:28 -0500
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-08 09:44 -0700
          Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2013-04-06 14:49 -0400
            Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 12:04 -0700
            Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 20:16 +0000
              Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 13:28 -0700
            Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2013-04-06 22:56 +0100
              Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 15:09 -0700
            Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2013-04-08 07:45 -0500
              chrisv proves his cult-like tendencies again Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-08 06:57 -0700
                Re: chrisv proves his cult-like tendencies again Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 07:03 -0700
      Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2013-04-06 07:00 -0400
        Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2013-04-06 12:52 +0100
          Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:48 -0700
        Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:46 -0700

csiph-web