Linux.com

So the story is that there is no story and Nat's slides at the desktop linux conference about GNOME in Largo deployment were wrong?

#

*lmao*

#

Nat lied - he does so very often<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so what?

#

Nat didn't lie. They are moving to GNOME and Open Office.org. Nat didn't say that every single KDE desktop would be replaced by a GNOME desktop, although it's possible that will happen. Look at the reasoning behind it:

http://www.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=34650&ci<nobr>d<wbr></nobr> =80517

It just makes sense, folks. OpenOffice.org is moving to tight integration with GNOME. Evolution and gaim fit better with the GNOME desktop, and that's going to become even more compelling with the recent integration work being done via the bounties.

#

That's ridicolous!

To begin with, OOoGNOME integration is hardly "tight" since it isn't component based. There are, however, projects to integrate OOo tight with KDE. But as of today, none of these product exists so it's all vaporware. Why would you want to base a strategic IT descision on vaporware?

Evolution and GAIM are GNOME apps. But Aethera or Kontact and Kopete are better apps. They re-use you addressbook *today*, for example.

#

It would certainly appear that that is the case. Are Nat's slides available on the web somewhere?

#

Seems not. Go figure. Also appears that the brooklyn slides were changed.

#

Well, I am glad *that* is cleared up!
*huge sigh of relief*

#

What would be the point of migrating from KDE to Gnome? There's certainly no cost savings.

Is there a Novell connection? Are they going to standardize on SuSE as well? This could get interesting.

How about an update on what's happening with the City of Austin IT while you are at it?

#

Not sure why they are looking at Gnome. Maybe we'll find out next week. And yeah, it is time to see how Austin is doing with their Linux pilots.

#

One reason to consider Gnome over KDE is if they're thinking about writing some custom apps. If they want to release the code for these under a BSD license or leave them closed-source their choice is either a) to pay $2000/developer or b) use GTK. If they're concerned about money GTK is much more appealing than QT. In which case it would make more sense to use Gnome as their desktop.

Another possibility may just be that Gnome has a simpler and--in my opinion--more consistant interface. I've found that people new to Linux tend to pick up Gnome a little better than KDE.

#

you stole the words right off my keyboard, as being a GTK VSs QT issue, (& license issure maybe)

#

I think you have to read <A HREF="http://kdemyths.urbanlizard.com/mythTopic.php?topic=10" TITLE="urbanlizard.com">this</a urbanlizard.com> once in your life. And maybe people will stop with those stupid licencing issues...

#

Actually the interesting thing is that KDE has the vastly more consistant interface. Unlike Gnome which only now since 2.2 has really started to come together KDE has always been designed from the ground up as a system. Up until recently Gnome always felt like the patchwork of apps which made it up. Look at how Gnome for years kept yelling about how you should have "choice in Window managers" verses KDE with its solid single WM. After years of harping on that Gnome finally came around and followed the lead of KDE and standardized on a single Wm, Metacity.

Also unlike many of the popular Gnome apps which are mixed versions of GTK and look it, the popular KDE apps all blend together seemlessly. Everything drags and drops with each other and all the apps work together in harmony and also importantly look the same graphically. Gnome is just starting to working on things now that KDE had years ago. We are all of course hoping that Gnome finally gets a file selector as good as KDE had many years ago. I hold no grudge against Gnome, but from a technical standpoint KDE still provides the better experience throughout the whole Desktop Environment. Gnome IS catching up, but its still has a long way to go before it starts acting as consistant as KDE has for years.

#

You lie. Basically it's FUD from Ximian.

You're perfectly allowed to write BSD-licensed apps with KDE/Qt. Many people have done it and are still doing it, LEGALLY.

#

If there is a reason to pick Ximian over KDE it is the integration with OO.org I could believe that. However the arguments you provided are all utter BS. First of all KDE/Qt is enough more productive to develop on to easily justify $1500 for a license. Only an idiot or a zealot would not realize that it's a lot less than the $50K-$60K they're going to pay the guy to use it. At $50K that means it's paid for in 1 year with a 3% boost in efficiency which easily happens the first time you look for docs. That doesn't matter though because if they keep the application in house and don't distribute it there is NO licensing issue to begin with. Finally, KDE has long achived interface consistency with standard frameworks. You have to work to break consistency, unlike in Gnome where you are beat over the head to achieve it. Since Red hat has long been the leading distribution in the US and ships with a Gnome default desktop and KDE continues to be the favorite in surveys the rest of your post was either flame bait or people agreeing with you to get you to shut up.

Gnome is making great strides with their software, but still needs work on getting their zealots to stop FUDding KDE.

#

oh this FUDing just gets funnier.

so, the city of largo just turned commercial?
why on earth else would they want to distribute their apps without source???

anyway. gtk provides a *terrible*
development environment.

Alex

#

I expect FUD from MS, but here?

You need a license IFF
1) you want support from a company(the same thing is true of GNOME/gtk)
2) you want to release your apps to the world (or just a customer) and you wish to keep your app closed.;
Well, this is a city. They almost certainly will not be selling apps. And as to the 2K/developer, well that is dirt cheap to commercial entity (I do wish they would come up with turboQT so that small developers could do it without going down the GPL path).

As to the coding, I have done GTK, GNOME, QT, and KDE. I personally have found that QT and KDE are far suporier to GTK/GNOME. In addition, QT is very easy to pick up for newbies.

#

I've had exactly the opposite experience. GTK has been the nicest toolkit to work with when using the C++ bindings. It doesn't rely on primitive borked preprocessors, and it fully supports the STL rather than rolling its own half-backed classes.

Far superior... the only place it was slightly behind was documentation, and that was pretty good, just not quite as complete as Qt's. I'm a little tired of reading the assumptions that "Qt improves productivity over GTK, so it's worth $3000 for every developer you have working on a Qt app."

In my experience, GTK2 and GNOME2 have been every bit as *productive* as Qt/KDE, and my boss (like most) is a profoundly tight-fisted individual who would baulk at shelling out the sort of money to develop closed-source apps with Qt.

I'm not surprised that Largo is considering switching.

#

Actually, if they're going to roll out OpenOffice, then a migration to Ximian Desktop would probably be the best way to do it. Have you seen Ximian's version of OOo? It's easily the best implementation out there. They've tightly integrated it with FontConfig/Xft2, Ghostscript, and Gnome-VFS. It really feels like a Linux application rather than something portable that happened to land on Linux.

#

Bullshit. I am using the Debian OpenOffice version<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,which has integrated the sensible parts of the Ximian integration, e.g. the better icons. Everything you name helps KDE as a desktop just as well. I am using FontConfig/XFt2 and ghostscript. OO adapts to the font and colour I set in Kcontrol. It does look like a native app.

So all that might be missing is a kioslave patch for Openoffice. I agree that this would be nice, but I think most Desktop users would not need the desktop transparency in a thin client environment like Largo.

The mistake Ximian made in Largo? They let the users compare and test. Gnome will fail in any direct comparison.

#

"The mistake Ximian made in Largo? They let the users compare and test. Gnome will fail in any direct comparison. "

And if it doesn't? Can we quote you on that? Oh wait, you're an AR, nevermind.

#

Depends what they compare it against. If a commercialised Gnome in Ximian Desktop is beaten by a free KDE then that would be interesting.

#

GTK is a horrid toolkit compared to something like Qt. I'm sure we'll have Mono (it looks fairly good), but that won't be ready for god knows how long, not to mention the issues it has with Wine and such like. The supposed licensing issues are BS. You can use a variety of open source licenses. If you're making full commercial software (and looking for some strict ROI) paying for a Qt license makes sense, and it is actually what people want. KDE also has the marvellous Kiosk framework for thin clients and cut-down machines. If they use KDE they will already know this. Ximian have talked about something similar - and it is proprietary, which means Ximian desktop everywhere. We're not off to a good start are we?

The only reason for using Ximian is the integration Open Office has with the desktop environment. Gnome as a desktop now looks very spartan and just doesn't have the power of KDE at all, particularly on the development side.

#

Wow. What a complete load of FUD you can spew. GTK is an excellent tool kit. Please let us know what it cannot do that QT can.

The licensing isssue is real. As you said yourself, "You can use a variety of open source licenses". Maybe they may want to use a closed source one.

"paying for a Qt license makes sense, and it is actually what people want". What planet are you from. You may want that but I can garantee you that businessed do not.

"Gnome as a desktop now looks very spartan and just doesn't have the power of KDE at all". Crawal out from under your rock and actually try Gnome. KDE looks like a cluttered childs desktop, and don't even talk about power. They both do the same.

People like you, who have only used KDE and have no idea about Gnome should keep there uninformed opinions to themselves. So you like KDE, Great. Use it, but don't try to tell others that everything else is crap. It makes you look like a fool.

#

> "paying for a Qt license makes sense, and it is actually what people want".
> What planet are you from. You may want that but I can garantee you that businessed do not.

I see quite a lot of businesses using Qt for commercial non-opensource software though. Now, I admit that I'm a KDE user, so I'm probably biased, but with a quick search on google I couldn't find any commercial non-opensource software offerings based on GTK. Do you know any?

#

Off the top of my head - Solaris.

#

I think he meant specific commercial projects, not just OSs that simply use GTK.

#

shutterfly.com
helix realplayer
loki setup/games

#

Look at what Qt can do before you reply. You obviously don't know, so how can you claim it is FUD? In development tools terms, Gnome has absolutely nothing to compare to Qt Designer and KDevelop. Glade just doesn't even come close. That is a cast-iron fact. You can split hairs and talk about the merits of APIs and what-not, but Qt widgets and tools are just so much more refined. Look at the built in spell-checking etc. for textboxes and other items in Qt. GTK is a good toolkit, but it most certainly isn't on a par with Qt. It is apparent, even in just look and feel. Look at the following screenshot (and this is just a beta), compare it to something like Evolution, and tell me what most users are going to like. <A HREF="http://www.kontact.org/pics/kontact1.png" TITLE="kontact.org">http://www.kontact.org/pics/kontact1.png</a kontact.org>. You're obviously going to tell me something else, but you will know it to be true.

The licensing isssue is real. As you said yourself, "You can use a variety of open source licenses". Maybe they may want to use a closed source one.

No it isn't real, but people like Nat Friedman like to tell people it is. Using an open source license does not mean you have to release it to the world. People like Nat Friedman also paint the picture that it threatens open source licenses. Qt doesn't at all. What license you publish under is a consideration. A closed license is such a consideration, and it is a decision most companies will never need to take or know about unless they are involved in development.

What planet are you from. You may want that but I can garantee you that businessed do not.

Planet Earth (being able to spell businesses would be a good idea as well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)). I can guarantee you that businesses do want this, otherwise a company like Novell/Ximian would not think that it could get away with charging licenses for simple little free desktops. Ho, hum.

Crawal out from under your rock and actually try Gnome.

Already have. Gnome just doesn't have the development architecture underneath it and doesn't have the innovative features such as components like Kiosk, and even the printing system. They've tried to cut down on the Control Panel as well, with the side-effect that many good configuration features are missing.

KDE looks like a cluttered childs desktop, and don't even talk about power. They both do the same.

No they don't. Taking a hacksaw to a desktop environment does not add up to useability, and this is what has sadly been done to Gnome. KDE is far from being a child's desktop. Gnome tries hard to be, but fails. As I've already mentioned, where is a killer component like Kiosk? Where is a file manager that is on a par with Konqueror? I have never found them, apart from cut-down spartan looking versions. Look at the DCOP infrastructure in KDE. The Gnome people spent a heck of a lot of time re-inventing the wheel and came up with D-BUS.

People like you, who have only used KDE and have no idea about Gnome should keep there uninformed opinions to themselves.

People like you, who have only used Gnome and have no idea about KDE should keep there uninformed opinions to themselves. Where are the equivalent features in Gnome then?

So you like KDE, Great. Use it, but don't try to tell others that everything else is crap.

Try telling that to people like Nat Friedman. I certainly haven't. A lot of FUD and crap has been spat about KDE, particularly from the Gnome/Ximian people. People then, quite rightly, spit back and point out some uncomfortable home truths.

#

Look at the following screenshot (and this is just a beta), compare it to something like Evolution, and tell me what most users are going to like. http://www.kontact.org/pics/kontact1.png. You're obviously going to tell me something else, but you will know it to be true.

Okay I'm not the person you wanted to make tell lies, but I'll answer to you anyway.
So Kontact has got all those nice icons and fluffy colors, so that's what you KDE people look for when you choose program no wonder why it's so "superior" in your eyes. How about usability, speed, features etc. instead of those spunky graphics so many people seem to worship?

Where is a file manager that is on a par with Konqueror? I have never found them, apart from cut-down spartan looking versions.

Well, on par with Konqueror? Let's see.. hmm.. no I don't know many as bad. Ever tried using a program that is really meant for managing files, not again some this-is-far-from-spartan-look-all-these-3d-effect<nobr>s<wbr></nobr> .
Actually I don't use gnome or kde anymore when I found ROX desktop I have not looked back. Try ROX filer (and actually read the manual to find out what it can do), then come back and tell what's so file-managerish about konqueror.

#

Well, only geeks like you like ugly desktops like rox, icewm,xcfe, ion, etc. The common people like pretty desktops easy to use, like KDE or Gnome. Sure, it can do what *you* need it to do, but as it sounds you are a freaking geek, you don´t care about such things like "all those nice icons and fluffy colors", but I have a notice for you, MOST OF COMPUTER USERS AREN´T GEEKS LIKE YOU, they want to do things as easy as possible, like KDE or Gnome does for them. So please, look around you, get out of your geek hole and look at real life.

As wich one of KDE or Gnome is better, both are excellent desktops, but I have to admit that KDE is prettier and has a better design arquitechture than Gnome. To not have to install 10 extra libraries to compile for example MrProject (nice app!!)it´s a very clear example of why KDE it´s a better development enviroment than Gnome. About Gnome´s usability, I can´t tell, I have used very little Gnome, I can only tell you that GTK is ugly. I also don´t know if Gnome´s file manager is better than konqueror, but I can tell you that konqueror it´s a great file manager AND internet browser.

#

Well, only geeks like you like ugly desktops like rox, icewm,xcfe, ion, etc. The common people like pretty desktops easy to use, like KDE or Gnome.

Yeah and only fools who believe in this "love" shit ever date chicks that think, most people will only go after good looks, nothing else matters.

MOST OF COMPUTER USERS AREN´T GEEKS LIKE YOU, they want to do things as easy as possible, like KDE or Gnome does for them.

Wow man I guess you have your own definition of easy. I think easy means something that I can do with as few steps as possible. I know it is also called efficiency, but aren't less steps to do to also easier to learn? Your seem to think that "windows = easy" -> "more like windows -> easier". Just think a moment about just how long have you been learning how things are done in windows.
When someone invets a better way to do something there are always people like you who say "this is nothing like we're used to, so it's not easy, therefore it's not good", is that progress for you? If people like you would've been telling what's good, you'd still use an abacus to calculate things.

#

About Gnome´s usability, I can´t tell, I have used very little Gnome, I can only tell you that GTK is ugly.

See this is where all the confusion is coming from. GTK isn't ugly, it's a widget set. How it looks is mostly related to the choice of theme used with GTK.

As it happens, I actually prefer the GTK default theme and themes like it over the bright, glaring themes used with KDE.

It's personal choice, but as a person who works with images a lot, I want a desktop that doesn't actually try to stand out, but instead is just there to be used. Anyone who works with colors a lot will tell you that brightly colored desktops often affect the way you view colors used in designs and that you really need a neutral colored desktop to be sure of what you're seeing. Why do you thing the Mac desktop was grey all those years, and why do you think they still include a grey theme option?

The widget set doesn't really have anything to do with how the widgets are colored or look. I'm sure that if someone really wanted a KDE looking theme on their Gnome desktop this wouldn't be too hard. In fact, with the great work being done at freedesktop.org it just might be that this work will be done without any work being done. Thank God for standards. But even better, if we can run the same theme on two desktops maybe we can end these mindless my desktop looks better than yours so therefor everything else must be better about it debates and actually just compare other parts of the desktop.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-]

#

So Kontact has got all those nice icons and fluffy colors, so that's what you KDE people look for when you choose program no wonder why it's so "superior" in your eyes. How about usability, speed, features etc. instead of those spunky graphics so many people seem to worship?

Nice looking apps certainly do matter. However, that doesn't mean you can't have nice looking apps and good useability at the same time. In terms of useability, speed and certainly features, a KDE app like Kontact has it all.

#

Nice looking apps certainly do matter. However, that doesn't mean you can't have nice looking apps and good useability at the same time. In terms of useability, speed and certainly features, a KDE app like Kontact has it all.

Well, what I meant was that everything that you could get out of that screenshot was that it was nice looking, and I was asking if that's the only thing that matters. Also, I'm not saying all these thing couldn't peacefully coexist, they just have different priorities for different people. So, I mostly agree. Still, I have yet to see KDE act fast.

#

You know when I used RedHat 7.3 Gnome was it. I would not use KDE period. I tried it and didnt like it. I finally got around to RedHat 9 I still think I liked 7.3 better. But anyway Gnome is so crippled now that KDE is the only desktop to use. I have used Slack and KDE is the way to go. The same with SuSe.
It is a shame that Gnome has been run into the ground. KDE is much more stable and powerful now.

#

I liked GNOME 1.4 a lot, too. When I went to RedHat 9, I wasn't quite sure that I liked it. I couldn't change every little thing about the desktop. I seemed to have lost control. However, once I started delving into the GNOME 2.2/XD2 features and understood what I could change, there was little that I missed about the 1.4 desktop. GNOME 2.2 was simpler and cleaner. I realized that I appreciated this cleanliness and simplicity. Soon, my desire for the old GNOME 1.4 faded away. I found the beauty of the new GNOME 2.2. I understand that GNOME 2.4 puts some of the configurability back into GNOME 2.x but I honestly don't need it. I spend less time configuring my desktop and more time working. GNOME 2.x's ability to change the theme for all GNOME applications at once is very nice. I couldn't do this with GNOME 1.4. In summary, I definitely love GNOME 2.x. I just upgraded my father's computer to XD2 (GNOME 2.2) on RedHat 9 and I know that he will appreciate the stability, cleanliness, and simplicity of his updated interface.

#

All-

      Harold and I will construct a message and post it here on Monday with more detailed information about our internal testing processes of the new versions of KDE and GNOME. It's a 4 day holiday for us. Go enjoy some turkey!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

Dave Richards
City of Largo, Florida

#

Amen!!

#

Thanks for paying attention to the forum. I'm looking forward to the procedures and results

#

Dave:

I am especially interested in your migration from WP to OOo. I am the sys admin for a small law firm, and we are considering various options for migrating off of our NetWare 5 / Win 98 / WP 8 system(s). OpenOffice caught my attention way back when it's code was first released. I like what I've seen in the assorted beta versions I've tried. Can you offer any insights or advise or resources??

Thanks,
Cyril Allen

#

Hello From Largo:


        I am busy right now converting users to OpenOffice.org but there were some issues that came up that warranted responses.


        When the reporter called and talked to Harold about our internal testing of GNOME, Harold mentioned to him the news that I thought was even bigger: We are migrating the entire City to OpenOffice.org! It's taken over a year of work, training and testing to get to the point that we can merge WordPerfect for Unix, Excel and Powerpoint (running on Citrix Metaframe) into one integrated suite on running in Linux. We are using the excellent libwpd filter to migrate documents. We are physically changing all WP documents into OO documents so that we aren't converting them back and forth forever. The project for this filter is: http://libwpd.sourceforge.net


        I really don't get the religious war that seems to come up when KDE and GNOME are discussed. I have always enjoyed having two options and have been testing both of them for years now. We have been on KDE since around 1999 and it's worked really well for us. We are in the process of upgrading our desktop servers and it's my job to offer all alternatives for consideration to my boss and our Directors. The City is on KDE 2.2 currently. There were some issues with KDE 3 when testing was performed that are not design flaws, but would have meant straying from the default OS builds that come directly from RedHat. The are mostly issues related to our deployment:

1)Certain fonts in the font servers cause very sluggish performance in KDE on remote displays. The pulldown menus and screen paints were sometimes very slow. The fix was to take the time to find all of the offending fonts and remove them, but that would have meant having to do the same thing every time that we upgrade operating systems.

2)RedHat by default links in GL into QT. And unfortunately when our terminals were produced GL was a “licensed feature” and what happens is that the terminals detect GL and attempt to find a license manager which does not exist. The fix was to recompile QT by hand and disable GL, and then recompile all of KDE. This mean as well straying from the default distribution.

While you can pretty much do anything you want on a standalone computer at your house, it is a far bigger decision to stray from the stock distribution in a work environment and still expect support.

One thing that many of the people that responded to the news don't understand is how little of the desktop we actually use. We take out most of the software that comes with the either KDE or GNOME and install all of our own applications. In house software is written in a toolkit we have that lets you instantly deploy on all of the Unix/Linux flavors and uses Motif widgets at this time. It provides very rapid software deployment without any low level language knowledge.

Here is what we use the desktop systems for:

*) Authentication via XDMCP
*) Font/Wallpaper/Color selections
*) Screensaver
*) Screen Lock
*) Software activation via customized menus

(That is it!)

As is the case in many/most office environments, 70% of the software used is from a very small group of packages:

*) Email – Evolution (GNOME)
*) Automation – Openoffice.org (Moving to tighter GNOME integration).
*) GAIM – (GNOME)
*) Mozilla
*) Helix (GNOME)

The rest of our software boils down to connectivity:

*) Xwindows/Motif in-house apps started via rsh
*) IBM 3270 emulation via X3270
*) VT220 emulation via xterm/gnome-terminal/konsole
*) ICA sessions to Citrix Metaframe

In reviewing this list, it became clear that we should look again at GNOME. We contacted Ximian and worked through some initial problems. There were some endian bugs in GNOME and some performance issues related to remote display. Just as we had a working KDE 3.x prototype system several months ago, we now having a working GNOME/XD2 prototype system and are testing it.

The next step will be a formal memo to our boss with the pros and cons of each desktop environment and then it will be taken to the City Directors for discussion and review.

We aren't “selling out” in any respect, we simply are reviewing all options and enjoying the fruits of open source software.

I am almost done with a white paper describing how our network is designed, and how all of the pieces work. I hope to submit it to Slashdot and anyone interested early in 2004.

Thanks for your interest in Largo.

#

I think most people will agree (outside microsoft and microsoft sponosored research) that Linux and OpenOffice offer huge savings and advantages to governments (both local and national) around the world.

I think its understandable however why many governments are hesitant about suddenly switching thousands of users to Linux.

One thing I can't understand however is why most don't switch many users straight away to StarOffice or OpenOffice.

These office suites represent massive cost savings over Microsoft Office, are fully compatible with documents created in Microsoft Office, yet have an almost identical user enviroment which means employee's won't find switching a chore.

Plus if/when many of the agencies do finally switch to Linux, there will be even less of a enviroment difference as the main application they use will look exactly the same.

#

Are you going to describe the upcoming future features in KDE, like Kontact? Complaining about Red Hat's installation of KDE seems unfair, since Red Hat cripples Qt anyway.

#

Are you going to describe the upcoming future features in KDE, like Kontact?

Why would he bother -- he's not on that project and he's interested in deployment issues, not app choice issues. As he said, they use *very few* apps except what they have chosen to place on the customized menus. I bet the vast majority of programs on those menus are also custom or are viewed through terminal windows.

Complaining about Red Hat's installation of KDE seems unfair, since Red Hat cripples Qt anyway.

I'm sure he's aware of how Red Hat handles QT. The comments he made weren't complaints (I didn't read them that way), they were statements of fact.

#

Who the hell is this person? It could be anyone trying to tell us that Gnome is better yada, yada, yada.

#