derStandard.at: It looks like everyone has chosen GNOME as their default desktop, do you think that observation is true?
Shuttleworth: Yeah, but I don't think that's as definitive as that. If I look at the work that has been done in the KDE community, it is very vibrant. I use KDE on my desktop, I enjoy seeing the pace of change there, there is a lot of innovation in KDE4. I think the KDE guys have a point when they say their approach has made it easier for them to make leaps forward than the GNOME approach which has very predictable release schedules. The flipside to that is that this predictability and also the choice of the LGPL has made GNOME very good for business.
Rather than saying: "GNOME wins, KDE looses" I'd like us to say: "How can we get this communities to sit down and talk to each other"? We really need to have both, stable release cycles and the ability to evolve quickly and make big leaps like KDE4.
I'm very interested in finding out, how to get those two communities working closer together, how to get more collaboration, more sharing. Both at the level of technology but also at the level of best practices / processes.
derStandard.at: Talking to Nokia, it seems like they are interested in pushing this as well.
Shuttleworth: Well they just acquired Trolltech, so it makes sense for them. A lot is going to depend on what Nokia is going to do from a licensing point of view. And separately what GNOME is going to do if Nokia makes the Qt-licenses effectively compatible with the GNOME vision, can they embrace Qt as a platform?
derStandard.at: So you would favor GNOME to switch over to Qt?
Shuttleworth: Well, I think it would be perfectly possible to deliver the values of GNOME on top of Qt. There are licensing issues, GNOME is very much built on the LGPL, allowing companies to build their own products on a free software system, giving them some freedom and flexibility in their choice of licensing. That's very frankly been a huge drive for the adoption of GNOME by corporate ISVs.
Whether we'll be able to have the FSF excited about something, have GNOME excited about something, have Nokia excited about something which makes life better for developers - that's gonna be the interesting challenge for me. I'd like to see both desktops focusing on a common infrastructure. And we've already seen that, a lot of the Freedesktop initiatives have been embraced by both projects - HAL, d-bus for instance.
This also applies to other software projects, if you name your project g-something or k-something your are articulating a very specific user experience. Projects should really look to the whole Linux desktop and see how they can appeal to both sides.
1. Il nous parle de collaboration entre KDE et GNOME alors que sa distrib est incapable de remonter quoi que ce soit de convenable upstream. Sa vieille habitude de donneur de leçons : "faites ce que je dis, pas ce que je fais".
2. "Well, I think it would be perfectly possible to deliver the values of GNOME on top of Qt. [...] I'd like to see both desktops focusing on a common infrastructure."
En gros il dit que si Nokia change la licence de Qt, ce serait bien que tout le monde utilise le même toolkit, c'est à dire Qt. En quoi ma remarque est fausse ? Il joue au ni oui ni non, m'enfin ça me parait clair quand même. Et une fois de plus, ils se voit comme le gars qui guide les troupes, le "messie" qui travaille à la cohésion du desktop libre.
GNOME et KDE ont des équipes pour guider et gérer les projets. Et ça commence à me gonfler que Mark tente de s'approprier tout le mérite du moindre truc qui peut être fait. Ce type a un ego surdiimensionné.
J'emprunte pour finir une phrase de vuntz: "The thing is: in an existing community, you can't be a leader by just saying you are in a position to be a leader. You become a leader with time, based on what you did in the past."
[^] # Re: Notre incommensurable bêtise
Posté par liberforce (site web personnel, Mastodon) . En réponse au journal La controverse Canonical. Évalué à 3.
Shuttleworth: Yeah, but I don't think that's as definitive as that. If I look at the work that has been done in the KDE community, it is very vibrant. I use KDE on my desktop, I enjoy seeing the pace of change there, there is a lot of innovation in KDE4. I think the KDE guys have a point when they say their approach has made it easier for them to make leaps forward than the GNOME approach which has very predictable release schedules. The flipside to that is that this predictability and also the choice of the LGPL has made GNOME very good for business.
Rather than saying: "GNOME wins, KDE looses" I'd like us to say: "How can we get this communities to sit down and talk to each other"? We really need to have both, stable release cycles and the ability to evolve quickly and make big leaps like KDE4.
I'm very interested in finding out, how to get those two communities working closer together, how to get more collaboration, more sharing. Both at the level of technology but also at the level of best practices / processes.
derStandard.at: Talking to Nokia, it seems like they are interested in pushing this as well.
Shuttleworth: Well they just acquired Trolltech, so it makes sense for them. A lot is going to depend on what Nokia is going to do from a licensing point of view. And separately what GNOME is going to do if Nokia makes the Qt-licenses effectively compatible with the GNOME vision, can they embrace Qt as a platform?
derStandard.at: So you would favor GNOME to switch over to Qt?
Shuttleworth: Well, I think it would be perfectly possible to deliver the values of GNOME on top of Qt. There are licensing issues, GNOME is very much built on the LGPL, allowing companies to build their own products on a free software system, giving them some freedom and flexibility in their choice of licensing. That's very frankly been a huge drive for the adoption of GNOME by corporate ISVs.
Whether we'll be able to have the FSF excited about something, have GNOME excited about something, have Nokia excited about something which makes life better for developers - that's gonna be the interesting challenge for me. I'd like to see both desktops focusing on a common infrastructure. And we've already seen that, a lot of the Freedesktop initiatives have been embraced by both projects - HAL, d-bus for instance.
This also applies to other software projects, if you name your project g-something or k-something your are articulating a very specific user experience. Projects should really look to the whole Linux desktop and see how they can appeal to both sides.
1. Il nous parle de collaboration entre KDE et GNOME alors que sa distrib est incapable de remonter quoi que ce soit de convenable upstream. Sa vieille habitude de donneur de leçons : "faites ce que je dis, pas ce que je fais".
2. "Well, I think it would be perfectly possible to deliver the values of GNOME on top of Qt. [...] I'd like to see both desktops focusing on a common infrastructure."
En gros il dit que si Nokia change la licence de Qt, ce serait bien que tout le monde utilise le même toolkit, c'est à dire Qt. En quoi ma remarque est fausse ? Il joue au ni oui ni non, m'enfin ça me parait clair quand même. Et une fois de plus, ils se voit comme le gars qui guide les troupes, le "messie" qui travaille à la cohésion du desktop libre.
Ça n'échappe pas non plus au gars le plus modeste que je connaisse (membre du Foundation Board GNOME pour ceux qui ne connaissent pas):
http://www.vuntz.net/journal/2008/09/12/488-canonical-upstre(...)
GNOME et KDE ont des équipes pour guider et gérer les projets. Et ça commence à me gonfler que Mark tente de s'approprier tout le mérite du moindre truc qui peut être fait. Ce type a un ego surdiimensionné.
J'emprunte pour finir une phrase de vuntz:
"The thing is: in an existing community, you can't be a leader by just saying you are in a position to be a leader. You become a leader with time, based on what you did in the past."