The competing Linux desktop projects have been a favorite source of flamewars for years. Criticism of Red Hat, the largest Linux distributor has also been good for large amounts of inflammatory content. So it's not surprising that those who like to argue have gotten even more mileage than usual out of the combination of the two topics.
The problem? Red Hat, it seems, has gone out of its way to configure the GNOME and KDE environments in its "null" beta to look (and act) alike. Red Hat's reasoning is fairly straightforward: they want to improve their desktop by minimizing incompatibilities and making use of the best of what each desktop environment has to offer. Critics complain that features have been configured out, the default behavior of the desktop has been changed, and that desktop "branding" suffers as a result of the configuration changes and mixing of applications.
The problem with these complaints, of course, is that both projects have released their desktops as free software. Red Hat may have applied a heavy hand with some of its changes, but the software involved was released under a license which allows far worse. When you make software free, you explicitly give up a great deal of control over what others can do with that software. Microsoft is able to dictate the appearance of its desktop to resellers; GNOME and KDE have given up that power.
The fact that the software is free means that any distributor can make whatever changes it wants in order to provide (what it sees as) the best desktop for its customers. Red Hat's exercise of this right is a good thing, even if the resulting desktop is a mess. If enough distributors put effort into improving the desktop they ship, the quality of Linux desktops as a whole can only improve. Any good ideas from Red Hat's work should spread; the rest can be ignored. Red Hat is functioning as part of the development process for both desktops.
And, in general, it is the right and responsibility of Linux distributors to make the changes they see fit (within the licensing requirements) to improve their products. The diversity of distributions is one of the great strengths of Linux. Why would we want to change that?
# avis de lwn.net
Posté par matiasf . En réponse à la dépêche KDE/GNOME: bientôt le jeu des 7 erreurs?. Évalué à 0.
The problem? Red Hat, it seems, has gone out of its way to configure the GNOME and KDE environments in its "null" beta to look (and act) alike. Red Hat's reasoning is fairly straightforward: they want to improve their desktop by minimizing incompatibilities and making use of the best of what each desktop environment has to offer. Critics complain that features have been configured out, the default behavior of the desktop has been changed, and that desktop "branding" suffers as a result of the configuration changes and mixing of applications.
The problem with these complaints, of course, is that both projects have released their desktops as free software. Red Hat may have applied a heavy hand with some of its changes, but the software involved was released under a license which allows far worse. When you make software free, you explicitly give up a great deal of control over what others can do with that software. Microsoft is able to dictate the appearance of its desktop to resellers; GNOME and KDE have given up that power.
The fact that the software is free means that any distributor can make whatever changes it wants in order to provide (what it sees as) the best desktop for its customers. Red Hat's exercise of this right is a good thing, even if the resulting desktop is a mess. If enough distributors put effort into improving the desktop they ship, the quality of Linux desktops as a whole can only improve. Any good ideas from Red Hat's work should spread; the rest can be ignored. Red Hat is functioning as part of the development process for both desktops.
And, in general, it is the right and responsibility of Linux distributors to make the changes they see fit (within the licensing requirements) to improve their products. The diversity of distributions is one of the great strengths of Linux. Why would we want to change that?