Upgrade timing demotes KDE variant of Ubuntu Linux
There are two dominant software projects that provide Linux with a graphical user interface, but only one of them will get long-term support in Ubuntu's next version of the open-source operating system.
GNOME, the default user interface for Ubuntu, will receive the support, but KDE won't. The reason, according to Canonical, which sponsors Ubuntu and is trying to make a business of selling the support contracts, is simply that KDE is at an awkward transitional period between two versions, the old-line 3.5 and the imminent and significantly different 4.0.
Developer interest is focused on KDE 4.0, but it's not mature enough yet to use in the next KDE-based variation of Ubuntu, called Kubuntu, Scott James Remnant, leader of the Ubuntu Desktop team, said in an explanation to a Kubuntu mailing list. But most Kubuntu developers adding features "upstream" of today's products are focused on KDE 4.0, meaning that it's risky to release a long-term support version based on 3.5.
"Given the attention being paid to KDE 4, it is difficult to believe that this will not be the preferred release in three years' time," Remnant said. "The KDE upstream position appears clear: KDE 4 is the focus of developer attention; KDE 3.5 will be supported as long as KDE 4 isn't suitable for support."
Even though I'm among those who prefer KDE overall, I think Canonical's decision is sensible under the circumstances. And maybe, if we're lucky, this choice will be one small step toward moving beyond the problem that there have to be different Ubuntu flavors with different user interfaces in the first place. But more on that later.
Ubuntu 8.04, aka "Hardy Heron" and due in April 2008, will become the second version of Ubuntu Linux to receive Canonical's long-term support (LTS) designation. Most Ubuntu versions are supported for 18 months, but LTS products are supported for three years for desktop machines and five years for servers.
GNOME-based Ubuntu more popular
GNOME is dominant among Ubuntu users, accounting for about two-thirds of Ubuntu downloads, according to
The remaining third using KDE are a sizable minority, though, and Shuttleworth has taken pains to reassure them that KDE is a priority. Notably, in 2006, Shuttleworth became the first KDE "patron". He's since been joined by four other patron-level KDE sponsors.
Canonical's commercial interests aren't always aligned with community programming-project priorities, Remnant said.
"LTS' is a commercial-support commitment provided by Canonical, who shoulders the financial and administrative burden of doing so; as such, it is entirely their decision as to whether or not they provide that support for a particular release," Remnant said. "It is difficult for this decision to be made by the community because the community's stake in Kubuntu is one of personal achievement and pride, whereas Canonical's is financial and of commercial commitments."
One Kubuntu community member, Juan Carlos Torres, said on his blog that he isn't terribly happy with the decision, but he urged programmers to channel their energies into improving Kubuntu based on KDE 4.0.
"Kubuntu doesn't have the manpower to aggressively maintain two KDE versions. With this, we can focus our efforts on KDE 4 (and migrating KDE 3 utilities to KDE 4)," he said. "As Kubuntu shifts its gears towards KDE 4, we need as many hands as we can get."
KDE 4.0 is due to be released January 18 at the Google campus in Mountain View, Calif.
Wasted energy
I see this GNOME-KDE desktop interface split as a terrible waste of energy. It's based more a historical licensing artifact rather than on some engineering breakthrough.
KDE had the early lead among Linux users, compared to Unix interface predecessors such as CDE (Common Desktop Environment), but Miguel de Icaza, among others, started the GNOME project because of open-source licensing concerns regarding a collection of KDE user interface elements called Qt. By the time Qt developer Trolltech liberalized the license terms, GNOME had taken root, with support from companies such as Red Hat.
Now Linux users are stuck not just with two user interfaces, but often two sets of accompanying control panels, music players, modem-dialing utilities, command-line interface consoles, Web browsers, and more.
That's a lot of duplicative work for programmers, but there are other repercussions. Software companies have to decide whether to build their software using Qt or the GNOME analog, GTK+. Linux distributions that ship with both are bulkier, and running both takes up more memory, as multiple libraries are loaded into RAM. New Linux users are faced with confusing inconsistencies.
Open-source fans have long argued that there's healthy competition between KDE and GNOME. That's probably true, to an extent, but I don't see the differences as particularly profound; even my allegiance to KDE is pretty thin. Frankly, the more interesting rival is XFCE (used in an Ubuntu variant called Xubuntu), a spartan, utilitarian interface that forsakes glitz in favor of working on machines without vast quantities of memory, and the latest processors and graphics chips.
But the real competition here is with Microsoft Windows and Apple Mac OS X. All this overlapping work on KDE and GNOME could be put to better use, matching or beating the innovation and performance of proprietary operating-system interfaces.
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank. 
That said, I like using GNOME, but love programming in Qt. The good news is, I'm not stuck in an either-or proposition - I can do both.
From the outside, I can see where the need and desire for one overall desktop manager would exist.
OTOH, I had used fluxbox for years (Fluxbox is/was a stripped down built-for-speed Windows Manager that was simple, looked nice, and worked very well with what I wanted it to do).
That said, most of the grunt-work in coding for two (or more) WM's is mostly in the UI look-n-feel, and even then it's not a deal-breaker. One WM can pretty much run everything built primarily for the other. The only real diff you see is the look/feel aspects.
Overall, the market will out. SuSE is big into KDE, RedHat is big into GNOME, Ubuntu splits the diff, and eventually one of four things will happen:
* GNOME dies.
* KDE dies.
* something else comes along and kills both of 'em.
* someone gets an idea and combines the best elements of both.
I'm betting on the last bit. These days, the majority of the Linux user base couldn't care less about which one is better/worse/whatever (a far cry from as recently as, say, 2001).
I figure in about five years, the whole KDE vs. GNOME thing become about as quaint and pointless, as us old *nix-heads are in asking each other "emacs or vi?" when we greet a fellow *nix geek for the first time (e.g. it's mostly just an in-joke nowadays).
/P
I could be wrong. Bash won out as the default Linux shell (and of course I imprinted on tcsh), and Beryl and Compiz mananged to unfork into Compiz Fusion, so there are historical precedents that defy my pessimism.
If I were going to call it one way or the other, I'd predict GNOME will win. It's default in Ubuntu and Red Hat, Sun Microsystems contributes to it, and Novell broke with its KDE-allied Suse Linux history in 2005 by making GNOME the default (http://www.news.com/Suse-co-founder-leaves-Novell/2100-1010_3-5942300.html).
sts
Diversity is one of the trademarks of linux. But still... not having to worry if an application will run on your distribution would be highly benificial. After all, it's the applications that are the bread and butter in the world of computing.
It reminds me of the early days of desktop systems. Will you buy an Apple, Amiga or IBM PC? Perhaps you should choose OS2/Warp. You take a chance on any of them because you don't know who will be the winner in the end. How much time and resources do you want to invest only to find you are on the losing end?
It may make more sense to wait a bit for all this to settle out and become a non-issue.
Or it could just be sabre rattling for the sake of making news/getting free press/attention.
It doesn't help the Linux community's efforts to make inroads over OSX or Windows products though in the public perspective. Indecision and political issues internally only make it seem less stable and viable as an alternative than it really is.
advantages it has over GNOME (and vice-versa). Apple has Unix
under the hood and built a WM over it right? (I am just a novice so
don't slam me if I'm wrong) So pick one and flourish.
Vegaman_Dan is right, this "quibbling" is only gonna take energy
away from a common goal.
It is not an either or situation.
Also, read this: http://www.news.com/5208-13580_3-0.html?
forumID=1&threadID=33994&messageID=361365&start=0
Maybe the command line huh?
I only think it's a problem for support companies, or software developers. For the end user it just provides more choice. It might be harder for some, but support and development are supposed to be hard for the sake of the end user right?
It might be cool if they stripped KDE, and Gnome or some other and combined their best assets into something new and streamlined. But it wont' solve this problem. That would just create one more choice, which is fine by me.
A lot of people make the same mistake with Linux distributions. If they just made one good one then we wouldn't need all these distributions. But in reality creating another distribution just leads one more LiveCD sitting on the desk.
If they dropped support for Gnome and started working exclusively on KDE, then in a few months some programmers would notice that Gnome is falling behind and say well if no one else is working on it, I might as well. Then they?d take the Gnome source and start adding to it. We?d be right back where we started.
Linux doesn?t have a company like Apple or Microsoft to control its every move. Which is good because that means Linux users don?t have a big company like Apple or Microsoft controlling their every mouse click.
magazines.
Pointless, meandering...
Most likely scenario: this article is intended to be a slash-dot
flamebait article.
GNOME and KDE are not going to be conjoined. they're both too
different internally. So you can forget that happening ever.
KDE is more stable. GNOME looks more like windows so it is an
easier "sell" to suit and tie types.
XFCE is better in a lot of respects, because it accomplishes
mostly the same things without the wasted system resources.
All Canonical is saying is that KDE 3.5 is nearing end of life, so
it's not going to sell new long-term support contracts. KDE 4 is
not yet ready, so they can't sell anything on that yet.
Regarding duplication of graphical libraries, I can feel it on my old computer. On my KDE partition, I only use Qt applications; on mt Gnome partition, I only use Gtk applications. Moreover, mixing applications with different graphical libraries gives an inconsistent experience and look & feel. I just wish Qt were licensed with a 100% free license right from the beginning, there wouldn't have a need for an alternative DE.
- by MaxToTheMax August 1, 2008 11:04 AM PDT
- KDE and GNOME should not merge. Nuh-uh. I could be convinced that rewriting KDE to use GTK+ is a good idea, but then there'd be a bunch of orphand Qt applications. Until there's some kind of merged toolkit (QtK+, maybe?) that is completely compatible with each, I'm not buying it.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(19 Comments)