Comments on: OS != Distro http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/ Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:17:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: johnSchaffer http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2027 johnSchaffer Sat, 30 Dec 2006 11:27:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2027 GTK has never been good enough to build a platform on top of it, and as a result Gnome is seriously lacking as a development platform. As time progresses, the size of the desktop grows, and what is demanded from the platform is bigger than before. GTK is not up to the task, and this is why Gnome is evolving at a slower pace than before. Gnome hackers are aware of this, and Mono is only an example. I don’t think Mono is going to save the day though, for both technical and political issues. KDE on the other hand is a brilliant development platform, and has the technical abilities required to make desktop Linux happen, but until this day has not received a serious push from the rest industry. The perception is that no one wants to rely on Trolltech for their propietary developments. Not sure how much of that is true, though. Anyway, with Gnome very far technically from being up to the task, and with those doubts hanging over KDE, the future for desktop Linux does not seem very bright. More on topic… that Linux needs urgently standards and a global vision is the only sane thing to think. Maybe now that a millionaire is singing this same song something will happen and Linux will stop being chaos. Time will tell. GTK has never been good enough to build a platform on top of it, and as a result Gnome is seriously lacking as a development platform. As time progresses, the size of the desktop grows, and what is demanded from the platform is bigger than before. GTK is not up to the task, and this is why Gnome is evolving at a slower pace than before.

Gnome hackers are aware of this, and Mono is only an example. I don’t think Mono is going to save the day though, for both technical and political issues.

KDE on the other hand is a brilliant development platform, and has the technical abilities required to make desktop Linux happen, but until this day has not received a serious push from the rest industry. The perception is that no one wants to rely on Trolltech for their propietary developments. Not sure how much of that is true, though.

Anyway, with Gnome very far technically from being up to the task, and with those doubts hanging over KDE, the future for desktop Linux does not seem very bright.

More on topic… that Linux needs urgently standards and a global vision is the only sane thing to think. Maybe now that a millionaire is singing this same song something will happen and Linux will stop being chaos. Time will tell.

]]> By: Eugenia http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2022 Eugenia Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:06:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2022 At last, a reader who while <i>doesn’t</i> agree with me, he replies his disagreement in a very nice and <b>balanced</b> way rather than taking the easy way out of personally accusing me of agendas, the Gartner-effect on percentages and having eaten all the cookies from the jar (I might have done the latter though). Oliver, thank you very much for the comment. Noted. At last, a reader who while doesn’t agree with me, he replies his disagreement in a very nice and balanced way rather than taking the easy way out of personally accusing me of agendas, the Gartner-effect on percentages and having eaten all the cookies from the jar (I might have done the latter though).

Oliver, thank you very much for the comment. Noted.

]]> By: Ciprian Mustiata http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2025 Ciprian Mustiata Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:17:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2025 Eugenia: I’m fully agree with GTK+ development, that was slow down, right now only Mono can save GTK as a platform. The future of GNOME is as Miguel de Icaza said: that GNOME 4 should be written mainly in Mono. That will solve problems of performance, because Mono start became better and both in combination with GTK. GNOME needs to be a good platoform for develop, to make easy to maintain applications, to make easy to emerge the “Windows world”. Is hard to a C# developper to go to Linux and see that is no tool. Is hard for a C++ developper to work with GLib + GTK because are bad documented and has bad tools as you notice. And at the end is easier to go from C++ to C# than from C++ to C. I hope both in a cleaner implementation of GTK and a autogenerated documentation from source (like doxygen) at least or to move completly to C#, and that to make easier to maintain all GNOME project. Eugenia: I’m fully agree with GTK+ development, that was slow down, right now only Mono can save GTK as a platform. The future of GNOME is as Miguel de Icaza said: that GNOME 4 should be written mainly in Mono. That will solve problems of performance, because Mono start became better and both in combination with GTK. GNOME needs to be a good platoform for develop, to make easy to maintain applications, to make easy to emerge the “Windows world”. Is hard to a C# developper to go to Linux and see that is no tool. Is hard for a C++ developper to work with GLib + GTK because are bad documented and has bad tools as you notice. And at the end is easier to go from C++ to C# than from C++ to C. I hope both in a cleaner implementation of GTK and a autogenerated documentation from source (like doxygen) at least or to move completly to C#, and that to make easier to maintain all GNOME project.

]]> By: Mark http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2024 Mark Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:33:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2024 “GTK goes a lot slower than it used to be etc etc. DBUS and HAL and Fedora itself continue in a faster pace because thankfully, third party people have taken control of them” Yet another misleading claim. DBus and HAL are primarily developed and maintained by Red Hat developers even today. J5 and David Zeuthen if you didnt know the name. I dont know where you get the idea that third party people have taken “control” of them. “GTK goes a lot slower than it used to be etc etc. DBUS and HAL and Fedora itself continue in a faster pace because thankfully, third party people have taken control of them”

Yet another misleading claim. DBus and HAL are primarily developed and maintained by Red Hat developers even today. J5 and David Zeuthen if you didnt know the name. I dont know where you get the idea that third party people have taken “control” of them.

]]> By: Mark http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2023 Mark Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:24:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2023 “What agenda? Mark, this is the second time you reply to my blog and you accuse me of things that are not true.” You keep claiming incorrect things and I am repeatedly correcting you and you drop the conversation after that. I asked several questions which went unanswered yet again. “You come here with PREJUDICE against me. If you have a problem with me please include a REAL email address so we can settle this directly” There is no prejudice. Whenever I see incorrect claims made by people like you who are linked from news sites like osnews, I felt the need to correct those claims since people might be misled by this and would assume you have authentic sources for this. I dont want to get into a personal bickering over email. If you want to refute something I said, lets have a public discussion. Do try to verify your claims next time you make them so that atleast the basic facts are correct. “The figures are estimations and there to make a case, not to be substantiated in any way as 100% accurate” How did you make a estimate of 30%? Simply pulling figures out of nowhere is not a good strategy. Stats are meant to be used on a scientific basis. “What agenda?

Mark, this is the second time you reply to my blog and you accuse me of things that are not true.”

You keep claiming incorrect things and I am repeatedly correcting you and you drop the conversation after that. I asked several questions which went unanswered yet again.

“You come here with PREJUDICE against me. If you have a problem with me please include a REAL email address so we can settle this directly”

There is no prejudice. Whenever I see incorrect claims made by people like you who are linked from news sites like osnews, I felt the need to correct those claims since people might be misled by this and would assume you have authentic sources for this.

I dont want to get into a personal bickering over email. If you want to refute something I said, lets have a public discussion. Do try to verify your claims next time you make them so that atleast the basic facts are correct.

“The figures are estimations and there to make a case, not to be substantiated in any way as 100% accurate”

How did you make a estimate of 30%? Simply pulling figures out of nowhere is not a good strategy. Stats are meant to be used on a scientific basis.

]]> By: CPinto http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2026 CPinto Fri, 29 Dec 2006 03:50:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2026 Ciprian, I sincerly doubt that Mono will save GNOME from anything bad. A programming language, by itself, doesn’t make up a platform nor does it make it easier to create/develop a complex platform. Small disclaimer: I like Mono and choosing between Mono and C I’ll take Mono any day of the week mostly because my GNOME projects are hobbies/proof-of-concept and I want to get them done as quickly as possible so that I can enjoy them as soon as possible. That said, I think it’s time for hardcore programmers to take the passenger’s seat and let architects take the driver’s seat for a change, without having them go through the nonsense of proving themselves as programmers. In my opinion, much like Eugenia says, there aren’t enough people out there thinking about the bigger picture and it shows. Ciprian, I sincerly doubt that Mono will save GNOME from anything bad. A programming language, by itself, doesn’t make up a platform nor does it make it easier to create/develop a complex platform. Small disclaimer: I like Mono and choosing between Mono and C I’ll take Mono any day of the week mostly because my GNOME projects are hobbies/proof-of-concept and I want to get them done as quickly as possible so that I can enjoy them as soon as possible.

That said, I think it’s time for hardcore programmers to take the passenger’s seat and let architects take the driver’s seat for a change, without having them go through the nonsense of proving themselves as programmers. In my opinion, much like Eugenia says, there aren’t enough people out there thinking about the bigger picture and it shows.

]]> By: Ludovic Hirlimann http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2008 Ludovic Hirlimann Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:18:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2008 >BeOS 5 back in 2001 was delivering the same smooth experience as Mac OS X offers today (as long as you had a compatible PC that is). On a lot less powerfull hardware. >BeOS 5 back in 2001 was delivering the same smooth experience as Mac OS X offers today (as long as you had a compatible PC that is).

On a lot less powerfull hardware.

]]> By: Oliver Herold http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2021 Oliver Herold Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:58:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2021 Beeing very realistic or just to speak tacheles, there should me more cooperation in open source than just “hey let us do something new” (inventing the wheel over and over again), but the drawback would be a huge loss of variety imo. This “dictatorship” within Redmonds software development is maybe one part of its power, but on the other hand it’s a nemesis too. Because people tend to over-regulation, so in the end you have one nice feature like described above, but you have some nasty “addons” too over the time. Beeing very realistic or just to speak tacheles, there should me more cooperation in open source than just “hey let us do something new” (inventing the wheel over and over again), but the drawback would be a huge loss of variety imo. This “dictatorship” within Redmonds software development is maybe one part of its power, but on the other hand it’s a nemesis too. Because people tend to over-regulation, so in the end you have one nice feature like described above, but you have some nasty “addons” too over the time.

]]> By: Eugenia http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2020 Eugenia Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:40:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2020 >Then you must insist to remove the direct link to this story on the OSnews homepage. I won’t insist anything. This was Thom’s report and he took the decision as an active editor in chief to link to my blog because he judged that it was an on-topic reply to Mark’s blog (I was sleeping when Thom did so, I found out hours later, after I woke up). Besides, this is not the first time we link blogs! We do that ALL the time, on all kinds of blogs! It is up to the reader to figure out that some blogs are more ‘official’ in their content (e.g. Havoc’s or Mark’s) while other are more personal. Mine, is a personal blog. I mean, come on, it’s called “Eugenia’s RANTS and THOUGHTS”. And no, I won’t add a disclaimer that my opinions are not OSNews’, because I am NOT employed by OSNews. >Then you must insist to remove the direct link to this story on the OSnews homepage.

I won’t insist anything. This was Thom’s report and he took the decision as an active editor in chief to link to my blog because he judged that it was an on-topic reply to Mark’s blog (I was sleeping when Thom did so, I found out hours later, after I woke up). Besides, this is not the first time we link blogs! We do that ALL the time, on all kinds of blogs! It is up to the reader to figure out that some blogs are more ‘official’ in their content (e.g. Havoc’s or Mark’s) while other are more personal. Mine, is a personal blog. I mean, come on, it’s called “Eugenia’s RANTS and THOUGHTS”. And no, I won’t add a disclaimer that my opinions are not OSNews’, because I am NOT employed by OSNews.

]]> By: Martin http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2019 Martin Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:31:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/12/27/os-distro/#comment-2019 “You think too much of me as “Eugenia of osnews.com, a tech news site”, rather than “Eugenia, the geek”. Then you must insist to remove the direct link to this story on the OSnews homepage. You write and link articles yourself on Osnews so its not strange people mix-up your tech and fantasy figures. On Topic: I think you mix-up two things; a programmer/team who has to program an application wich has been designed by some think-tank team of a big software house and a or A programmer/team who has lots of fun in programming an application of which he publishes the source on the net. You try to fit an open-source way to fit in a commercial jacket. Working together does also mean forking, new ideas, new chances. I know form my own experience that lots of new and good ideas do often not make it into the software because of commercial thinking. You need both to get the best. There is no “getting it” “You think too much of me as “Eugenia of osnews.com, a tech news site”, rather than “Eugenia, the geek”.

Then you must insist to remove the direct link to this story on the OSnews homepage. You write and link articles yourself on Osnews so its not strange people mix-up your tech and fantasy figures.

On Topic:
I think you mix-up two things;

a programmer/team who has to program an application wich has been designed by some think-tank team of a big software house and a or A programmer/team who has lots of fun in programming an application of which he publishes the source on the net.

You try to fit an open-source way to fit in a commercial jacket. Working together does also mean forking, new ideas, new chances. I know form my own experience that lots of new and good ideas do often not make it into the software because of commercial thinking. You need both to get the best. There is no “getting it”

]]>