micke at imendio.com
Sat Mar 5 14:47:08 PST 2005
Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-03-05 at 10:48 -0500, Zack Rusin wrote:
> Changes in the existing applications WILL be needed. Lots of. The KDE
> applications will need MASSIVE changes. Try selling a generic
> configuration system by telling them:
> - You guys will basically need to rewrite 25% of your applications
> - We won't need to do one single thing
> - Cool don't you think?
So, it would be better to say, you need to rewrite most of your
applications but to make you happy we will as well so we will both have
to spend all of our time in rewriting things?
>>- We do not give a damn whether a name has d, g, h, z, u or any letter
>>you can come up. And before someone asks, yes, that includes all
> BTW. What I'm really trying to say is that we need to start working
> together and that I'm getting tired of non-technical discussions about
> the differences between KDE and GNOME and reasons not to work together
> based on non-technical decisions.
We already have started working together but you can't expect things to
change over night. Both KDE and GNOME has a compatibility assurance to
support and can't replace huge parts of their desktops within a major
release. In GNOME this means we can't do anything that would make a
binary incompatibility within the GNOME 2.X series. I don't know what
rules KDE are using but my guess is that they are similar.
So for changes to go in it would mean that they would go into GNOME 3.X
and KDE 4.X.
> Also: I KNOW that the real KDE developers aren't those kids that I've
> been describing. I'm fully aware of that. I do KNOW that the real KDE
> developers are professionals in that aspect.
And in such a decision it's ONLY the real KDE developers that count. So
you don't have to please the hang-arounds by doing things to cover the
real background of a library.
If you really want to work on this, do some real work. By looking into
KDE's need in a configuration system, and also, look into whether GConf
is everything GNOME need/want as well. There definitely is room for
improvements in GConf, let's start in that end instead. Define the
requirements for both desktops (and possibly others), see if GConf would
be suitable for this instead of the other way around (let's see how we
can push GConf).
Maybe we come to the conclusion that something new all together would be
best. Something designed and modelled after our and KDE's experiences
with current solutions.
Imendio AB, http://www.imendio.com/
More information about the dbus