Rickey Moore wrote:
On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 15:38 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 14:26 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> I think moving KDE to Extras is not a bad idea because:
I think it is.
As a previous user of ximian for GNOME in replacement for RHL versions
of GNOME, running KDE either from its own repo, with its own updating
mechanism or as part of Extras would be beneficial to KDE.
I use GNOME but feel that the ventures where GNOME was compiled where it
had its independent updater and you could get a feel for the *real*
GNOME with grip, gftp, evolution, nautilus and all the packages RH did
not include at the time I used ximian.
Basically, projects as massive as GNOME, KDE, openoffice.org, mozilla
and the X server would work better if they were built on a stable core
Linux distribution. If Extras is used as a distribution repository for
large projects or stand-alone repositories are made for the projects,
they should all do well away from core.
> 1. Extras really should not be regarded as a "second class citizen" to
> Core in the first place, and
I wouldn't be sure. Though I on one hand agree that RH's work on KDE has
not been a "proof of excellence", on the other hand, I think, a couple of
overly ambitious KDE hackers in Extras could be harmful.
Dealing with programs that had bugs with the Fedora Extras people
demonstrated that the people are very sharp, thorough and largely
improve the program and aid RH to identify and patch problematic core
packages. The removal of hotplug and adapting the programs to use other
means is one recent incident.
> 2. It would be maintained in Extras by the same people that brought you
> the kde-redhat project, so you'd probably get better-packaged, more up
> to date releases than is currently possible in Core.
I believe KDE would enhance both core and the KDE user experience with
the move. I feel the comments regarding hotplug and a package from
extras would be repeated with KDE maintainers.
C.f. my comment to 1) above.
3. It would close out RH from a technology, other Linux distributors
consider to be essential. - If RH's management thinks they can afford
discoupling from KDE, ... future will tell who's right and who's wrong.
I almost switched over to Mandrake because Mandrake was RHL with KDE and
other packages that were not part of RHL. Mandrake was compatible to
upgrade an RHL distribution to Mandrake at that time. Basically, given
the choice of more or less packages available, I would tend to flock to
the distro that had more to offer. Mandrake was first to offer ISO
downloads for installation of the distribution.
At the time, RHL added KDE and the ability to download iso files to make
disks. I stayed with RHL.
4. It would close out KDE apps from Core.
So, I'd recommend somebody to write a central, essential application in
based on KDE, and RH will be in trouble.
In short, I don't think, moving KDE to Extras is helpful.
Well, the history of Red Hat/Gnome goes back aways when Red Hat hired
Michael Istanza (sp?)
and brought him into the inner sanctum. RH is a stickler for adherence
to the Open Source rules and the KDE / Troll-Tech license was not as
liberal then as it is now. Huge flame warz popped up all over the
Linuxsphere over that license and the possible satanic verses and
heresies contained therein.
It was the license isue as you note. I did not subscribe to any lists at
the time or visit forums much. To me, RHL did not offer an impressive
product like KDE and Mandrake offered it with their "RHL plus" distribution.
After the study of philosophy began in Greece, and
the philosophers, disagreeing amongst themselves,
had started many questions . . . because every man
took what opinion he pleased, each several opinion
was called a heresy; which signified no more than a
private opinion, without reference to truth or
falsehood. --Hobbes.
Redhat put some of it's IPO money where it's mouth was and funded a
bunch of the Gnome devel. What you see today is largely a result of that
investment and I doubt RedHat will throw in the towel readily in favor
of promoting KDE... which I happen to like more than Gnome. It's a
personal thing, my feelings and not my programming savvy lean towards
KDE. I just think it's easier for -me- to use. Back when I didn't like
the name calling flaming controversy, as the "Right Thing" would win
out. People will use what works best for them. That turned me off to
Gnome and the Stallmans of the world, full of 'shoulds', more than
anything.
The KDE interface looked too cartoonish to me over GNOME. GNOME offered
more over time via ximian exposure to the desktop. GNOME changes and
lack of listening to the users sort of neutralized my support as a fan
for GNOME. KDE still does not impress me for its animated to me
appearance and closeness to a MS feel.
With this decision, during install, gnome -WILL- be installed. Like it
or not. I personally do not like it, but there are probably elements of
the post-installation process that are geared for Gnome being there and
it really wouldn't make sense to develop procedures across two platform
lines. So, I can see a glimpse of logic there and, not being a coder, I
really am not prepared to mess up anything, re: post install setups.
So, I am 'in Acceptance', especially since I'm in Gift-Debt to Fedora
already. I would like to see just a tad of compromise in the form of an
explanation for the move in an announce to Fedora-Users list. Just to
keep us in the pipeline, respectfully, as rational thoughtful beings.
<chuckles> Ric
I believe the decision is highly motivated from an IPO environment.
Export, disassemble and give the money to the stockholders.
I work for a company that went IPO and liked the company when it was
privately owned and reinvested in itself.
No matter, Core is shrinking and programs/projects will need to be in
separate or within Extras structure because of the slimming down of core.
Jim
--
You will inherit millions of dollars.
