5 ms·

The only "fragmentation" GNOME directly caused was MATE being forked out of GNOME 2. Fragmentation is just the natural evolution of FOSS because there isn't a m

The only "fragmentation" GNOME directly caused was MATE being forked out of GNOME 2. Fragmentation is just the natural evolution of FOSS because there isn't a monopoly shoving license terms down the throat of every customer. GNOME's philosophy is kind of restrictive but they are not the one to blame for the fragmentation of the Linux desktop especially considering DEs and distributions are SEPARATE things and many distributions provide multiple DE options bundled at install.

still_grokking 4y ago
You need to look further into the past. If Gnome wouldn't had poped up Linux would have a standard desktop named KDE likely today. So the claim that they caused fragmentation seems not completely off.
- wmf 4y ago
  Nah, if GNOME never existed either KDE would have fragmented or people would have invented other DEs. You can't wish away diversity.
  - still_grokking 4y ago
    Why would KDE fragment, if it actually didn't? Also there are quite some other DEs. Only that there are just two big ones. If one of the big ones would not exist there would be a default one with the greatest market share. Normal people don't reinvent the wheel when there is no need for that… There was no need to split KDE. And Gnome exist solely for political reasons. Like I said, look at the history.
- ssnistfajen 4y ago
  There wouldn't be a single standard desktop with >80% usage regardless of whether GNOME existed, and KDE will merely be among one of many desktop environment options. That's just the nature of how things work in this space.
  - still_grokking 4y ago
    Look at the history. In the beginning there was only KDE. And it was regarded THE Unix desktop. No sane people worked on anything else! But than Gnome was created as a KDE clone. Solely for political reasons…
    - ssnistfajen 4y ago
      You are talking as if those two DEs are the only two options in existence. They are not. Xfce started development in 1996 ahead og GNOME. And if the "political reasons" you talked about were related to licensing issues with Qt, then GNOME is not the one to blame for. Asking people to look at the history is only going to make them discover the truth you don't want to admit.
      - still_grokking 4y ago
        The truth that some people were not able to negotiate but resorted to the most violent method possible to get their will? Yes, I hope people will discover that truth. And yes, it was the Gnome people who choose the nuclear option!
        ssnistfajen 4y ago
        If you have to use words like "most violent" and "nuclear" to describe a valid & normal act of launching free & open source software that everyone had the freedom of choice regarding whether to use it or not, you need to seriously re-evaluate your personal priorities and worldview. I use both GNOME and KDE daily for different use cases, and the fact that people like you who hold such views exist is downright disturbing.
    - nix23 4y ago
      >And it was regarded THE Unix desktop. That was CDE and for sure nothing like KDE or Gnome.
      - 4y ago
- LeFantome 4y ago
  If GNOME did not exist, KDE would have been commercial ( Qt at least ). To prevent that, an alternative to GNOME would have arisen. If KDE had not started with this flaw, I would agree with you. For the most part, the Linux Desktop has been a majority using some variation of GNOME with a dedicated minority using KDE. I have not used “GNOME” since the 2.x days but I have always been in the GNOME world. Even XFCE is really another base for GNOME. I have not used KDE since the 2.x days either but current Plasma is pretty good and I do not mind it. I put Big Linux on a laptop and have not taken its version on KDE off yet.
  - still_grokking 4y ago
    > If GNOME did not exist, KDE would have been commercial ( Qt at least ). To prevent that, an alternative to GNOME would have arisen. KDE wouldn't be commercial. Qt didn't have the ideal license back than but you could use it free. At the point KDE would be the de facto standard Unix desktop there would have been enough power behind that to arrive in the end at the exact same compromise regarding Qt that we have now, I'm quite sure. There was no need to split the Unix desktop forever, and cause infinite pain as a result, by invoking the nuclear option, which the Gnome people did! And given the further background story of one of the most prominent people behind that whole story you can even construct a reasonably believable "conspiracy theory" around the things that happened… ;-)

still_grokking 4y ago

You need to look further into the past. If Gnome wouldn't had poped up Linux would have a standard desktop named KDE likely today. So the claim that they caused fragmentation seems not completely off.

wmf 4y ago
Nah, if GNOME never existed either KDE would have fragmented or people would have invented other DEs. You can't wish away diversity.
- still_grokking 4y ago
  Why would KDE fragment, if it actually didn't? Also there are quite some other DEs. Only that there are just two big ones. If one of the big ones would not exist there would be a default one with the greatest market share. Normal people don't reinvent the wheel when there is no need for that… There was no need to split KDE. And Gnome exist solely for political reasons. Like I said, look at the history.
ssnistfajen 4y ago
There wouldn't be a single standard desktop with >80% usage regardless of whether GNOME existed, and KDE will merely be among one of many desktop environment options. That's just the nature of how things work in this space.
- still_grokking 4y ago
  Look at the history. In the beginning there was only KDE. And it was regarded THE Unix desktop. No sane people worked on anything else! But than Gnome was created as a KDE clone. Solely for political reasons…
  - ssnistfajen 4y ago
    You are talking as if those two DEs are the only two options in existence. They are not. Xfce started development in 1996 ahead og GNOME. And if the "political reasons" you talked about were related to licensing issues with Qt, then GNOME is not the one to blame for. Asking people to look at the history is only going to make them discover the truth you don't want to admit.
    - still_grokking 4y ago
      The truth that some people were not able to negotiate but resorted to the most violent method possible to get their will? Yes, I hope people will discover that truth. And yes, it was the Gnome people who choose the nuclear option!
      - ssnistfajen 4y ago
        If you have to use words like "most violent" and "nuclear" to describe a valid & normal act of launching free & open source software that everyone had the freedom of choice regarding whether to use it or not, you need to seriously re-evaluate your personal priorities and worldview. I use both GNOME and KDE daily for different use cases, and the fact that people like you who hold such views exist is downright disturbing.
  - nix23 4y ago
    >And it was regarded THE Unix desktop. That was CDE and for sure nothing like KDE or Gnome.
    - 4y ago
LeFantome 4y ago
If GNOME did not exist, KDE would have been commercial ( Qt at least ). To prevent that, an alternative to GNOME would have arisen. If KDE had not started with this flaw, I would agree with you. For the most part, the Linux Desktop has been a majority using some variation of GNOME with a dedicated minority using KDE. I have not used “GNOME” since the 2.x days but I have always been in the GNOME world. Even XFCE is really another base for GNOME. I have not used KDE since the 2.x days either but current Plasma is pretty good and I do not mind it. I put Big Linux on a laptop and have not taken its version on KDE off yet.
- still_grokking 4y ago
  > If GNOME did not exist, KDE would have been commercial ( Qt at least ). To prevent that, an alternative to GNOME would have arisen. KDE wouldn't be commercial. Qt didn't have the ideal license back than but you could use it free. At the point KDE would be the de facto standard Unix desktop there would have been enough power behind that to arrive in the end at the exact same compromise regarding Qt that we have now, I'm quite sure. There was no need to split the Unix desktop forever, and cause infinite pain as a result, by invoking the nuclear option, which the Gnome people did! And given the further background story of one of the most prominent people behind that whole story you can even construct a reasonably believable "conspiracy theory" around the things that happened… ;-)