4 ms·

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 caus

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.
    - still_grokking 4y ago
      KDE was regarded the spiritual successor of CDE.
      - nix23 4y ago
        KDE was not "THE UNIX DESKTOP"...it never was, not for a single UNIX. If anything Gnome (aka Java Desktop) was a Unix Desktop (SUN Solaris) and is it still for Oracle Solaris.
  - hjkl0 4y ago
    You’re talking about Gnome as if it’s an end onto itself. But it did not appear out of thin air just to disrupt KDE’s dominance. Look at the history again. Look at the names on the emails and posts. It was done by people, because they wanted it done. For “solely political reasons”? But that’s exactly what politics means: making sure people get what they want. As opposed to everyone having what you want.
    - still_grokking 4y ago
      > You’re talking about Gnome as if it’s an end onto itself. But it did not appear out of thin air just to disrupt KDE’s dominance. It did exactly this! Gnome was created because some people didn't like the Qt license. There had been zero technical reasons. Still people decided to start form scratch just to have a different license. > Look at the names on the emails and posts. Good point! There is one very special name on that list. Someone who turned out being a Microsoft u-boot according to some very popular "conspiracy theory"… So if you like conspiracy theories you may add "divide et impera" to the possible reasons for the existence of Gnome. ;-) > But that’s exactly what politics means: making sure people get what they want. As opposed to everyone having what you want. It's irrelevant what I would like to have. The relevant question was and is what would have been best for the Linux desktop as a whole. Do you really want to argue that the miserable split where everything gets done at least twice is a good outcome?
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… ;-)

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.
  - still_grokking 4y ago
    KDE was regarded the spiritual successor of CDE.
    - nix23 4y ago
      KDE was not "THE UNIX DESKTOP"...it never was, not for a single UNIX. If anything Gnome (aka Java Desktop) was a Unix Desktop (SUN Solaris) and is it still for Oracle Solaris.
- hjkl0 4y ago
  You’re talking about Gnome as if it’s an end onto itself. But it did not appear out of thin air just to disrupt KDE’s dominance. Look at the history again. Look at the names on the emails and posts. It was done by people, because they wanted it done. For “solely political reasons”? But that’s exactly what politics means: making sure people get what they want. As opposed to everyone having what you want.
  - still_grokking 4y ago
    > You’re talking about Gnome as if it’s an end onto itself. But it did not appear out of thin air just to disrupt KDE’s dominance. It did exactly this! Gnome was created because some people didn't like the Qt license. There had been zero technical reasons. Still people decided to start form scratch just to have a different license. > Look at the names on the emails and posts. Good point! There is one very special name on that list. Someone who turned out being a Microsoft u-boot according to some very popular "conspiracy theory"… So if you like conspiracy theories you may add "divide et impera" to the possible reasons for the existence of Gnome. ;-) > But that’s exactly what politics means: making sure people get what they want. As opposed to everyone having what you want. It's irrelevant what I would like to have. The relevant question was and is what would have been best for the Linux desktop as a whole. Do you really want to argue that the miserable split where everything gets done at least twice is a good outcome?

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… ;-)