[CS-FSLUG] Re: [Foss-cafe] NI: OfB.biz: I GNU It!

[tbutler at ofb.biz]

Hi Nathan,
> Tim for what it's worth I can see some of your points about Qt, but I
> can't help but feel that you're biased in favour of GTK and you're
> taking some cheap shots for all they're worth.

Nah. I try to use them for more than they are worth. :-P

> Qt licensing issues as far as how they pertain to KDE are addressed
> with the KDE Qt Free Foundation
> http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php and because it's
> GPLed anyway there is nothing stopping people from forking Qt.

The Foundation isn't really relevant to my concern, since it only 
addresses what
happens if Qt/Free is discontinued. Forking Qt is not an option, since that
would give KDE an incompatible branch of a GPL'ed library, hence eventually
making it impossible to write commercial programs... even with a license (e.g.
say KDE forks Qt 3... when Trolltech quits selling Qt 3 licenses, and KDE has
KQt 6, which is technically still Qt 3, and Trolltech only sells Qt 4 or 5
licenses...).

The Foundation needs to guarantee that Qt/Commercial licenses will never cost
over $X dollars if you want commercial developers to like KDE. Here's the
thing: Trolltech folks might be nice guys -- they are, I've talked to a lot of
them, including a phone interview I did with the CEO awhile back -- but they
answer to the investors. If KDE ever took off, are the investors going to be
"nice guys" and only what $2,000 for a commercial license or are they going to
want more? You can bet they'd want more. Suddenly, it might be $10,000 per
developer. As I said in one of the articles. IBM trusted a "harmless" company
once by basing its PC's on a product that it worked with that company to
develop, much like KDE people work with Qt developers.

Microsoft is now one of the world's largest and most monopolistically abusive
companies operating... and yet, they don't make you pay even $2,000 to write
Windows apps.

> I'm no happier than the next person about the price of Qt license, but
> right now it seems to be the best toolkit out there for me. I've
> looked at wxWidgets and GTK+ and so far Qt has had the advantage every
> time because of its design.

Well, see the difference, is that I look at this as an end user, and you are
looking at it as a developer. I agree KDE is designed better, but that doesn't
matter to me as an end user, only as a techie.

Put another way: I use cPanel on my web server. I think it is designed 
horribly
when it comes to its infrastructure, and many others in the industry 
agree with
me. But it gets the job done better than most alternatives, so I take the
pragmatic (what gets the bills paid and my job done) over the aestheticly
pleasing infrastructure of another product (because, what people care about is
results, not how it's done).

If a hamster powered computer got the job done faster than one powered by a
Pentium, you can bet that everyone would switch, even though it wouldn't be
nearly as elegant. Elegant isn't bad. Most people who have tried Objective C
and Cocoa would probably argue that it is far better than even Qt (from what I
hear), but the thing that makes people use Mac OS X is that it is elegant not
only for the developer but also for the end user.

> With the release of Qt 4 having thrown me back to square 1 (ie:
> looking for a book on the thing) as far as learning it goes, I'm not
> too happy. In my opinion Trolltech didn't try hard enough to maintain
> backwards compatibility but then part of the reason I want to use Qt
> is to my programs will look nice in KDE. Right now I'd be willing to
> consider GTK+ if only it were improved upon where it's obviously
> needed it for years.

If Qt 4 is indeed that different, it proves my point. KDE must move 
forward, but
it is dependent on a library that moves to its own drummer. GTK+ moves forward
at the pleasure of GNOME. It certainly is not in KDE's best interest to have
enough changes that you feel you are back at square one.

Consider that in the time that KDE has gone through about two major 
versions and
is gearing up for the third -- each incompatible -- Mac OS X has maintained
pretty good binary compatibility, as has Windows XP. Windows will still run
apps made in 1995 and perhaps a bit earlier, and Mac OS X will still run apps
made in 1989 (such as MS Word 5.0) and perhaps even earlier (yes, Mac 
OS X will
run applications made for OS Classic on M68k hardware just fine).

Now, GNOME is guilty of that too, although to a lesser extent. They seem to be
on a slower ABI breaking cycle than KDE, and while GNOME 1.x apps still run
fine on most distros, most distros for one reason or another dumped KDE 1 and,
I believe, KDE 2 support awhile back.

Trolltech even recognizes this. While Qt has moved on, the version of Qtopia
Trolltech has worked to get application developers to adopt is still based on
Qt 2, since that is where the apps are. In the end, apps matter because 
content
matters because finished work matters.

> Currently there is just so much I can't stand about GTK and Gnome and
> yet you defend it as if it were normal, but when you do that it seems
> completely out of character.

I defend it because I believe it is better. I was once as diehard of a 
KDE user
as you. Then I gave GNOME a real chance, and though "you know, this simple,
elegant interface that has more of the apps I use, is easy enough for a
non-techie to use... it may even be easier to use than Windows." Then, I ran
Mac OS X, and saw, "hey, the GNOME people are learning from Apple... all those
good ideas I see in GNOME are rudimentery versions of Apple's ideas."

Don't get me wrong, Mac OS X is much nicer to work with than GNOME. But 
instead
of following KDE into copying the Windows way of doing things, GNOME has been
trying to do something different... better. Copying Microsoft might 
make the OS
more comfortable at first, but it isn't the best way in the long run.

Want to know what really changed my mind? I decided I was working for the
computer, rather than the computer working for me. When I realized I had lost
all the joy of working on computers, KDE lost its appeal. I realized I wanted
to get my work done and have time to work on some creative writing or read a
book... While, for the moment, I'm a IT guy, I'd like to move on, and when I
do, I'd like to quit fixing computers and spend my time just using them. A
start is finding a system that doesn't require tweaking and repairing.

Enter Mac OS X. As I said in my last message on that topic (regarding the
iBook), upgrading from one Mac OS X version to the next is as simple as
inserting the CD, clicking "next" a few times and returning 30-45 
minutes later
to enjoy whatever new and improved features have been installed without 
messing
up your settings or touching your documents.

> If  the roles were reversed and KDE had
> made the bad design ideas today I'm sure you would be all over it like
> the rest of us wondering who's been smoking funny herbs. Instead I'm

Perhaps. I don't necessarily like GNOME's ideas either. If you combined 
GNOME's
bad design ideas with KDE's cluttered interface, I'd definitely think it was
bad. As it stands, GNOME has a very elegant interface on top of less desirable
underpinnings (although, not being a developer, this is only what I've
gathered, not what I have trench experience in).

Try this: look at the Windows GUI. Look at Mac OS X's gui. Now look at KDE's
GUI. Do you notice anything? Yeah, it has a *lot* more buttons and menus, etc.
I remember the first time I saw Konqueror, I hated how messy it looked. I grew
use to it, but KDE just has not learned when to draw the line. Compared 
to KFM,
the KDE 1.x file manager, it looked like Microsoftian bloatware made worse.

The first bug, IIRC, I submitted for KDE 2.0 was that the "Home" button in
Konqueror didn't take me to my homepage but my home directory. I'd be browsing
the web, hit "Home," and find myself in my directory. Later, I realized that
many of the toolbar buttons had nothing to do with the web at all. 
Konqueror is
a usability horror... I learned to ignore it, but I thought that way when I
first saw it, and thought the same thing after I got away from it for awhile.

Now, after I played with it, I learned it was really nice and powerful. But do
you realize how intimidating Konqueror looks to the new user? That's the kind
of design that caused Mozilla to fail... it was only when the Moz people
realized this and built a new browser from the ground up (Firefox) that
suddenly IE is loosing ground.

See, here's the Mac philosophy. I think it is one that Firefox and GNOME are
trying to learn: A computer is a tool; a tool should help me get other stuff
done. If I buy a screwdriver and spend more time tweaking it and fixing 
it than
screwing in screws, I'd feel, well, screwed. When I would install KDE, I had a
multi-hour regmine in which I would fix ugly toolbars, take away 
useless icons,
etc., etc. It was stupid. In OS X, I can tweak stuff, but everything 
looks good
and works fine right of the box. I found the same to be true for me in GNOME,
to a somewhat lesser extent.

I realized how bad the KDE Control Panel was when I was working for the KDE
League documenting it back in 2001 or 2002 (I can't remember which, off hand).
I was suppose to take pictures of every single tab so that we could write a
tutorial of the system. Do you realize I had about 200 screenshots to cover
every single page of configuration tools in the Control Panel? How's the
average user suppose to wade through that?

Now, that doesn't mean Mac OS X, or GNOME, or Firefox aren't quite 
powerful. In
fact, I can do some things on Mac OS X that you *cannot* do on 
GNU/Linux at the
present time (like using Expose to zoom out on my windows with full 
motion video
running and not having the system skip a beat).

Really, Mac OS X and GNOME both adhear to UNIX philosophy quite a bit better
than KDE. The UNIX philosophy (but Mac OS Classic followed this from its first
iteration too), as I mention so often, is one tool for one job. A UNIX user
learns that these tools aren't less powerful, they are actually more powerful
because they do that one thing really well. Epiphany or Safari are web
browsers... period. But, they are simple and elegant, so the user gets to the
stuff they need faster because they aren't wading through file management
options too. But, give Safari a spin and you'll see what everyone else will be
copying *next year*, like probably the best RSS reader I've ever seen (which,
oddly enough <g>, looks just like the one Microsoft unveiled a month after
Tiger's release).

> shocked to see you defending things like the regedit inspired
> configuration tool

That's simple, Nathan. :-) If you look at the actual configuration 
*files* they
look the same as KDE's. All the "regedit" part is, is GNOME providing a 
familar
way to tweak settings that aren't editable directly. KDE has settings 
like that
too, and for those, you must open the text files and manually modify them. If
you don't like gconf-edit, you just pretend it doesn't exist and edit 
the files
like you would in KDE. It looks like regedit, but it isn't regedit in any way
other than the UI. That makes all the difference in the world.

> and the fact that there is so little control over
> the user interface,

How much do I need if the UI was done right to begin with?

Look, you probably in shock. You are thinking, "if Tim is defending GNOME and
Mac OS X at the same time, I am going to hate Mac OS X." At first, you might.
When I first used GNOME, I thought, how can I stand a UI that doesn't let me
tweak every little bit of my theme to look just how I want it? Then I realized
that really isn't important, if the UI looks good to begin with.

It goes back to the original philosophy of Mac OS. Jef Raskin, the Macintosh
designer wanted a computer that worked like a toaster: you plug it in and it
does its job. You don't open its case or do anything to it until you 
replace it
with a new toaster. This was radically different from the IBM PC or even the
Apple ][. Mac OS X is quite extensible these days[*], but the idea remains: a
well designed tool does not need to be adjusted in 10 different ways, because
it was made right to begin with.

> or the fact that GTK applications make brand new
> hardware feel like it's already years old.

Honestly, GNOME started up faster on my Pentium 4 2.66 GHz system than KDE 3.
Neither feels as responsive as Windows or Mac OS X, though.


   -Tim