Articles / Call for a Cease Fire in th…

Call for a Cease Fire in the KDE/GNOME War

freshmeat has presented a number of editorials this summer about both sides of the conflict over Qt, KDE, and Debian. At the recent Linuxworld Conference and Expo, news about desktop environments went beyond the community and into the mainstream press when several commercial vendors said they would adopt GNOME as the standard GUI for UNIX systems. Today, GaŽl Duval explains the problems he sees with this and why Mandrakesoft will not commit to a single standard environment. Two years ago, the KDE versus GNOME war was at its apogee. GNOME supporters criticized KDE over the Qt License (Qt is a graphical toolkit made by TrollTech used as a programming basis to KDE) which was not a true free license, and KDE supporters bashed GNOME because of their (seemingly) extreme devotion to Free Software "purity" and because, at the time, GNOME had not yet released anything "significant".

In March 1999, TrollTech created the QPL (Q Public License) which was recognized to fit the Open-Source criteria if not "pure" Free Software in the eyes of the Free Software Foundation. GNOME developers were hard at work and released a desktop environment which is now a very complete and easy-to-use environment for many users. KDE and GNOME even spoke about cooperating for a time, especially about common communication protocols between the two environments; we were all hopeful that soon we would have the capability to "drag and drop" a GNOME object into the KDE file-manager.

The debate heated up again recently due to an announcement at the LinuxWorld Expo that GNOME, Sun, Compaq, Red Hat, Turbo Linux and others would support GNOME as the standard desktop for Linux. It launched a rain of articles featuring the arguments from pros and cons from within the Linux community and even from the mainstream computer press. It was indeed quite "funny" because much energy was expanded but nothing was resolved. It was just a good opportunity to relaunch the debate on this theme, which has advantages (the mainstream press talks about Linux) and many disadvantages (supporters of GNOME and KDE may not speak to each other for a while).

So what's the reality behind the flamewars? The reality is that users and developers are being overlooked. The different actors in this debate tend to see their own interests first, but what do the users think? The truth is that some users prefer KDE, others prefer GNOME, others enjoy WindowMaker, others love IceWM, others are used to CDE, others like AfterStep, others FVWM... Others just launch X and an XTerm, and others prefer to use the console only. It's the same thing for Free Software developers; some of them will prefer to program with the LessTiff toolkit (a Free Software equivalent to Motif), others with GTK, others with Qt.

With Free Software, we are each provided the opportunity to work in an environment that is as diverse as the world in which we live. This is a unique and special opportunity, especially when something becomes this big. GNU/Linux is growing by leaps and bounds, bigger than ever. But GNU/Linux is not Unix. GNU/Linux is not Windows. GNU/Linux (and more generally Free Software) is something that never happened before on this scale. Free Software is an enormous project that involves thousands of developers, designers, and writers, and also hundreds of companies that believe in Free Software and that don't necessarily need uniformity. Proprietary software is uniform because it's easier for companies to manage one tool than several identical tools. The reality in the Free Software world is that numerous development and user environments exist because they fit different needs of different people. If the evolution of the human species was stunted and homogenized 50,000 years ago, we wouldn't have had many of the benefits of evolution. The diversity, over time, in an evolving ecology, creates higher states of order.

So why would we start to imitate the traditional software makers? People are different; they have special needs. Let's proclaim that the standard is KDE and GNOME and any other high-level free desktop environment that is good enough to make Linux more attractive to ALL users.

I recently proposed to the Free Standards Group/Linux Standard Base that we consider adopting both KDE and GNOME as the GNU/Linux standard for graphical environments. Although the answer I received was that the LSB was not yet covering this area (specifically: no way to have this included in the next version of the LSB), I was pleased that several participants considered it possible. I would see this (at least) dual adoption as a real improvement and a chance to stop all those tiring wars. Furthermore, I see this as a more practical solution than the current one which is to put the so-called "problem" into the hands of the largest software companies, several of which are not born of the open culture that gave birth to GNU/Linux.

Here at Mandrakesoft, there was a time when we wondered what might be the "standard" graphical environment for Linux. At the time, KDE seemed to be on its way to becoming a standard, but GNOME was already showing its great potential. After several days of pondering this question, we all concluded that Free Software equals Diversity and it is critical to keep this advantage! That's the reason we provide KDE, GNOME, and six other graphical environments with Linux-Mandrake. This is also why we provide the many tools that are needed for programming and developing graphical applications for Linux -- both the GTK devel libs AND the Qt libs. We've never been told by a user that there are too many choices in Mandrake. In fact, users seem extremely happy with this diversity and how we provide an easy way for these tools to work together. For example: Users are provided easy access to GNOME applications from within the KDE environment, and all the other graphical interfaces are directly accessible from the desktop-manager login prompt. Maybe this situation has a connection with the fact that Linux-Mandrake is the most sold Linux distribution on retail in the USA and the fastest growing Linux distribution in the world today.

Thanks to Free Software, for the first time in the software industry, and maybe for the first time in history, PEOPLE are empowered with the opportunity to get tools that match their specific needs, tools that look like them in particular. This world would be quite boring if we each bore the same face.

We will never want KDE to extinguish GNOME, or the opposite to happen. We want all the advantages of BOTH of those wonderful environments, and to keep alive the potential for even more. And we want this for all free major components. With this spirit, let's all take Free Software even further and higher without being distracted by yesterday's money makers who don't understand what freedom is about.


This opinion article has been written by GaŽl Duval <gduval@mandrakesoft.com>, Cofounder of Mandrakesoft, with contributions from Henri Poole, Denis Havlik, and Phil Lavigna.


T-Shirts and Fame!

We're eager to find people interested in writing editorials on software-related topics. We're flexible on length, style, and topic, so long as you know what you're talking about and back up your opinions with facts. Anyone who writes an editorial gets a freshmeat t-shirt from ThinkGeek in addition to 15 minutes of fame. If you think you'd like to try your hand at it, let jeff.covey@freshmeat.net know what you'd like to write about.

Recent comments

05 Oct 2004 06:08 Avatar tlepes

Linux, Desktops, and Holy Wars
It's a good time to be alive, as always!

I remember my Amiga days fondly. We had choice... both a command-line interface AND a graphic user interface! The system was designed by enthusiasts, and it showed. It even started as a rebel system. The original investors thought they were fronting money for an arcade game machine platform, not a personal computer. He he! Little did they know!

But, alas, the Amiga system had it's problems. Although the Amiga was initially light-years ahead of other personal computers with regard to graphics, sound, and operating system, it suffered serious growing pains as time went on. The tight integration of the software to the hardware became difficult to overcome. It was a very proprietary system and eventually could not keep up with a somewhat open hardware platform (the PC). Granted IBM probably never realized how easy it would be to "open" the hardware end of their system. But the fact is that as soon as the BIOS was reverse-engineered, PC hardware was bound to become a true commodity market. A free market as it were, where hardware is cheap, plentiful, and diverse.

Apple, with their Macintosh systems, have been lucky to remain alive in the face of this competition. If it were not for huge leads in specialized markets, Macs might have suffered much the same fate. Desktop publishing may have been invented at Xerox PARC, but the Mac built the market -- and still dominates to this day.

Truly, you can now run a publishing house, music studio, or what have you without Macs. But there is still a history of market domination in certain areas that is helping to keep Apple afloat. For now. Commodore/Amiga should have been so lucky with the computer video market. But alas...

Apple have steadfastly stuck to the proprietary hardware model. They pull this off by building very high performace systems. They have to in order to compete against the entire PC clone market. How long they can stay ahead of the curve is anyone's guess.

But things change. And Apple, as reluctant as they have been, seem to grasp the notion that a a proprietary hardware platform married to a proprietary operating system can only survive, long term, in very specialized markets. And that's quite a risk. Computers, after all, are the most general purpouse instruments ever wrought by man. Recently Apple has made moves toward an open operating system, to the mutual benefit of themselves and OUR-selves, the Open Software community.

Evolution is the key word in all of this. We in the computer world are an excellent example of how easily people can become caught up in 'religious wars'. Often the squabbles we have with eachother are likened to just that. Now I don't want to start the 'other' kind of religious war here, but just for the sake of argument it could be said that evolution IS the hand of god, working in those mysterious ways.

Mankind has a long history of trying to reign in the force of evolution, but it is the supreme arrogance of our species that compels us to do so. We do it with plants. So we do it with animals, such as dogs and horses, and we do it with our own. But blue blood runs thin as water. (Hemophilia is a recessive genetic disease). Big Blue it seems had to learn a thing or two over the years. Hard lessons they surely did not wish to learn. And now that IBM is supporting Linux, maybe - just maybe - they have learned something.

Biology shows us that a healthy gene-pool is a diverse gene-pool. Much to the chagrin of the racists, I am sure. While we work hard at infecting plants, animals, and soon ourselves with human-krafted code (DNA), endangered species are showing us just how important bio-diversity really is. Species just cannot survive in nature without some diversity. In fact, whole ecosystems seem to depend on a good amount of diversity amongst their members.

For all the talk in the world about universal truths, there is one thing about them - they are universal. The problem seems to come when we try to pin them down. Dogma is eternally debatable but, in beautiful cosmic irony, Change appears to be a universal truth. And how can you pin down change?

So if change -- evolution I dare say, is a part of the truth in our known world, then it must be reasonable to expect such a pervasive force in the universe to have a bearing on our world of computers. Ours is but a microcosm - should it not reflect the macrocosm of which it is a part? It's only a theory, but it has a fractal sort of beauty to it, no?

Proprietary systems are like closed gene pools. Over time it becomes increasingly difficult for them to survive. The more we domesticate our pets, the more they need us in order to survive. Likewise, a proprietary system requires an ever increasing commitment on the part of it's patent and copyright holders to keep it "alive".

Look at the juggernaut Microsoft has had to become in order to pursue Bill's goal of dominating the user interface. That is, of course, what it is all about. Controlling access at the gate. You create a monopoly over the software architecture and you create a bottleneck between the user and the applications - or the experience. Bill is a wannabe troll. He's not about building bridges... he's about sabotaging every other bridge and setting up a toll both on his.

If Bill had his way I would pretty much have to use Internet Exploiter, er, um, Explorer to write this reply. But thanks to all of you, my brothers (and sisters) in arms of the Open Systems, Open Software, and Free Software movements I am using Mozilla's Firefox. If that burns Bill, I am glad. It is good for him, as Prometheus may attest.

IBM used to be the big, bad, monopoly. Things change. There is a reason Microsoft has invested in the console market... they realize that, eventually, Sony will be a challenge to them. Or perhaps Nintendo, Sega, some descendent of TiVo, or a bastard child of your digital cable box. The challenge will come. Now I know this seems irrelevant to many computer users, but I assure you it is not. Our technologies are evolving, both hardware and software. Our great challenge goes beyond just getting Linux on Aunt Emma's desktop.

Apple may weather the immediate storms on the horizion. As portable, cross-platform systems evolve in the Open community, hardware becomes more and more "abstracted". This makes it possible for an Apple to survive selling top-rate hardware systems that work with Open software systems. That is a marriage that has potential. But the necessary - and I mean necessary - trade-off is that they must then fully open themselves to hardware competition. Then they will survive on their merits. Just as it should be in any evolutionary system.

If Apple backs down and tries to remain proprietary at both ends they will surely die one day. They will cut themselves off from the diversity of our community, the evolutionary force at work through us. Their gene pool will become harder and harder to sustain. But if Apple, IBM, or any other hardware company today is smart they will support the Free Software movement.

If a Microsoft or some other company becomes a truly mighty troll, then they will be in a position to dictate which platforms live and which platforms die. The issue of controlling a bottleneck works both ways. Today, Microsoft already has enormous sway over hardware vendors. A viable alternative operating system is vital to their self-interest, lest they become Bill's lap-dogs. It may seem like a cozy arrangement, but remember our earlier lessons about domestication.

Attempting to build another proprietary bridge in the face of Microsoft's present market share is all but impossible. But we, the open community, have the resources, the manpower, the will, the energy, the spirit to make it happen. Supporting us means that bridges are more than a dime a dozen... they are FREE!! Importantly, they are not just free of monetary cost... they are free of TROLLS, and that means free as in freedom. Freedom for the users to find their own path to the hardware, freedom for the hardware vendors to develop divergent platforms that can appeal directly to the users.

This issue of freedom is central. Microsoft is already pursuing "trusted computing" and pressuring and/or persuading hardware manufacturers like Intel and AMD to come closer to their fires. The direction this is heading in can be scary. Now the troll is building an army. On the suface it may seem noble. It is certainly sold as such. Oh how noble they are to Mr. Company's IT Security Officer, who now knows that he can have total control over the desktops in the enterprise. Oh how noble they are to Mr. Copyright holder, as this troll can now controll access to digital media. Digital Rights Management is about building not a better troll-bridge, but a military-grade fence with one Gate. How appropriate for Mr. Gates. And it's not just the RIAA who will be singing a happy song.

Now for some this may seem just fine. But beware, boys and girls, beware. Control points create a focus of power. And power corrupts. Eventually the "powers that be" who come along in the next several years may decide that access to all digital media is a good thing for them, too. It makes George Orwell's vision that much more practicable.


In perhaps the greatest of ironies, the US Department of Defense (Ministry of War) wanted to create a computer communications network that was impervious to physical attack. Thus DARPA (DoD Advanced Research Projects Agency) set the seed for what has become the Internet. The global connectedness that has brought about is the fuel for a global cultural Renaissance happening right before our eyes!

Yes, it is the best time to be alive! Don't you ever doubt it! Oh my Amiga days... we had a choice in how we interfaced with our computers. KDE versus GNOME versus FVWM or what have you? The more the merrier! Isn't it great to have the choice? In fact it is in our best interest to have more than one. One of them should be that cutesy-pie desktop that will get your Aunt Emma using Free and Open Source software. Give her that choice, to help protect your choice (lean, mean, text-console interface machine if you so desire). I know the likes of Mr. Gates, or Sony for that matter, are not interested in you having a choice. But if Emma's Easy Distro furthers the Free Software Movement, it is truly a goodness.

And if you still think Digital Rights Management and Trusted Computing are a good thing, check out Lawrence Lessig's very truly excellent writings, expecially FREE CULTURE. His website is www.lessig.org (http://www.lessig.org). Free and Open Source software is more important than just some Geek Mission to control his own PC. It's a greater cause to help keep self-determination alive for all of us.

Have faith in the Free Software movement. We are the evolutionary force at play in our own world. Though we may feel ourselves to be haphazard, unfocused, or even reduntant at times, remember: This is how evolution works. Like life, it is mysterious - sometimes befuddling - but it is also magical.

Peace,

Tim LePes

23 Jan 2003 16:18 Avatar pyroboy

Re: 2 dominant, incompatable desktops is imposible.

> ... If KDE picked up
> Bonobo for its component model, GNOME
> and KDE would no longer be competing,
> but complementery. This is the only way
> I can see getting around one of GNOME or
> KDE eventually dieing off.
>


Well there both open source, why dose no one start the a project to gut kde programs like kword and make them use Bonobo or just add in a compatibility layer to the desktops. They dont have to use the same backend then. =)

14 Jun 2002 08:37 Avatar xealon

Re: The words of second place
[...]

> But someone needs
> to ask the question, where is it
> heading?
>

ok. question asked.

Now what? :)

08 Jun 2002 16:30 Avatar bamadave

The words of second place
I may be out of line here, but after reading all
these posts something struck me. Linux users are
the reason that Linux will never be able to tackle
Windows. The hard and fast Linux user wears the
difficulty of the OS as a badge of honor. Someone
even said that icons aren't what Linux is about.
Well, sorry to break it to you, but if you ever want
my mom, or your aunt to use Linux, it's damn sure
gonna be about icons. The hobbyist or programmer
is willing to learn commandline codes and tinker
with things to make them work. The casual user
has no patience for this.
I agree that competition is good. At some point
though, if Linux is going to be a truly viable option
for the casual user, some things are going to have
to be standardized to make everything work much
smoother. If this means that KDE or Gnome is the
defacto Linux, so be it.
I know that a lot of you are thinking screw the
casual user, it will dumb the OS down like
Windows. You have to look at the big picture
though. If Linux can make the jump onto Ma and
Pa's PC a whole new world of options will open up
to all Linux users. The hobbyists will still be able to
get all manner of things to customize his own
Linux, but he'll also have a whole host of other
opportunities.
I'm not trying to attack Linux. I think it is a great OS
and I have a lot of fun with it. But someone needs
to ask the question, where is it heading?

17 May 2002 06:42 Avatar billtotman

Re: GNOME + KDE
I concur. There are certaian aspects of each environment that surpase the other. In my experience I have found that while I prefer to use KDE as the actual working environment, I often times turn to GNOME/Gtk for specific applications. The most common are GnoRPM, GIMP and Gkrellm. I love each of these programs and would be put out without them. What does concern me is the eventual posibility of one, or both, making the other(s) excluded from interoperability.

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

Kigo Video Converter Ultimate for Mac

A tool for converting and editing videos.

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

Kid3

An efficient tagger for MP3, Ogg/Vorbis, and FLAC files.