Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
KDE Businesses GUI Apple

Firefox Lead Engineer Scolds KDE Project 669

trent42 writes "Firefox lead developer Ben Goodger has had harsh words on his blog for the KDE project, in light of its public tiff with Apple over the KHTML rendering engine. Goodger says 'Safari's renderer is vastly superior to the KHTML used by Konqueror,' and that the KDE developers should follow Apple's lead and focus more on the needs of users, instead of insisting on software perfection."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox Lead Engineer Scolds KDE Project

Comments Filter:
  • As a Moz/FF user... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13, 2005 @09:43AM (#12519036)
    ... since the early betas and a very happy user of Konq (mostly as a filesystem browser) all i can say is that software perfection is what draws me to the software both as a user and developer.
  • Mutually Exclusive? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ( 687626 ) * on Friday May 13, 2005 @09:46AM (#12519072)

    "The KDE developers should follow Apple's lead and focus more on the needs of users, instead of insisting on software perfection."

    Are these two things really mutually exclusive?

  • by B5_geek ( 638928 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @09:49AM (#12519098)
    I have always found Konq to be the best alternative to FireFox on sites that are "IE-only". (including my companies intranet.)

    As a general web-browser I find Konq to be slow and kludgy, but it has never dissappointed me on the stubborn sites.

    Anybody found similar situations?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13, 2005 @09:49AM (#12519101)
    While not an apple zealot I can answer.

    Apple decided not to use the Mozilla codebase because it realized that Mozilla would be a direct competitor for Safari and that every time an advance was made by Apple, it would need to be given to its direct competitor.

    By using the KDE rendering engine, Apple could be fairly certain that the changes they made would not be immediately available on another browser. (Sorry guys, not many Linux on PPC folks in general)

    It was simple business decision, competing products need to have a point of individuality, if the Mozilla codebase was used then Safari would offer nothing that sets it apart from Mozilla.

  • by telbij ( 465356 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @10:00AM (#12519232)
    Maybe if he spent a little less time blogging about KDE and a little more time working on Firefox, the security holes wouldn't be there.

    You mean like Firefox 1.0.4 []? Anyway, the poster may have had a point if the dev was blogging about KHTML security, but he wasn't even remotely near that topic. Hence, troll. (but at least not AC troll like you).
  • Re:Heh... (Score:3, Interesting)

    Similarly, the reason Apple selected KHTML as its base was that it was so well written. If the KHTML guys hadn't been so anal about doing things "correctly" Apple might never have used the project in the first place.

    In the short term, a hack will get a feature out the door more quickly. In the long term, a pile of hacks doesn't hold up as well as a properly engineered soltution. Notice how some browsers (Netscape, ie) had to be rewritten from scratch a few times.

    It seems to me that each project should feel free to proceed as they see fit. Who knows, maybe in the future Apple will come back to KHTML in order to get that stable base again.

  • Re:Boy are you dumb (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BladeMelbourne ( 518866 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @10:05AM (#12519285)
    Safari only passed the Acid 2 Test [] because the developer David Hyatt [] spent time over two weeks [] to make it pass.

    I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, in fact it's an excellent thing. But the fact is Safari, Mozilla and MSIE all failed the Acid 2 test when it was released. Using MSIE I see red. lol.

    Now Safari passes. And no doubt each would fail several more tough tests. No one test can prove a superior rendering engine, unless it was 10 MB big and tested every [X]HTML/CSS1,2,3/JavaScript specification in various scenarios.

    I'm looking foward to getting a Mac Mini and seing how good Safari is. It will also allow me to develop web pages against Safari for the first time.
  • Re:Uh.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drew ( 2081 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @10:08AM (#12519302) Homepage
    Of course, Apple hasn't really gotten into any significant agreement with the KDE people either. People who have been paying attention may have noticed the KDE developers saying that although Apple hasn't cooperated with them as much as the might have liked, they are within their rights to do that.

    For all that has been said about a feud between KDE and Apple, the real feud is between the KDE developers and the users and slashbots who think that any new features in Safari should be in KDE too, and if they aren't it's because the KDE developers are slow, lazy, whatever.

    It's worth noting that (from what I've heard, at least) the other open source projects that apple has used code from haven't gotten back much more in the way of useful contributions than the KDE team has.
  • From TFA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ooze ( 307871 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @10:08AM (#12519305)
    "The gulf between the people making software and the people using it is widening,"

    Now, the reason for that is basically that more and more users with no idea of computers are able to use it and use it. So it's not a sign of a Software designer failure but a sign that Software designers are doing "The Right Thing" TM and successfully so.

    So the following quote

    "Over time, software has come to demand an impossibly high level of computer literacy" is basically wrong. Just compare it to the times when the interface was binary machine code.

    The base intetion of the article I agree with though...the Safari Engine is much mure advanced than KHTML, due to more pragmatism in development.

    As long as you build software on operating systems who still are stuck in the concepts developed 30 years ago, you have to be pragmatic. Basically implementing anything there is a workaround.
  • Re:Boy are you dumb (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nine-times ( 778537 ) <> on Friday May 13, 2005 @10:19AM (#12519419) Homepage
    Safari only passed the Acid 2 Test because the developer David Hyatt spent time over two weeks to make it pass.

    Wasn't that the purpose of the Acid 2 test? To give an example of common rendering problems so that browser developers could see what their browser was doing wrong? Now, I'm not saying that passing the Acid2 test means the rendering is perfect, but the challenge was placed out there, and the Safari developers took it up. It's exactly what Mozilla and MS and KDE should do, too.

    Now, if after all that, we can come up with a new series of serious rendering errors not addressed by the Acid2 test, then let's make an Acid3 test, or whatever. But I don't see the grounds for complaint. It's like saying, "well the only reason Firefox renders HTML properly is because the Mozilla team spent time to make it render HTML properly." Well, good. That's what they should be doing.

  • Re:Blah... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13, 2005 @10:21AM (#12519442)
    You are a KDE dev ?

    Get rid of Apple now. Please. I having been an avid user of Macs for around 9 years but I cannot abide the way Apple are trying to screw over different developers, it is truly horrifying to watch. The only worse things are those Apple apologists who try and make excuses for them like one or 2 did over Konfabulator.

    Please just break away from Apple, change your licence for KHTML if you have to (if you can) and stop Apple now, they have exploited KDE/KHTML in a very unpleasant way.

  • Re:Heh... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ford Prefect ( 8777 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @10:23AM (#12519468) Homepage
    It seems to me that each project should feel free to proceed as they see fit. Who knows, maybe in the future Apple will come back to KHTML in order to get that stable base again.

    I hope so. I've found bugs in Safari's rendering which aren't in recent Konqueror releases - one I've seen a lot involves CSS-defined borders on table cells creeping out from where they're supposed to be.

    Here's a rather nasty example [] I've plucked from a site I've worked on - excuse the awful HTML!

    On Safari 1.3 on MacOS X 10.3.9, there's a green line which extends right along the top of the large month cell at the bottom - this doesn't happen in IE, Firefox or (last time I checked) Konqueror.

    It sounds unlikely that Apple's WebCore will ever be 'synced' back to KDE's KHTML, sadly, and they do sound as if they're diverging pretty quickly...
  • Re:In a way I agree (Score:2, Interesting)

    by torpor ( 458 ) <ibisum@g[ ] ['mai' in gap]> on Friday May 13, 2005 @10:28AM (#12519523) Homepage Journal
    yeah, this is a valid position. KDE must pay more attention to users.

    however, there is another position, overlooked by this so-called 'debate', which means it does not matter, for now, that KDE 'ignores use in favour of programming practice', and i personally thing Goodger is degrading the importance of this, a little, to 'prove some other point'. he's missing a point, and can't possibly be ignorant about it.

    the other position? developers. period.

    sure, its nice that apple are able to sling out the code and write Simlpy Great apps, that work, the way apple apps should. they've been doing this for years, this 'making user-friendly software' stuff. it is to be expected of Apple. (not necessarily of KDE.. yet.)

    but for any developer who has stuck his shingle on the apple bandwagon, their inattention to the 'cleanlines' of API's and methods, and such, in some area's, has been a real bear to ride.

    as a developer into apple, its been a good-looking and fun one, because Apples SDK's have always tied to you-know-it-works hardware, but a bear nevertheless. apple haven't really been super developer-focused until recently, in my opinion...

    whereas, on the other hand, KDE is not just about users .. it is about use, of course and definitely, but also KDE originally, if i remember, started simply to make it easier to develop software for unix systems [linux,*bsd,etc.], and this is really a developer-first focus.

    these platforms are not Apple. they are not Microsoft. different power buss in the code-group structure. different power requirements. slower at some things, faster at others.

    linux/OSS/KDE is a developer-oriented approach to the issue of developing software, first and foremost. there is no 'Hardware Sale of KDE', in the way there is 'Apple Sale of [insert Apple-commercialized OSS app/library] running on [Apple Hardware]' .. yet.

    KDE exists to put a friendly interface on Unix.

    and .. well .. that is another factor: hardware.

    Apple sells hardware. KDE do not.

    comparing KDE to Apple is one thing. but its 'Apple' versus 'Oranges' really, because Apple exists to sell hardware to the user who would not normally use a computer, or have one.

    You, typically (so far) only come across KDE causatively, which is to say that KDE is far more DIY than Apple, anyway .. no newbie is downloading KDE/using KDE, its a certain 'hacker type' of person on the KDE front so far, coders and skilled users, for the most part, able to contend with active daily use involved in KDE dynamics.

    Diametric opposite 'market sphere', so far, to that of Apple, so far.. i keep saying so far, because i see things on the KDE front that will out-strip Apple, in terms of sheer numbers, soon enough.

    the reason this article resonates is because it pitches KDE versus Apple. (eh, KDE versus Apple? who would ever have thought Apple would be The Unix Vendor of Choice in the 21st Century?)

    (SGI ought to be making laptops that run KDE, i mean, sheesh..)

    so yeah, it is KDE versus Apple. and it is because Apple is focused on this Hardware Sale Aspect, first and foremost as an organized structure of people, and KDE is focused on developers and development, that you cannot compare the two fairly.

    anyway my point is, to the KDE and other camps: developers.

    developers, developers, developers. sell hardware.

    [/monkey-boy back in his cage..]
  • by telbij ( 465356 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @10:31AM (#12519545)
    Considering that this thing has been discussed quite a bit recently, I would have guessed that by now everyone who is interested on this would have read the ORIGINAL messages that sparked this whole thing? I mean this message

    Incidentally, no I hadn't read that. I really don't see how all the linked articles follow from that (completely reasonable post). Must be a hugely escalated flamewar which I had no business getting involved in. I apologize.
  • Re:Uh.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by OglinTatas ( 710589 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @10:34AM (#12519565)
    "...quickly, cheaply, or correctly..."

    This is not quite that software dilemma. Lifting something quoted in an earlier post:

    "the KDE developers should follow Apple's lead and focus more on the needs of users, instead of insisting on software perfection."

    This is about writing something that is correct to spec by the design document (i.e. the needs of the user--or maybe it is about getting the design document right?) vs. technically correct (i.e. perfect software--correct to the language spec, elegant, robust, no flaws, easily readable and maintainable, etc.)

    Ideally, one's software would be both of these, and thus fit in the third category "correct".

    I therefore propose that this old adage be modified thus: "On schedule, on budget, on spec, or few flaws--pick two"

    Feel free to change those words to make it flow better. OT: in my limited experience, the scope of the project is always changing, so really none of those apply, therefore one can only really try to achieve #4, as few flaws as possible in what actually does get done.
  • Re:Agile (Score:1, Interesting)

    by torpor ( 458 ) <ibisum@g[ ] ['mai' in gap]> on Friday May 13, 2005 @10:39AM (#12519616) Homepage Journal
    To compare KDE to Apple, first KDE must be selling their own hardware.

    The clear difference in purpose between Apple and KDE renders any 'assessment of KDE' baseless. Apple sells hardware.

    KDE is a developer-first focus. They profit stricly on developer sales. Not hardware, sales, as Apple ..

    [And I, personally, think the KDE guys are perfectly aware of 'Agile' software development.. this stirring of the "Apple versus KDE" nest as a media exercise is only to prevent work, not promote it ..

  • Re:In a way I agree (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jason Hood ( 721277 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @10:39AM (#12519617)
    Also keep in mind that KHTML and Konqueror are two separate projects. Konqueror is probably the most usable browser of all time from a functionality standpoint. User interface wise, it could be better. but its no worse than FF or IE. Once gecko is properly ported as a kpart, konqueror will be extremely powerful. being able to switch between renders on the fly, saving sessions will be awesome. It may actually kill KHTML, although KDE devs firmly deny that =)

    This argument made more sense 3 years ago. Then KDE was laying the foundation for 3.x and focusing little on the UI (In my opinion). Now with Qt4 (seriously, read the new featureset) and KDE4 due out in a year, KDE/Konqueror/KHTML is going to get a major boost. In case anyone hasnt noticed, KDE and Gnome have been exploding in the last 2 years.

    Now if I could only get a Mac clone theme for KDE ;)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13, 2005 @10:44AM (#12519662)

    And don't even think about their initial CSS stab, the web still suffers from that today.

    Practically everybody has dropped Netscape 4 support by now.

    Their "initial CSS stab" was a rushed job. They had decided that JSSSL, a stylesheet language based on Javascript, was a better choice than CSS. The W3C decided to adopt CSS rather than JSSSL, and so they had to back-pedal and add support for CSS quickly.

    Interestingly enough, one of the big criticisms of JSSSL is that it violated the "Principle of Least Power"; that it provided the full power of a procedural scripting language when only a declarative language was really needed. Of course, once Microsoft had killed Netscape, they added in a bunch of proprietary expression extensions to their implementation of CSS, neatly violating the principle themselves, after nobody could stop them.

    But it wasn't the "initial stab" that was such a problem for the web. If Netscape 4 had have been followed up by a timely Netscape 5 instead of the Mozilla people going off and writing a whole fucking platform instead of a browser, then nobody would have really cared, because the Netscape 4 users would have moved on to Netscape 5 fairly quickly, which, presumably would have had decent CSS support.

    It's the same problem that we are seeing with Internet Explorer today. It's not the fact that Internet Explorer 6's CSS support is so crappy that is the problem. It 's the fact that once Microsoft killed Netscape, they didn't have to bother with improving Internet Explorer, so they disbanded the development teams and discontinued the software. This means that there was no timely Internet Explorer 7 with improved CSS to upgrade to, and everybody using Internet Explorer is stuck with a version that is four years out of date.

    This is one of the reasons why an abusive monopoly is so bad. The moment Firefox started to make serious inroads into the browser market, Microsoft paid attention and reformed the Internet Explorer development team. There will now be an Internet Explorer 7.0 beta for Windows XP at the end of the summer. But in the meantime, and until people upgrade, us web developers will be stuck with "the new Netscape 4" - Internet Explorer 6.

  • Re:Agile (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ozwald ( 83516 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @10:57AM (#12519780)
    Other way around, dude. Agile methodologies come from open source ideas, like release often, listening to customer (or other developers).

    Remember what it was like before Agile? Companies and consultants would develop big blocks of software, check it in, QA it, and show the customer who'd get pissy because it didn't work the way they expected. Yes, Agile prevents that. But seeing what is happening, I'd say that KDE does is very Agile, unlike what Apple just did.


  • Re:Can't wait... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13, 2005 @11:04AM (#12519861)
    Rather than "People who live in glass houses...", maybe you should say, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Nobody is perfect, and no software is perfect. If someone isn't allowed to comment on other software unless his own software is perfect, then nobody can comment on software. When nobody comments, then the developers don't see many flaws (it's hard to see the flaws in your own product, and harder to see the flaws in your own philosophy) and the software stays bad.

    Then again, if everyone comments on software instead of writing it, that is even worse. What we're looking for is a little bit of public discourse to help the developers work in the right directions. There's nothing wrong with an occasional prod at a "competing" software group, as long as it doesn't escalate.
  • Re:Safari and KHTML (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JulianOolian ( 683769 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @11:07AM (#12519888)

    We are doing this for free and for fun, all we really want is appreciation for our effort.

    So are they doing it for fun, or because they want appreciation for their effort?

  • Re:Can't wait... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @11:22AM (#12520072) Homepage Journal
    Actually KHTML has the biggest security hole of all. It does not follow current standards so there are time when you HAVE to use another browser. So in effect you have any security holes in KHTML and what other browsers you are forced to use.

    I actually like the KDE browser better than Firefox. I love the built in spell check and it is fast.
    But I can not use it with Google maps or the full version of gmail.
    Has Safari introduced any huge security holes? The latest Firefox hole seemed less that huge to me. Yes it could be exploited by a white listed site but the only white listed site I have is
    It was also patched very quickly.
  • Re:Can't wait... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ( 783783 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @11:32AM (#12520192) Homepage Journal
    I personally can't wait for the next KDE/Apple slashdot flamewar.

    Are the editors just doing this for kicks? I have to admit, I've gotten sucked in and made the comments too.
    First, we get repeated Evolution vs Intelligent Design debates until everyone was sick of them. Now, its the Apple/KDE. Maybe after a week we'll get ad naseum:
    Apple rocks/sucks
    Linux vs Windows
    Java vs world
    OOo using java
    Your favorite open source product has new security hole
    Your most hated closed source product has security hole

    wha, I just saw a comment that got me riled up, KDE ro... Apple, wha.. let me go straighten out that troll...
  • by psychopracter ( 613530 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @11:35AM (#12520224) Homepage

    There's a reason "team KDE" is taking some lumps despite the fact that yes, the text says that he's angry about people who accuse his team of being lazy, etc because Safari code is not instantly merged into KDE.

    Its because the tone of his comments make it clear that he's plenty pissed at Apple. The tone is one of "So there!" Which is why so many people have percieved this as a slap against Apple, and not ignorant end users.

    Had he said something more neutral in tone like, "The roots of the problem lie in the fact Safari is now forked in a different direction than KHTML, Apple's inhouse code isn't the cleanest, their commenting isn't detailed, several features rely on things specific to OS X, and they drop us massive 'code bombs'. This means that it takes time to pick through the code and see what works with KHTML. They zigged, we zagged, and don't assume we're working closely because we're not in eachother's backpockets." we probably would not have this kerfluffle at all.

    "Pobody's Nurfect" and all, but when you've got a spotlight on you as a project heavy, you've got to watch tone and content of posts.

  • by SirTalon42 ( 751509 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @11:54AM (#12520430)
    KDE has a page ( []) listing all of their requirements, I'll provide you all the things marked as 'required'
    X Server

    There are other things marked as recommended (such as OpenGL and OGG Vorbis), and there are others marked as optional (such as LAME).

    The problem isn't KDE is bloated, its the way the distros package it (huge monolithic packages that contain a load of different programs), though some distros like Gentoo now provide 1 package per app (which allows you to trim most packages off.

    Also comparing KDE to XFCE makes no sense, XFCE is an extremely minimalistic desktop environment (its just a bit more than only a Window Manager). Only comparing KDE to GNOME would make any sense since both are complete desktop environments.
  • Re:In a way I agree (Score:4, Interesting)

    by iamacat ( 583406 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @11:55AM (#12520442)
    Along comes some big company that grabs your code, renames it, and puts it into their product publically. They submit some patches. Then, they basically stab you in the back.

    Slow down cowboy, I think you are talking about SCO here, not Apple! Someone creating a new project based on your free code is a compliment, not a stab in the back. KDE developers should just take any portion of Apple's changes they find useful and let the rest stay in a separate project. If later Apple wants to take advantage of improvements in the new version of KHTML, they will then do the work of integrating their own dirty patches without any prodding.

    In the meantime, the rest of us can hope for a GNUStep webcore-based browser and saying goodbye to bloated Linux desktop environments that try to look like Windows.
  • Re:??? HUH ??? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by saider ( 177166 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @12:05PM (#12520557)
    Both of those approaches have points of value, but they are both extremes. The Agile way seems to be more appropriate for contracts for time, whereas the "Fragile" approach is more applicable to fixed price contracts.

    Agile works as long as the customer is willing to pay for the changes. Agile is good because the customer sees progress. Agile is bad because an indecisive customer can flip-flop on features and cause significant headaches.

    Fragile works better where the customer needs a specific solution. They list their demands and your company realizes those demands for a price. Changes are discouraged, but that should be fine as long as the customer knows exactly what they want. The company's process ensures that what is contracted for is met. This is not good for research type projects, where the best solution is not known and needs some experimentation.

    Note: One would have trouble applying the Agile paradigm to any kind of regulatory environment. Telecom, medical, and military/government contracts pretty much mandate the use of the "Fragile" system.

  • by rben ( 542324 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @12:06PM (#12520564) Homepage

    But a big part of that is supplying what the users need. I think all three sides of this discussion could learn a thing or two by listening to the others.

    You don't get involved in an open source project to write crappy code. You get involved in order to fix a problem that bugs you, show off your coding skills, or do a little good for the community. One of the benefits of coding for open source is that you really can take the time to get it right.

    Businesses often fail to pursue excellence in coding because they believe that by taking shortcuts they save money. That's almost always wrong. One of the reasons that Netscape got beat by IE was (and I know I'll get beaten for saying this) that IE was written in a modular way that allowed it to be used more flexibly than Netscape. The IE code was better planned and executed. The developers who joined the Mozilla project took the original Netscape code and hammered on it for a long time to produce the successful browser that we now have. Even so, it was bloated and in need of a lot of trimming. So the Firefox project fixed those problems and now Netscape is based on the Firefox core rather than the original Mozilla core. (Sharing is a good thing.)

    Apparently Apple believes that by taking short cuts they save money because the FOSS community will come in behind their engineers and clean up the code for them the way they did for Netscape. Why shouldn't Apple take advantage of the same mechanism?

    What happens too often in corporations and is apparently happening in this part of Apple, is that they have forgotten that they are dealing with people. The FOSS crowd seems to have more than it's fair share of idealists, and they dont' like being taken advantage of. Hopefully Apple has figured this out by now and is working on a plan to mend fences. Otherwise it might be very hard for them to get help from the community in the future. It would be a shame for OS/X to fail because of foolish management mistakes on the Safari side.

    Open Source can learn a lot from what Appled did, though, even if we don't like how it turned out. Appled focused on fixing things that were causing problems for their customers. They also focused on becoming standards compliant. A lot of FOSS projects come up short in that area. What gets attention is whatever is cool to code or bugging a particular developer. Not enough of the FOSS projects have any real central focus.

    Listen, learn, and move on. The best thing that could come out of this whole mess is a good discussion on how FOSS and regular software companies can work together to mutual benefit. Perhaps we need some kind of template agreement that makes responsibilities clear so that the companies involved don't make bad assumptions like the ones Apple seems to have made.

  • Now finally the wisdom of that choice has come to fruition.

    The "wisdom" of that choice has forced them to rebuild market share from scratch -- from 0% -- because the 60-some percent of people who were using Netscape when they started had completely bled away by the time they were done.

    Don't get me wrong, I loooove what Firefox has become. But I would hardly point to the early management decisions of the Mozilla Project as a shining example of the Right Way to do software.

  • by Matje ( 183300 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @12:39PM (#12520960)
    If you're still inclined, take a look at "Agile software development" by Cockburn. He's not telling you to abandon all design. Instead, he claims that you should not perform any 'overhead' activity if it isn't needed to get the job done. So if the complexity of your project requires you to plan a design phase, by all means do. But, if you're in a project where you can go ahead succesfully without performing an initial design phase, then don't! It's as simple as that, really.
  • by j79 ( 875929 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @01:05PM (#12521300)
    AFAIK, this did not start with the Acid2 tests. This has been an on going issue with the KDE developers. It was the Acid2 test that pushed them over the limit.

    Also, it was not "Apple" that created a build of webcore that passed the test. It was David Hyatt, a software developer, who created the patches so Safari would pass the Acid 2 test. None of the patches have been implemented into Safari yet. He, in fact, stated publicly, that while Safari did pass Acid2, it broke other aspects of Safari. So, I'm willing to bet there is much more work before those patches are included into Webcore.

    Secondly, it has not been accusations of Apple not adhering to the standards. Nor was it an issue with Apple's code being "messy" (while KDE developers have stated such-which is one reason they say it makes it harder to decipher a diff file...) The issue at hand is this:

    Uninformed Slashdotters, who believe the relationship between Apple and KDE is great. That a partnership was forged when Safari was released and the two work hand in hand.

    That is the issue. After the Acid2 test debacle, they had to let the world know that, NO, Apple does not come by after every patch, and say "Hey! Here's the 6MB diff file. Let me explain it to you!", while Apple and KDE developers code into the night, occasionally stopping to play a game of WoW.

    Instead, they're sent a huge diff file...and that's pretty much it. So when people (Slashdotters, for instance), start with the "Well, Apple has it?!? Why don't you?" - they should realize it's not KDE's fault. Nor is it Apple's fault. Granted, the relationship is far from perfect. It's OUR fault, for ever believing there was this "perfect" relationship to begin with.
  • Re:Agile (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cosmo7 ( 325616 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @01:22PM (#12521494) Homepage
    You're quite right; I apologize for besmirching you.

    It is interesting that Apple's policy of giving away software - principally OS X - to sell hardware means that from an investment analyst's viewpoint the company's stock is expected to have a much lower P/E than if it sold the software separately. Companies that sell software can have huge P/E ratios.
  • Re:In a way I agree (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ogerman ( 136333 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @06:25PM (#12525044)
    KDE has chosen a better infrastructure than Gnome ... But Gnome is better in terms of the software they developed.

    KDE's infrastructure allows for a modern, well-integrated desktop. It is an example of object oriented principles being properly applied in real world development. Everything is richly context sensitive and there is a high degree of code modularity and re-use. To give a specific example, application file dialog widgets in KDE use the same objects as the Konqueror file manager component. Unlike in GNOME, I can manage files, open a preview pane, access network resources, etc. within the file dialog. KDE has many other similar qualities that GNOME lacks. From a real-world usage perspective, KDE is highly superior to GNOME and it's no surprise why most people running Linux today use it. I would have to say the same for KDE applications -- they're generally much richer because they re-use the superior core KDE components. Examples: I know of no equal equivalents to K3B or Amarok as GNOME/Gtk apps. I also find KMail far superior to Evolution and Kopete superior to Gaim.

    KDE tries to look like Windows too much for my taste. Gnome is inspired on the same ideas of Mac OS, something more elegant.

    KDE doesn't really try to look like anything - it's a product of what seems to work and what users are asking for. I certainly don't see much similarity to the look/feel of Windows. (Yes, I still run into Windows a bit on the job so I'm still quite familiar..) GNOME is (now) designed upon a set of HCI guidelines developed by a handful of folks who sat illiterate users down at computers, asked them to perform simple tasks, and then decided that this must be the way interfaces should be designed. Obviously everyone else (aka. real users) don't know what they're talking about. The result is agonizingly simple, inflexible, and feature-bare software. That's not to say there isn't some great GNOME/Gtk software but the desktop environment itself is the pits. It's not MacOS X either.. it's more like Mac OS 7 or 8 in feature set / richness. Hardly "elegant" by any standards.

Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- Wernher von Braun