[Gllug] Re: What is the Gnome & KDE difference??

[Nix]

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, hrussman1 at ukonline.co.uk said:
> Isn't the real problem with GNOME and KDE that they are emulations of
> Windows

GNOME is, to an extent (e.g. gconf and the registry are comparable, and
some of the major GNOME developers have been heard to praise Windows for
the lovely way it is comprised of a million DLLs which aren't accessible
from the shell and are tied together in a tangle such that a bug in one
breaks all of them --- well, that wasn't *quite* what they said...)

KDE, well, if anything it has even more software reuse than the Windows
DLL heap, but most of it seems to be built on a diametrically opposing
philosophy to Windows: it has a component system (KParts) but it's
almost laughably simple to write things in (which *definitely* isn't
true of Windows's component model) and is easy to talk to from the shell
or from Perl or from, well, anywhere; it has more configuration stuff
than you can shake a very long stick at; the devs place great emphasis
on backward compatibility and openness to new ideas...

... it doesn't feel much like Windows to me at all. Quite like the early
days of GNOME, or indeed Unix: the wild anything-goes try-it-and-see
attitude is there in force.

-- 
`Come now, you should know that whenever you plan the duration of your
 unplanned downtime, you should add in padding for random management
 freakouts.'
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug