|
|
|
| Authored by: odysseus on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 08:56 AM EST |
As I pointed out at the time, what Miguel talked about was almost entirely a
problem with Gnome, not Qt/KDE. On the Q/K side of things we strive very hard
to maintain backwards compatibility and support the full set of API's throughout
each major release cycle. That's an inheritance from Qt's commercial roots with
paying customers to keep happy, and one reason we have so many abstraction
layers implemented, they isolate our developers from the underlying system
changes meaning we can guarantee compatibility and support. It was Gnome that
played fast and loose with dependencies and release numbering and annoyed the
devs, but in Miguel's world that equals the Linux Desktop.
It's interesting that the article mentions both Gnome and KDE being wrong on
CORBA, as Miguel doesn't mention it in his blog, and he wouldn't as KDE was
actually right about it. Gnome wanted to use CORBA for IPC and tried to talk
KDE into using it too as a common IPC would make sense. KDE looked at it,
decided it was far too heavy and technically unfeasible so built their own
light-weight version called DCOP which proved a success, where-as Gnome's
implementation called Bonobo was always a problem. When Gnome realised this,
rather than adopt or adapt DCOP directly (as it was KDE stuff and so
unaccepatble for mostly political reasons), they created DBUS based heavily on
DCOP but fully re-implemented it with a number of unfortunate short-comings.
With KDE4, rather than continue with this split KDE agreed to adopt DBUS for IPC
as well, but we miss the features we had to give up like network transparency.
OK, at least that's my KDE-biased recollection of it, Gnome might see it
different.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
