-
 KDE-Apps.org Applications for the KDE-Desktop 
 GTK-Apps.org Applications using the GTK Toolkit 
 GnomeFiles.org Applications for GNOME 
 MeeGo-Central.org Applications for MeeGo 
 CLI-Apps.org Command Line Applications 
 Qt-Apps.org Free Qt Applications 
 Qt-Prop.org Proprietary Qt Applications 
 Maemo-Apps.org Applications for the Maemo Plattform 
 Java-Apps.org Free Java Applications 
 eyeOS-Apps.org Free eyeOS Applications 
 Wine-Apps.org Wine Applications 
 Server-Apps.org Server Applications 
 apps.ownCloud.com ownCloud Applications 
--
-
 KDE-Look.org Artwork for the KDE-Desktop 
 GNOME-Look.org Artwork for the GNOME-Desktop 
 Xfce-Look.org Artwork for the Xfce-Desktop 
 Box-Look.org Artwork for your Windowmanager 
 E17-Stuff.org Artwork for Enlightenment 
 Beryl-Themes.org Artwork for the Beryl Windowmanager 
 Compiz-Themes.org Artwork for the Compiz Windowmanager 
 EDE-Look.org Themes for your EDE Desktop 
--
-
 Debian-Art.org Stuff for Debian 
 Gentoo-Art.org Artwork for Gentoo Linux 
 SUSE-Art.org Artwork for openSUSE 
 Ubuntu-Art.org Artwork for Ubuntu 
 Kubuntu-Art.org Artwork for Kubuntu 
 LinuxMint-Art.org Artwork for Linux Mint 
 Arch-Stuff.org Art And Stuff for Arch Linux 
 Frugalware-Art.org Themes for Frugalware 
 Fedora-Art.org Artwork for Fedora Linux 
 Mandriva-Art.org Artwork for Mandriva Linux 
--
-
 KDE-Files.org Files for KDE Applications 
 OpenTemplate.org Documents for OpenOffice.org
 GIMPStuff.org Files for GIMP
 InkscapeStuff.org Files for Inkscape
 ScribusStuff.org Files for Scribus
 BlenderStuff.org Textures and Objects for Blender
 VLC-Addons.org Themes and Extensions for VLC
--
-
 KDE-Help.org Support for your KDE Desktop 
 GNOME-Help.org Support for your GNOME Desktop 
 Xfce-Help.org Support for your Xfce Desktop 
--
openDesktop.orgopenDesktop.org:   Applications   Artwork   Linux Distributions   Documents    LinuxDaily.com    Linux42.org    OpenSkillz.com   
 
Artwork
News
Groups
Knowledge
Events
Forum
People
Jobs
Register
Login

-
- Poll . 

Why does KDE lack support from companies?


Posted by Yaba on Dec 12 2004
Commercial QT license costs money.29%29%29% 29%
License problems in the past.4%4%4% 4%
They consider Gnome as beeing more usable.6%6%6% 6%
Companies do not like clean toolkits.3%3%3% 3%
KDE is developed mainly in Europe.10%10%10% 10%
The Gnome project has a better loby.7%7%7% 7%
They support Gnome just because most other companies are doing this.6%6%6% 6%
KDE needs more marketing.14%14%14% 14%
Uhm, don't know. I have no idea.14%14%14% 14%
I don't care, since Gnome apps run under KDE also.7%7%7% 7%
Votes: 1659
goto page:  1  2 

-

 The real reason

 
 by sequitur on: Dec 13 2004
 
Score 50%

Wow, what a flame bait survey. The answer isn't even on the list. BTW Kitty Hooch does support KDE. ;-)

The commercial license is a red herring. Consider the reality of software development. Run sloccount on any KDE module. For instance a handfull of developers work on kdewebdev. Using sloccount it indicates it would take years to produce and cost millions of dollars. All of this is true, and that means that licensing Qt would end up costing less than 1%-2% of the total cost. More accurately it begins to pay off at that level of efficiency improvement for the toolkit. So if you were writing a commercial app it amortizes to the cost of a latte everyday and Trolltech will work with you... or you already have a pile of seed capital.

Are the lights going off? This is why Trolltech is such a fast growing and successful company! The license cost is an effective bargain in the cost of developing software. So why is this not attracting companies to KDE?

Looking again at kdewebdev, if this were a commercial product we would need to add some polish with included scripts, templates and other things and we would be able to be competitive with Dreamweaver which is around $500. We don't have the name recognition though and without some more glitz we need to come in lower. Say $100-$300. Do the math. We then would need to come up with tens of thousands of sales before we are out of the red ink and into the black.

That is one of two problems with corporate development on KDE. First, with a few millin users we have too small of a pool to draw from for most any application. Classically the number of 10 million users is advanced for an operating platform to be attractive for developers, but with hundreds of millions of Windows users you really need to be cross platform. This is why Qt as a toolkit without KDE is attractive.

The second problem is an irony. KDE is a fast moving platform with lots of releases. Commercial development is not well geared for this as they want to have longer product release life. You see when you factor in those development costs you have a lot more when you are always updating and clients have more too.

All of this goes to the heart of why Linux is popular and why the commercial shrinkwrap development model is headed for niche markets. Developing an open source program and marketing service is much easier. Eventually FLOSS programs like Quanta will be where companies want to adopt them and want to contract service and training. This is trending to where companies make their money anyway in software.

The advantage with KDE is how easy it is to develop and a guy like me that doesn't have a few million dollars laying around could eventually derive a business model. This is tremendously empowering! It means that there is a trend that can and likely will replace a lot of general purpose shrink wrap software over the coming years with something better.

Given how software development costs and the associated risks have driven competitors out and left largely a monolithic monster to absorb the market all of this is very good indeed.

Instead of waiting for a rich guy to ride up on a white horse anybody could develop their own opportunity from their vision and passion.


Eric Laffoon
kdewebdev (Quanta/Kommander) project lead

Reply to this

-

 Re: The real reason

 
 by eean on: Dec 13 2004
 
Score 50%
eeaneean
Amarok
-
Ian Monroe 3

Amarok
United States of America, Iowa City, IA
Last visit Aug 17 2011
2 Friends
1 Groups

More info
Send a message
Add as friend
Other contents
--

"it amortizes to the cost of a latte everyday"
I think you borrowed this from a car commercial. :)

Gnome release cycle is about as fast as KDE. And given its history, of GTK1 to GTK2 apparently requiring large application changes (given that GTK programs seem slower to switch versions then KDE programs and in the case of XMMS requires nothing less then a fork), if anything KDE as a development platform appears more stable.

KDE and Qt should be available for GPL development on Windows not to far in the future. Isn't that already an option for commercial developers? I'm unsure. For instance, Kexi appears to be releasing to Windows using a commercial Qt software license.


Reply to this

-

 Re: The real reason

 
 by Yaba on: Dec 13 2004
 
Score 50%

Eric, you have good arguments and I can't really disagree. However all these arguments also speak against Gnome and GTK, while Gnome and GTK gets a much better recognition by companies like Sun, Hewlett-Packard and so on.

I guess one of the reasons for the success of Gnome on commercial Unices was the good work of Ximian on promoting Gnome to commercial companies. KDE does not have something comparable.


To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.
- Scott Granneman, Security Focus

Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: The real rea

 
 by elektroschock on: Dec 16 2004
 
Score 50%

Well, despite for analysts... Why are these companies important?

Who cares about them?

Why does KDE-look adopt Ximian vapour spin against KDE. There is no lack of KDE applications.

How does SUN use GTK? Where?


Reply to this

-

  fast moving platfor

 
 by oliverthered on: Dec 14 2004
 
Score 50%

I don't think that's a problem, I think the problem is that features are released into stable long before they should have come out of alpha.

As an example Quanta (not picking on you or anything ;->)

Quanta is quite a nice application, and if reasonably good at editing web content, it does however have some very obviously buggy features that would never have made it out of the door in a commetcial app.

In one way this is good, it give me a change to see where the application is going, offer to contribute and try out features that although sometimes take a little faith generally help me out.

But, when you a corporation you don't want a product that 10% of it's functionality only works 75% of the time. 1: That 10% is going to change, 2: You don't know what that 10% is and 3: you waste more time because of that 10% than you could have ever have saved by it's functionality.

I think that KDE need to have a well proofed, designed core with clear goals and quality requirements, suitable for business use.

An extended 'feature rich' KDE can then be built using various unstable patches to give features for testes, researchers and people who like fast cars with elastic seat belts.


Reply to this

-

 Re: fast moving plat

 
 by elektroschock on: Dec 16 2004
 
Score 50%

Quanta moves fast as an application. For those people who use it, it works fine. Improvement will go on.

BUT: How does this relate to KDE?


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: fast moving plat

 
 by oliverthered on: Dec 17 2004
 
Score 50%

Quanta ships with kde packages so it relates to KDE as a platform.

I do use Quanta, but it's not 'stable' things like automatically updating tag name changes sometimes fails, changing the DTD doesn't work properly in some cases etc...

Quanta is one application that I would really like to see working well, I've used xmlspy quite a lot in the past(I've also use VI and notepad beecause sometimes it's easier) and have found it to be a great application, and I would really like to see a 'free' equlivilent.


A commercially viable release wouldn't have partly working features in, they would be removed, a KDE release however does, preventing take-up by companies.


sorry spelling checkers broken with my current kde build :-(


Reply to this

-

 well

 
 by rschmidt on: Dec 13 2004
 
Score 50%

I have voted for "Commercial Qt licence costs money" although that's not exactly my opinion. In my opinion the commercial qt license is far too expensive, especially for small and freelance developers.

While the qt licence enables me to develop free-as-in-freedom apps on *nix/MacOS I cannot offer commerical Windows apps and make a living from it without the >1100 EUR for a qt licence. It`s a hen-and-the-egg-problem.

Yes there is a Windows-Qt for non-commercial and/or educational purposes but I cannot offer apps developed with it to my customers. And yes there is a free and non-Trolltech supported version of Qt for Windows but that's 40 MB that make application deployment uncomfortable...

my 2-Euro-Cents


Reply to this

-

 Re: well

 
 by elektroschock on: Dec 16 2004
 
Score 50%

Well, this is a strange business.

Are you kidding us? Do you know what usual development tools cost?

The license fee for Trolltech is something your employer will not even discuss with you, he will pay it.

It is really silly to see this very small business argument put forward.


Reply to this

-
.

 more usable...

 
 by timur on: Dec 13 2004
 
Score 50%
timurtimur
NORDA Design
Home
-
Timur K 0

NORDA Design
Russian Federation, Moscow
Last visit Mar 21 2014
0 Friends
0 Groups

More info
Send a message
Add as friend
Other contents
--

I think that companies like Novell and Red Hat consider that GNOME is more usable than KDE because the first one is more customizable to the needs of big companies.

First Novell can customize its OS desktop easier on GNOME that one KDE because their new release of Novell Desktop is based on the old Ximian Desktop and has the same look. Ximian used only GNOME for their releases of Linux and also developed programs for GNOME. Ximian Evolution (now Novell Evoulution) is the default e-mail client for GNOME.

Second Red Hat is one of the biggest linux distributors (or how they call theirselves Open Source Leaders) and it also used GNOME as default desktop. As you can see if you use Red Hat Linux and Fedora core, Bluecurve looks better on GNOME than on KDE.

So, the big companies like Novell and Red Hat have lack support for KDE because they continue to use their standard desktops that are based on GNOME and don't want to spend time and money to migrate to KDE.

But there are also companies like Mandrakesoft that support KDE and use it as default desktop. And why? For the same reason as Novell and Red Hat continue to use GNOME :-)


Reply to this

-

 Re: more usable...

 
 by 18volt on: Dec 14 2004
 
Score 50%

accually Novell/SuSE is a KDE desktop by default, but there gnome has been good the few times I have tried it


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: more usable...

 
 by mrpengo on: Dec 14 2004
 
Score 50%

Ok, Mandrake suports KDE but all the Mandrake Control Center is writen with GTK. Why?


Proud engrish writer.
Reply to this

-

 GNOME more usable?

 
 by kwr2k on: Dec 13 2004
 
Score 50%

I voted for GNOME more usable option. However, it is wrong to say that companies do not support KDE.

Most desktop distro commercial companies are using KDE. In fact, I am yet to hear of any company producing a commercial desktop based on GNOME.

Even Novell has KDE and GNOME on its NLD.

Having said all that, I feel companies such as Sun, HP, Redhat pushed for GNOME because they think its *truly* free i.e. GTK etc.

Finally, somehow GNOME has managed to spread the propaganda that it is "usable" by joe blows ...


Reply to this

-

 Re: GNOME more usabl

 
 by elektroschock on: Dec 16 2004
 
Score 50%

Novell? Well, Novell Linux = SuSe. SuSe is a strong KDE supporter. Unfortunately Novell also bought the small company Ximian as a development lab that spills its "Gnome desktop" spin everywhere. Suse customers use and want KDE. This is what counts. Ignore ximian.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: GNOME more usabl

 
 by Yaba on: Dec 17 2004
 
Score 50%

Acutally with SuSE 9.2 Gnome became an equal alternative to KDE. KDE is no longer THE default. You are asked during the installation, wheather you want a Gnome or a KDE environment.

And for Ximian, the main reasons why Novell bought them are RedCarpet and Evolution.


To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.
- Scott Granneman, Security Focus

Reply to this

-

 Which Market

 
 by TakeIT2 on: Dec 14 2004
 
Score 50%

I am not a developer and I am not pretending to be one on TV this week ;)

I have been using KDE on SuSE since 6.3, yes it is the default desktop there and has been. I have tried Gnome and a few of the other desktops, not extensively because I feel KDE is more usable and available for user customization.

User customization I think is an issue for corporate managers because it represents time not spent at work.

Gnome has a finished around the edges look by comparison to KDE, though the number of applications for it to me seems trivial by comparison to KDE. None the less, that bit of polish gives the air of confidence in an application, irregardless of many other factors. That superficial difference is a marketing chip KDE can't play at the moment.

Down and dirty, KDE is pretty clunky looking. But who cares really when the applications finally work. Still I think there is an expectation that a working application will be pushed further by others after initial functionality, and well they should be. KDE has many annoyances in it's usability. A simple example is the find file tool in Konqueror : the length of file location paths affects the entire width of the tool panel pushing control butons out of view. You find what you are looking for but you have to resize your window every time after your first long path.

I can't speak to development costs and licensing other than every thing costs something, at minimum, time and coffee, (personally I like a regular coffee better then a fru-fru latte.) It makes sense though that you need good terms in a large scale operation, like those described in the prior comment. But then what do you showcase to make your sale of the platform; sale as in a convincing argument, for starts.

KDE's best argument is the raw attrition of apps on it specificly the apps written originally for gnome or other platforms. But that is a somewhat invisible attribute and a self canceling liability of an asset.

Gnome was chosen because evolution can talk to exchange. Mail is still the killer app. As was pointed out gnome can be controlled to control the way it's users perceive the the os, or ignore it. Mac did the same thing with osX's GUI on FreeBSD.

I think the question should be what does KDE want to sell. Mac is selling iTunes and iPods, Novel is selling an alternative to Microsoft as an upgrade path.

Personally, I think KDE should put emphasis on an alternative to the Media Center application. It is a killer home use app.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Which Market

 
 by elektroschock on: Dec 16 2004
 
Score 50%

"Down and dirty, KDE is pretty clunky looking. But who cares really when the applications finally work."

This is due to the release cycle and the developers chose to stick to the default theme of KDE 3 in later versions.

Keramik is pretty clunky.

http://www.synergizedsolutions.com/simpsons/pictures/homer/homer_dreamcar.gif


Reply to this

-

 another reason...

 
 by mart on: Dec 14 2004
 
Score 50%

Another reason is that due the nature of c++ and the lack(afaik) of an ABI standardization, with every single compiler and even with every single libstdc++ releases breaks up the binary compatibility, and this (apart of licensing issues) makes binary packages more difficult to distribute.
Perhaps LSB can do something in this way... boh, let's hope.


Reply to this

-

 Re: another reason...

 
 by steffanio on: Dec 15 2004
 
Score 50%

I completely agree with you. That is the main reason why commercial software is not so massively written for Linux. If I was to write a commercial software, I would not like to release a binary version for each distribution and every minor change in libraries and compilers. I think the solution is to release a "commercial-safe" GTK2 and QT3 (and others), which means the ABI would be completely frozen and only bugfixes would be allowed (but no api/abi changes).


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: another reas

 
 by clarence on: Dec 15 2004
 
Score 50%

> I completely agree with you. That is the
> main reason why commercial software is
> not so massively written for Linux. If I
> was to write a commercial software, I
> would not like to release a binary
> version for each distribution and every
> minor change in libraries and compilers.
No you don't - try my distro independent binary at:
http://kolourpaint.sourceforge.net/download.html

> I think the solution is to release a
> "commercial-safe" GTK2 and QT3 (and
> others), which means the ABI would be
> completely frozen and only bugfixes
> would be allowed (but no api/abi
> changes).
http://www.autopackage.org/


Reply to this

goto page:  1  2 

Add commentAdd commentall pollsSuggest new pollBack



-

-
Do you like or dislike Ubuntu Unity?
 Yes, unity is alien technology!
 It is less confusing than Gnome 3 default, shell.
 Granny thinks it is much more usable than Gnome 2
 Canonical is embarrasing itself with this split project
 Gnome 3 default shell is much better
 I dislike Unity, Gnome 3 default shell is alien technology!
 None of the above, I like the 2Gb for free and Apple alike behavior. Will post a comment instead

resultmore




 
 
 Who we are
Contact
More about us
Frequently Asked Questions
Register
Twitter
Blog
Explore
Artwork
Jobs
Knowledge
Events
People
Updates on identi.ca
Updates on Twitter
Facebook App
Content RSS   
News RSS   
Discussion RSS   
Events RSS   

Participate
Groups
Forum
Add Artwork
Public API
About KDE-Look.org
Legal Notice
Spreadshirt Shop
CafePress Shop
Advertising
Sponsor us
Report Abuse
 

Copyright 2001-2014 KDE-Look.org Team  
All rights reserved. KDE-Look.org is not liable for any content or goods on this site.
All contributors are responsible for the lawfulness of their uploads.
KDE and K Desktop Environment are trademarks of KDE e.V.