Tech firms to tackle Linux desktop standards

They should come out with several different standards and what they apply to. For instance, there should a LSB filesystem layout standard, then there should be LSB application layout standard, and then on up to a 3rd, 4th, or 5th, level is where they should examine libraries, and X applications and desktop managers.

When I started with Linux a few years ago I didn't had much knowledge about the choice for a Desktop. I was pointed to one from my default Red Hat installation and used it (GNOME).

But over the time I figured out how immature it was. Software was not working correctly, crashing or had weak features compared to the counterparts found on Windows or they were simply incomplete, slammed together in a hurry and not aesthetical pleasing.

I then switched my distributions only to see alternatives and came across to SUSE who offered me a Desktop that was called KDE and over the time I settled myself with KDE and saw how mature it was. I was able to do all my tasks that I knew from Windows. Could draw diagrams using KIVIO, use the KOFFICE suite and felt confortable with it.

Not just that, the Desktop was complete, mature and offered all the powerful tools that I knew from former Windows times. I recommend everyone (companies, education, corporate, users and random other people) to go with KDE - primarily because it is more polished, has the better technology beneath it and has all the powerful applications to get serious stuff done. Unlike GNOME, KDE otoh is complete and can be considered a serious replacement for Windows.

Because you've started "a few" years ago. Earlier, 4 years ago, Gnome was the choice - stylish, quick, stable. Only after version 3.x KDE has taken the crown.

Well I even peek over to GNOME nowadays every now and then but for my personal needs it doesn't have improved that much.

With a "few years ago" I meant the time where GNOME already was 2.x

But KDE really rocks, it's rock solid, stable and offers all the great tools.

I prefer Gnome to KDE because of it's simplicity, stability & speed. Some of the earlier comments come from people that clearly never understood the development processes of KDE/Gnome. And they don't sound like they've seen Gnome running for a long while.

KDE was the first (windows-like) desktop, it was developed on a proprietary toolkit called QT from a company called Trolltech. KDE is encumbered with a license that limited certain things for KDE developers. One limitation is they'd have to pay if they wanted their app to fork into a pay for version (per developer). IMHO KDE has damaged the OSS desktop development by not supporting open source, they supported a company instead.

Gnome was started as an effort to create a truly open desktop environment, it's improved in leaps and bounds lately. Gnome has recently won outright in an independant usability test with inexperienced computer users over KDE! KDE is so bloated with daft options that it's hardly changed apart from remove bloat in the last few versions!

So no, philosophically speaking IMHO (as in, not killing off OSS's power for the desktop) KDE is quite a bad thing. I'm not biased towards Gnome either, if I could have it my way you'd be all using blackbox or afterstep!

That's ok, you can prefer what you want and we do accept it. But if you want to get serious work done then there is no other alternative to Windows rather than going with KDE.

Most GNOME applications that I have tried are simply unfinished, crash, not mature enough to satisfy the requirements and demands of corporates. Their technology is irritating, confusing and often not really logical.

What benefits do I have from a Desktop like GNOME that (as you claim) is more free than the other but offers nothing else than half working stuff ?

I chose the Desktop that gets my work done and not a Desktop for whatever philosophical reasons like "being more free than the other". Which besides is a plain stupid excuse too since it's not reflecting truth.

KDE has big corporate and companies behind it specially with Trolltech who has serious large corporate support.

KDE offers the best complete and mature applications from both sides. The applications existing fullfils all my demands and needs and could easily stand corporate requirements. The Desktop feels round, complete and consistent.

Standardize the basics for software installation and data exchange but not the layout of the desktop. People should have their "start" button where ever it best suits them, and the programs within the menu should be organized as they prefer. It is the paths for the installation and shared objects (.so files, similar to .dll files for dynamically linked code) should be what gets standardized to make it easy for vendors to write code that can be installed easily on any distribution. Don't take away freedom of choice!

What about FreeDesktop.org ?

They propose good standards usable by both KDE and GNOME camps.

Personally I prefer GNOME, but I respect choice and encourage people to use whatever they like.
It is true that Trolltech used to be less open/free, but now they are mostly good on that front... However, they are still a corporation and as such could decide to start charging for all Qt apps, open or not.

Anyway, the good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from! ;)

Hmm.. Hasn't the LSB standard been around for while? Last time I checked SuSE and Red Hat (and probably others) were compatibile with LSB already. So what is the big deal here? Some one finally figure out that LSB exists thought it was a good ideal?

Also according some of the other info I've seen concerning KDE and GNOME. In order for both the be LSB compliant they're require static linking to the X libraries that are part of the standard base. Fat chance that will happen for both. Both desktops use dynamically linked libs. Sho w what does that leave us with? TWM as LSB compliant Window Manager. Ooooh..... That will make people flock to Linux in droves.