In previous posts in this forum and other places I've noted the written desire of de Icaza to make Mono the API for Gnome, first by creating GTK# Mono bindings and later replacing GTK altogether. Both Gnome and Mono are under Novell's umbrella and Novell has "partnered" with Microsoft. The primary purpose of that partnership seems to have been to help Microsoft replace enterprise RH servers with SUSE servers, running without Master Browser capability so that they can be easily replaced with Windows servers sometime later. From Novell's market performance the partnership isn't doing very much for their bottom line. They are totally dependent on Microsoft's handouts.
Recently we've been blindsided with the news that Nokia, keeper of the Qt API, has partnered with Microsoft too! The results have been equally disturbing. Nokia has sold the Qt commercial licenses to Digia, which has claims it will add to Qt's capability but has no obligation to share those improvements with Qt Free. Nokia has abandon the Qt built Symbian OS and reduced itself to the status of an OEM and gutted its software development division. Nokia is under no obligation by the Qt Free agreement to release Windows or Mac versions of Qt, which would destroy its "cross-platform" capability, an outcome which neither Mac nor Microsoft would loose sleep over. Nokia, accepting $1B and destroying any remaining smartphone market share they had, have also become totally dependent on Microsoft's handouts.
This morning, a poster on this forum remarked, perhaps even complained, how Kubuntu sets on top of Ubuntu but "many of the things that work well in Gnome on Ubuntu do not work well in KDE on Ubuntu", and suggested he might consider returning to Gnome on Ubuntu. Recent postings by Mark Shuttlesworth, David Neary and Aaron Aseigo may explain why the inter-connectivity problems between Gnome and KDE are increasing.
Canonical has made some recent decisions about Banshee (a Mono app) and Unity (Qt) that suggest that Mark Shuttlesworth was beginning to see a pattern too, and didn't want Ubuntu to be dependent on Mono, which is, essentially Microsoft's, API. Gnome will still be selectable on Ubuntu, as will be KDE, but Unity is going to be the default desktop regardless of which hardware you install Ubuntu on. The "Status Notifiers" a.k.a "appindicators" seems to be the straw that broke the camel's back. After several years of cooperation Gnome developers seem to be backing away from interoperability between Gnome and KDE. Considering whose is/was behind Gnome and Mono (de Icaza), and his love of all things Microsoft, and the results of Microsoft's money on Novell and Nokia (among others), and the potential affects on the API from which KDE is built, the pattern is there.
What to do? What I've suggested before: fork Qt, strip its trademarks and branding, and released it under the LGPL as "Kt", and continue building KDE from it. IF Nokia doesn't keep significant annual releases of Qt going, or they don't keep the release difference between Qt Free and Qt Commercial to one or less, then Qt automatically goes to a BSD license, a result that Microsoft does not want. But, they can keep lawyers arguing for years about what is a "significant" release or what is the difference between two versions, an outcome that would hinder Qt progress in FOSS significantly. As I said before, having Nokia cancel Win & Mac versions of Qt and then tying the KDE Qt Free foundation up in court over definitions of terms in the Qt Free agreement would have the effect of stalling Qt R&D for years, making it difficult for KDE desktops to connect to new hardware or modified versions of old hardware, a trick Microsoft has been using for almost two decades against OS competitors.
The dice have been cast. I predict that we are about to witness MAJOR changes in the Linux desktop development environment.
Recently we've been blindsided with the news that Nokia, keeper of the Qt API, has partnered with Microsoft too! The results have been equally disturbing. Nokia has sold the Qt commercial licenses to Digia, which has claims it will add to Qt's capability but has no obligation to share those improvements with Qt Free. Nokia has abandon the Qt built Symbian OS and reduced itself to the status of an OEM and gutted its software development division. Nokia is under no obligation by the Qt Free agreement to release Windows or Mac versions of Qt, which would destroy its "cross-platform" capability, an outcome which neither Mac nor Microsoft would loose sleep over. Nokia, accepting $1B and destroying any remaining smartphone market share they had, have also become totally dependent on Microsoft's handouts.
This morning, a poster on this forum remarked, perhaps even complained, how Kubuntu sets on top of Ubuntu but "many of the things that work well in Gnome on Ubuntu do not work well in KDE on Ubuntu", and suggested he might consider returning to Gnome on Ubuntu. Recent postings by Mark Shuttlesworth, David Neary and Aaron Aseigo may explain why the inter-connectivity problems between Gnome and KDE are increasing.
Canonical has made some recent decisions about Banshee (a Mono app) and Unity (Qt) that suggest that Mark Shuttlesworth was beginning to see a pattern too, and didn't want Ubuntu to be dependent on Mono, which is, essentially Microsoft's, API. Gnome will still be selectable on Ubuntu, as will be KDE, but Unity is going to be the default desktop regardless of which hardware you install Ubuntu on. The "Status Notifiers" a.k.a "appindicators" seems to be the straw that broke the camel's back. After several years of cooperation Gnome developers seem to be backing away from interoperability between Gnome and KDE. Considering whose is/was behind Gnome and Mono (de Icaza), and his love of all things Microsoft, and the results of Microsoft's money on Novell and Nokia (among others), and the potential affects on the API from which KDE is built, the pattern is there.
What to do? What I've suggested before: fork Qt, strip its trademarks and branding, and released it under the LGPL as "Kt", and continue building KDE from it. IF Nokia doesn't keep significant annual releases of Qt going, or they don't keep the release difference between Qt Free and Qt Commercial to one or less, then Qt automatically goes to a BSD license, a result that Microsoft does not want. But, they can keep lawyers arguing for years about what is a "significant" release or what is the difference between two versions, an outcome that would hinder Qt progress in FOSS significantly. As I said before, having Nokia cancel Win & Mac versions of Qt and then tying the KDE Qt Free foundation up in court over definitions of terms in the Qt Free agreement would have the effect of stalling Qt R&D for years, making it difficult for KDE desktops to connect to new hardware or modified versions of old hardware, a trick Microsoft has been using for almost two decades against OS competitors.
The dice have been cast. I predict that we are about to witness MAJOR changes in the Linux desktop development environment.
Comment