I think the same applies here to the developers working on the Win and Mac versions, doesn't it? They are working on something to scratch their itches, and respecting of course the license of the KDE project. So why this topic causes a lot of discussion, like the recent one going on in planet? Well, I know no one asked, but here is my take on this issue anyway. I will probably regret posting this in one week :)
To me it boils down to the attempt (sometimes unconscious) to "control" or "direct" other people' s lives. Sorry for the quotes, but English is not my native language, so I know these are approximations of the idea I am trying to convey. Let me try to make this more clear.
Behind the discussion of this topic is the sometimes unconscious idea that people "should" switch to a free OS sometime down the road. If you examine the whole issue from the perspective of JUST KDE SOFTWARE you will see that expanding to other platforms looks like an obvious gain if it brings one single developer to the project. If you however examine the issue from the perspective of "trying to sway people away from MS and into a free software OS" then the issues are really more muddy, and I can not see clearly how expanding to the "hostile" OS will achieve this goal automatically without some clear planning of the process. It might help, it might not. Apple is betting their house on a similar strategy, porting some of the apps to Windows, while keeping the jewels on their OS. It would be interesting to see how it plays out for them.
So, to me, it is a question of making the intentions of the questioner more clear. If the goal is to spread adoption of KDE software, then it seems logical that any work in porting to other platforms is a step in the right direction. The only pitfall I can see is the possibility of "dumbing down" some of KDE key infrastructure in order to accommodate restrictions in this platform, which should not happen imo. This is a real danger, not something hypothetical, but I believe the core group of KDE developers is taking steps to prevent this from happening.
If however the goal is to make all of the world switch to free software OS then we are talking about a whole different issue. But as I see it, this should not be a goal of the KDE project (see * at the end.) Mind you that this is not because I disagree with it as an end result, but I think something like this (the switch) comes naturally after people are exposed to free software culture in its more "pure" form (to me at least), without strings or attachments, or hidden plans. Start by enjoying good quality free software one application at a time, and the rest will happen to the people that are prepared or willing to take this path.
There is a thin line here. It is a choice between
A) offering a gift to people freely so they can hopefully understand its value and adopt it if needed, and
B) secretly wanting in some corner of your mind to dominate the whole world by all means necessary, which tends to make portions of the free software community very similar to MS in attitude. Different paths to world domination, but same end result :)
A triple disclaimer with sugar on top here: I am not judging Aarons's and Christian's opinions here, nor am I trying to put them on just one of the camps described above! Read this as an attempt to help with the discussion, which I find very interesting and needed for the future of the project!.
*There is this page. Maybe the goal of the KDE project had always included a switch to monopoly-free computing environment. The current work on porting seems contrary to the goals of the project as described on that page, doesn't it? Should we update the page, or attempt to understand how the porting effort could really contribute to the goals stated here?
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
piacentini- piacentini
Comments
Aaron stated some time ago ( http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2004/12/how-t
« Survey people using FireFox on Windows. How many of them are saying, "I'm so impressed I'm going to switch to a Free Software desktop." Virtually zero. »
I'm one of these : i switched to a Free Software desktop because of FireFox on windows. I think this point of view should be emphasized, and your post is doing precisely this, in a really cool way.
Is it (end)users or developers we want.
I say the latter.
Now who comes forward to do the monkey dance?
my issue, quite simply, is that we are embarking on an effort where those who are leading these charges have not answered the most fundamental questions or helped prepare the project in an way for:
- a potentially huge influx of developers who know nothing of our culture
- a potentially huge influx of users who would expect support of some sort of support and who will want to sway our interests towards their preferred platforms
- that by undermining the base attractiveness of free operating systems without a plan on how to attract people to them we prolong the period in which proprietary client side computing remains dominant and therefore we remain in a precarious position. until enough people are on free operating systems, we are constantly dealing with a lack of representation in industry concerns (see: hardware vendors) and are at the mercy of shifting APIs and developer strategies from those who control these proprietary platforms who often purposefully work against our interests
@anonymous the first: i didn't say zero, as i too know of individuals who made the approach this way. fact is, though, that in the large picture it is "near zero" in %s. there are people who go to creationism museums, too. thankfully not too much compared to the total population, but hey ... all sorts of people do all sorts of things. i'm interested in statistically significant movement.
And in fact I agree with you in the sense that KDE (as a project) should probably think about the issues you raised in this comment, if only to amend the WHAT IS KDE page mentioned in my post, and clarify the project's intentions regarding cross platform support.
As an example, the project might find it interesting to play it like Apple: port some applications but not all of the functionality, so that only users in X would get the full KDE experience (plasma and others.) Not because we are withholding something or have some secret plan, but because there are real advantages inherited from running in a free OS environment where KDE components can integrate better and benefit from the work of its peer projects. This appears to be one possible plan, we just need to embrace it if this is the case, and communicate it both internally and externally.
So I agree with you: the project probably needs a clearer vision why the move to non-free platforms is being done, if even to prepare best for the consequences of it. May I suggest this as a topic to be handled in the next week, during aKademy?
"@anonymous the first: i didn't say zero,"
anon2 did not say "zero" he said "virtually zero", he quoted YOU:
http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2004/12/how-t
sjeesh
Also, games not just at the programming level, but at what's being done demand a great deal of creativity, which in turn demands that the API brings with it a a lot of expressability such that this creativity can be expressed. Balance the latter with the more, "conventional" demands of other varieties of applications and you gain an amazing power to weight ratio, if you will.
The consequence is that you have to make "Freedom is a feature" the main marketing message when porting (and marketing). You have to make sure that people notice what this freedom gives them (especially if they can't program and are consequently not interested in the source code) and start to like it. I have no real idea how this would work, but then, I'm not a KDE developer, so it's not my problem :D