glib in kdesupport: yes or no?

[Marc Mutz]

On Tuesday 11 March 2003 00:33, Maks Orlovich wrote:
<snip>
> All I mean is that it's not accurate that all this interoperability
> stuff is without cost, and that it can in fact harm users pretty
> directly, by diverting developer users. And since I particularly care
> deeply about a commitment to existing users and developers, I find
> that cost non-trivially high.
<snip>

You fail to take the long-term benefits of a single solution into 
account. Granted, in the short-term, development power may be slightly 
redirected to the unification, but once obtained, the unified solution 
makes much less trouble, because:

1. More users use it, so bugs get found and squashed quicker
2. More developers use it, so it's bound to be more generic and flexible 
a solution than the homebrewn one.

What you say, instead, is "forget standards and do your own thing".

I hear this surprisingly often recently in the KDE community, and always 
it's the "user's benefit" that is dragged along as an excuse to not 
talk with other people.

But I think this is a dangerous path to follow, leading to where 
Microsoft went years before.

It should be clear to everyone that standards _are_ in the best interest 
of the user and vendor-lock-in methods are not, even if the "vendor" is 
a Free Software project.

Marc

-- 
Ein Grundrecht auf Sicherheit steht bewusst nicht in der Verfassung.
  -- Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger (ehem. Bundesjustizministerin)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20030311/e60d538d/attachment.sig>