glib in kdesupport: yes or no?
Marc.Mutz at uni-bielefeld.de
Tue Mar 11 13:51:13 GMT 2003
On Tuesday 11 March 2003 00:33, Maks Orlovich wrote:
> 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.
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.
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
Size: 189 bytes
More information about the kde-core-devel