Isn't KDE older than GNOME though? (KDE 1.0 being released in 12 July 1998 and GNOME 1.0 released on 3 March 1999, so yes it is.) Still nice to see that in this regard, there's still some appreciation for both sides!
Still, looking back, it's impressive to see where both desktops started from and where both desktops ended up!
Yes, Gnome was a response to KDE choosing the QT Library which at the time had a fairly restrictive proprietary license (according to the Gnome team and supporters of the project). Though KDE reached Version 1 (first non alpha/ beta version) first the two projects are not more than a few months apart in conception. One aspect that allowed KDE to grow faster was the funding the project received from QT (owned by TrollTech at the time) {*this detail has been question and may not be accurate}. Were Gnome was entirely volunteer based. Meaning people work on it when they can. And the initial development team was quite small.
@unusnemo Afaik, Qt 2.2 fixed that licensing issue as they offered a GPL option solving GPL compatibility that plagued Qt and KDE since the first version and Qt 4 offered a LGPL option.
What I like about Qt is that it isn't fully controlled by a project, unlike with modern GTK, especially GTK 4 with libadwaita. GTK has increasingly become more intertwined with GNOME, which has hurt projects like Cinnamon, Xfce, and actually caused LXDE to move to Qt; LXQt.
Qt 2.2 fixed that licensing issue as they offered a GPL option solving GPL compatibility that plagued Qt and KDE since the first version and Qt 4 offered a LGPL option.
I know, that is why I said they had a fairly restrictive license at the time. I am aware that was changed.
I prefer developing with GTK, though that is just my preference. QT is huge and you can spend a lot of time just learning the eco. I also use wxWidget though I build the library myself and I use GTK as a backend.
Typically speaking I can get work done about 20 to 40% faster with wxWidgets or GTK than with QT. Of course, if I used QT a lot more often that would be negligible
Qt 2.2 fixed that licensing issue as they offered a GPL option solving GPL compatibility that plagued Qt and KDE since the first version and Qt 4 offered a LGPL option.
I know, that is why I said they had a fairly restrictive license at the time. I am aware that was changed.
I prefer developing with GTK, though that is just my preference. QT is huge and you can spend a lot of time just learning the eco. I also use wxWidget though I build the library myself and I use GTK as a backend.
Typically speaking I can get work done about 20 to 40% faster with wxWidgets or GTK than with QT. Of course, if I used QT a lot more often that would be negligible 😉.
Though in my opinion there is no best GUI library just the one you like the best. I am a Gnome user and prefer GTK. Though I do not feel it is any better than QT or KDE they just serve my purposes better. I do use a lot of software that uses QT these days though. The days of using either or are far gone. I have as many QT apps installed as I do GTK and most people on KDE use a lot of GTK apps as well (even if they do not realize it).
They are both great libraries and DEs. I am thankful for both of them.
1. Arguably, the original license was more on the freer side than the proprietary side, even deemed "free" by the FSF (although not by Debian and was incompatible with the GPL).
But the degree of freeness is open to interpretation, and KDE is much better off with the GPL notwithstanding.
2. KDE was always a volunteer-based project and remains so to this day. Trolltech did not become a patron of KDE until 2007 (KDE was started in 1996), and then they only became a regular patron. Even today, patron's donate a maximum of €10K a year to KDE.
So the affirmation that "KDE grew faster because of the funding the project received from [Trolltech]" is inaccurate.
Thanks for the clarification. Though Whether QT's original license was more free or not was not an argument of mine. It was the argument that the original developers of Gnome and Gnome supporters made. Initially I was a KDE user so personally had no issue with the license. It was not until much later that I preferred Gnome as I liked the way it matured better (better for my purposes not better than). And to be clear it was QT's license that was the concern, not KDE's that was the issue. Much in the same way that PNG (Portable Network Graphics was created due to concerns over GIF's licensing. I am sure we both unders
Thanks for the clarification. Though Whether QT's original license was more free or not was not an argument of mine. It was the argument that the original developers of Gnome and Gnome supporters made. Initially I was a KDE user so personally had no issue with the license. It was not until much later that I preferred Gnome as I liked the way it matured better (better for my purposes not better than). And to be clear it was QT's license that was the concern, not KDE's that was the issue. Much in the same way that PNG (Portable Network Graphics was created due to concerns over GIF's licensing. I am sure we both understand that point. I have no horse in the race as I did not work for either project. I, as many others did, used GTK (Gimp Tool Kit) long before it became the foundation of Gnome and I did not care for the initial offerings of Gnome.
I do not have any sources to argue one way or the other how KDE or Gnome got their finances. Like you, I only went by what was published (officially or unofficially (usenet banter). It is really not that important to me though thanks for bringing up a counter view. It is always good to think and not just accept things blindly.
At first I preferred KDE though as the two matured, I migrated to Gnome. I just prefer the DE. Though there is no best DE, only the one that is bast for you.
foxcat (moving to nekosat.work)
in reply to KDE • • •Cameron Bosch
in reply to KDE • • •Isn't KDE older than GNOME though? (KDE 1.0 being released in 12 July 1998 and GNOME 1.0 released on 3 March 1999, so yes it is.) Still nice to see that in this regard, there's still some appreciation for both sides!
Still, looking back, it's impressive to see where both desktops started from and where both desktops ended up!
Unus Nemo likes this.
Unus Nemo
in reply to Cameron Bosch • •@Cameron Bosch @KDE @GNOME
Yes, Gnome was a response to KDE choosing the QT Library which at the time had a fairly restrictive proprietary license (according to the Gnome team and supporters of the project). Though KDE reached Version 1 (first non alpha/ beta version) first the two projects are not more than a few months apart in conception. One aspect that allowed KDE to grow faster was the funding the project received from QT (owned by TrollTech at the time) {*this detail has been question and may not be accurate}. Were Gnome was entirely volunteer based. Meaning people work on it when they can. And the initial development team was quite small.
like this
CJR and stellarorion 🛰️ like this.
Cameron Bosch
in reply to Unus Nemo • • •@unusnemo Afaik, Qt 2.2 fixed that licensing issue as they offered a GPL option solving GPL compatibility that plagued Qt and KDE since the first version and Qt 4 offered a LGPL option.
What I like about Qt is that it isn't fully controlled by a project, unlike with modern GTK, especially GTK 4 with libadwaita. GTK has increasingly become more intertwined with GNOME, which has hurt projects like Cinnamon, Xfce, and actually caused LXDE to move to Qt; LXQt.
Unus Nemo likes this.
Unus Nemo
in reply to Cameron Bosch • •@Cameron Bosch @KDE @GNOME
Cameron wrote:
I know, that is why I said they had a fairly restrictive license at the time. I am aware that was changed.
I prefer developing with GTK, though that is just my preference. QT is huge and you can spend a lot of time just learning the eco. I also use wxWidget though I build the library myself and I use GTK as a backend.
Typically speaking I can get work done about 20 to 40% faster with wxWidgets or GTK than with QT. Of course, if I used QT a lot more often that would be negligible
... show more@Cameron Bosch @KDE @GNOME
Cameron wrote:
I know, that is why I said they had a fairly restrictive license at the time. I am aware that was changed.
I prefer developing with GTK, though that is just my preference. QT is huge and you can spend a lot of time just learning the eco. I also use wxWidget though I build the library myself and I use GTK as a backend.
Typically speaking I can get work done about 20 to 40% faster with wxWidgets or GTK than with QT. Of course, if I used QT a lot more often that would be negligible 😉.
Though in my opinion there is no best GUI library just the one you like the best. I am a Gnome user and prefer GTK. Though I do not feel it is any better than QT or KDE they just serve my purposes better. I do use a lot of software that uses QT these days though. The days of using either or are far gone. I have as many QT apps installed as I do GTK and most people on KDE use a lot of GTK apps as well (even if they do not realize it).
They are both great libraries and DEs. I am thankful for both of them.
Gabriel likes this.
Cameron Bosch
in reply to Unus Nemo • • •Unus Nemo likes this.
*The* Paul Brown
in reply to Unus Nemo • • •@unusnemo @cameron_bosch
Slight corrections:
1. Arguably, the original license was more on the freer side than the proprietary side, even deemed "free" by the FSF (although not by Debian and was incompatible with the GPL).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_Public…
But the degree of freeness is open to interpretation, and KDE is much better off with the GPL notwithstanding.
2. KDE was always a volunteer-based project and remains so to this day. Trolltech did not become a patron of KDE until 2007 (KDE was started in 1996), and then they only became a regular patron. Even today, patron's donate a maximum of €10K a year to KDE.
So the affirmation that "KDE grew faster because of the funding the project received from [Trolltech]" is inaccurate.
software license
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Unus Nemo likes this.
Unus Nemo
in reply to *The* Paul Brown • •@*The* Paul Brown @Cameron Bosch @KDE @GNOME
Thanks for the clarification. Though Whether QT's original license was more free or not was not an argument of mine. It was the argument that the original developers of Gnome and Gnome supporters made. Initially I was a KDE user so personally had no issue with the license. It was not until much later that I preferred Gnome as I liked the way it matured better (better for my purposes not better than). And to be clear it was QT's license that was the concern, not KDE's that was the issue. Much in the same way that PNG (Portable Network Graphics was created due to concerns over GIF's licensing. I am sure we both unders
... show more@*The* Paul Brown @Cameron Bosch @KDE @GNOME
Thanks for the clarification. Though Whether QT's original license was more free or not was not an argument of mine. It was the argument that the original developers of Gnome and Gnome supporters made. Initially I was a KDE user so personally had no issue with the license. It was not until much later that I preferred Gnome as I liked the way it matured better (better for my purposes not better than). And to be clear it was QT's license that was the concern, not KDE's that was the issue. Much in the same way that PNG (Portable Network Graphics was created due to concerns over GIF's licensing. I am sure we both understand that point. I have no horse in the race as I did not work for either project. I, as many others did, used GTK (Gimp Tool Kit) long before it became the foundation of Gnome and I did not care for the initial offerings of Gnome.
I do not have any sources to argue one way or the other how KDE or Gnome got their finances. Like you, I only went by what was published (officially or unofficially (usenet banter). It is really not that important to me though thanks for bringing up a counter view. It is always good to think and not just accept things blindly.
Cameron Bosch likes this.
Cameron Bosch reshared this.
nshiell
in reply to KDE • • •hacknorris
in reply to KDE • • •Unus Nemo
in reply to KDE • •@KDE @GNOME
At first I preferred KDE though as the two matured, I migrated to Gnome. I just prefer the DE. Though there is no best DE, only the one that is bast for you.
Linh Pham likes this.
Sumana Harihareswara
in reply to KDE • • •