Events over the past week have brought the motives of the open source software movement very clearly into focus for me. In particular, the debate started by Richard Stallman who has suggested that the two most prominent desktop environments, KDE and Gnome, should start looking towards a common theme.
What makes the suggestion so contentious is not only the fact that it suggests that two, until now diverse, sets of developers should be working towards a standard interface, but also that the comment comes from Stallman, arch-architect of the Gnu movement and the most militant of the open source advocates.
The open source movement has thrived on its diversity thus far and perhaps it is not for any individual, even Stallman, to start directing developers in the direction of a single architecture.
Alastair Otter, journalist, ITWeb
It is, after all, an unexpectedly tolerant view from a man well known for riding roughshod over his opponents and who originally was stridently opposed to the KDE project. It is also unexpected because Stallman has spent the better portion of his life championing the Gnu cause and the freedom of developers to do their best work without constraint.
Be that as it may, Stallman`s announcement has made me consider very closely what exactly I find attractive about open source software. Is it the fact that the system offers users an infinite variety of options? Or is it that I believe open source is set to play a significant role in the future of computing?
I`ve always thought that it was the latter, but the suggestion that Linux should be working towards uniformity has made me realise that it is the variety of options in Linux that hold so much appeal for me.
Thriving on semi-chaos
Developers have thrived in this "semi-chaotic" and unconstrained world of open source development and users have ultimately benefited from the infinite variety of software as a result. And yet, there is always a concern that perhaps the open source movement was just a little too chaotic to become widely popular and the most widely used operating system of the future.
When I first heard Stallman`s proposal, my first reaction was a positive one. And yet I had some nagging doubts. On the one hand, a common base that simplifies the creation of applications for the Linux platform is an obvious advantage. Like many others on Slashdot and other Web sites, I imagined the creation of a single API, making the creation of applications for Linux a simple and painless task that would work across all the various distributions. At first this seemed the obvious next step to the development of Linux. On second thoughts, however, it occurred to me that unlike many that have commented on the issue, the thought of a single interface for Linux is not something I am particularly keen on.
I like KDE, but I confess I have much greater affection for Gnome at the moment, particularly the Ximian Gnome tools. And yet, while I sometimes wish that the two were a little closer, I really enjoy the differences between the two. A year ago I was completely sold on KDE. It was the first time that I had seen a really workable and attractive desktop environment for Linux. A year down the line and Gnome is my environment of choice. Perhaps because I come from a Macintosh background, I appreciate its current look and the attention to detail in logos and layout in Gnome.
Despite my current affection for Gnome I do still use KDE occasionally but I`m not about to shift to it permanently yet. But that is not to say I never will. Nor does it mean I`ll never use Blackbox - a desktop that embodies much of my minimalist tendencies and yet falls just a little short of the mark in my opinion.
Obviously I`d like Konqueror - a better file browser than Nautilus in my opinion - to work seamlessly under Gnome just as I could be converted to KDE if AbiWord and RedCarpet were more tightly integrated into KDE. But for the moment I`m happy to have both systems running on my machine just so that I can benefit from the innovations of both at different times.
The open source movement has thrived on its diversity thus far and perhaps it is not for any individual, even Stallman, to start directing developers in the direction of a single architecture. Interface design is something that thrives on comparison and competition.
Perhaps one day developers on the two groups will find themselves drawing together, but for the moment, let`s allow developers to develop and let users decide what works best for them.
Share