[Desktop_architects] Portland: The Linux DesktopIntegrationInterface

[Brooks, Phil]

My point is that none of the libraries on the other platforms are ever
second best.

If you develop an MFC app, you don't need to worry about half of your
customers running a flavor of Windows where MFC is a second class
citizen and various stuff doesn't work.  My impression, as an ISV, is
that if I came to you and said "I want to make my application work
really well under KDE - I want every bell and whistle you can offer,
what should I do?"  The answer would quickly come back as: "Learn Qt,
then dive in."  I would get a similar response from Gnome for Glib/GTK+.


I agree with you that the library or widget set is not the issue.  The
issue is that by choosing a library or widget set, I also dictate my
customer's environment. ISVs are very reluctant to dictate environments
to their customers because they get very mad at us when we do.

> It would require a complete rewrite of both desktops, which is for
sure not going to happen for a multitude of reasons.

Then I (I think most ISVs) will stay at the lowest common denominator of
functionality rather than tell my customers that they get certain
functionality only if they run the 'right' desktop.  That being the
case, make it clear what the lowest common denominator of functionality
is in Qt and Glib/GTK+, and then say you support either library at that
level.  Also be aware that many ISVs and end users will view everything
else as experimental fluff to be avoided if at all possible.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: desktop_architects-bounces at lists.osdl.org
[mailto:desktop_architects-bounces at lists.osdl.org] On Behalf Of George
Staikos
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 8:09 AM
To: desktop_architects at lists.osdl.org
Subject: Re: [Desktop_architects] Portland: The Linux
DesktopIntegrationInterface

On Monday 05 December 2005 01:01, Brooks, Phil wrote:
> As an attendee at the ISV session, the ISV issue of two widget
development
> environments was certainly a point of contention between the ISVs
(there
> should be 1 widget set like on Windows and Mac) vs. reps from the two
> desktops (there isn't any way to do that).

   Again, I have to point out that it's completely untrue that there is
only 
one widget set on Mac OS or Windows.  I said it so many times at the
meeting, 
and clearly I have to restate it -again-!  There are many:

Mac:
- Carbon
- Cocoa
- Java
- Qt
- wxWidgets

Win:
- Win32
- MFC
- .NET and associated things
- Qt
- Delphi
- wxWidgets

And:
- GTK+ on some of those I think

  Most of those adjust their look and feel to the platform they're
running on, 
or extend existing widgets on that platform.  Some are shipped with the 
platform, some are extra downloads, some are ISV products.  Note that on

Linux, all the widget sets use the same underlying implementation: X11.

  Do ISVs complain to Microsoft that they have even more choice than
they do 
on Linux right now?

  What you're doing here is defining an answer to an unspecified
question, 
then complaining that this answer isn't a reality.  The question is most

important, and we will solve it appropriately.

  I think it goes something along the lines of: "What is the interface
for 
Linux applications to interface with desktop functionality and services,

independent of what environment is running?"  The answer to that, is
there is 
none yet.  One of the primary goals and outcomes of the meeting we had
was to 
define and develop one.

> I wonder in retrospect if the ISV issue would be more accurately
voiced as
> there being two second class widget sets.  I mean not that the widget
sets
> themselves are in any way flawed, but there is the distinct flavor of
the
> development libraries being firmly attached to one or the other
desktop and
> being in some way second class on the other desktop.
>
> I wonder if it would be possible, from both a marketing viewpoint, and
a
> technical viewpoint, to remove the widget set preference for the
desktops
> as far as hosted ISV applications are concerned.  That way, an ISV
could
> choose between the widget sets on their own technical merits, and
> (eventually) not worry about that widget set providing a better user
> experience for one desktop and not fitting in well with the other.
>
> What would that take?

   It would require a complete rewrite of both desktops, which is for
sure not 
going to happen for a multitude of reasons.  Technically what you ask
for is 
already there, it's just that it's not the answer that you, or anyone,
want 
to hear.  It's plain Xlib, and that's just not useful. :-)
  
-- 
George Staikos
KDE Developer				http://www.kde.org/
Staikos Computing Services Inc.		http://www.staikos.net/