I have been thinking about whether I should write a blog post about the following topic for a long time. After all Jono asked us to calm down and not put more oil into the fire. But on the other hand I had asked Jono to make sure that there are no personal insults and attacks against my person several times and unfortunately on the Ubuntu Planet there is still a blog post which attacks me personally without any sign that this will change. As I had been attacked by the Ubuntu community quite a lot over the last half year and I had to ask Jonathan to tell Jono that I’m not the scape goat for Ubuntu, I think it is important that I stand up against this and point out the abusive behavior we get from the Ubuntu community.
First of all I want to verbatim quote the Ubuntu Code of Conduct:
Disagreement is no excuse for poor manners. We work together to resolve conflict, assume good intentions and do our best to act in an empathic fashion. We don’t allow frustration to turn into a personal attack. A community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one.
And now I’m going to quote verbatim what Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
Mir is really important work. When lots of competitors attack a project on purely political grounds, you have to wonder what THEIR agenda is. At least we know now who belongs to the Open Source Tea Party 😉 And to put all the hue and cry into context: Mir is relevant for approximately 1% of all developers, just those who think about shell development. Every app developer will consume Mir through their toolkit. By contrast, those same outraged individuals have NIH’d just about every important piece of the stack they can get their hands on… most notably SystemD, which is hugely invasive and hardly justified. What closely to see how competitors to Canonical torture the English language in their efforts to justify how those toolkits should support Windows but not Mir.
Mark took care to write it so generic that it would fit Intel, Wayland, KDE, GNOME, Enlightment, Red Hat, systemd and everybody else who criticized the Mir decision. Nevertheless I’m convinced that the primary recipient of that attack is the KDE community and especially me personally. This is something I derive from a comment Mark put below his blog post:
When a project says “we will not accept a patch to enable support for Mir” they are saying you should not have the option. When that’s typically a project which goes to great lengths to give its users every option, again, I suggest there is a political motive.
If we combine all of it, it’s getting clear that he addresses the KDE community. Who else has support for Windows and is known for lots of options? Of all the communities, projects and companies listed above only KDE offers Windows components (well Intel as well, but I assume that Mark is not going to blame Intel for that). Thus I’m assuming that Mark intended those comments only against the KDE community. I asked him in a comment to his blog post to clarify, unfortunately Mark has at the time of this writing not yet replied and the comment is still awaiting moderation. I also copied the same comment to Google+ and included Mark and Jono, but still no clarification.
Now people could say that it’s not that bad what Mark wrote. But his claims are factually wrong and need to be corrected. After all we don’t want that his followers repeat the false claims over and over again to attack the KDE community. I’m now going to reply to the claims without going down to the level of personal attacks but just showing that all those claims are factually wrong if they are intended against the KDE community, KWin and me in person.
So let’s look at the claims one by one.
When lots of competitors attack a project on purely political grounds
When a project says “we will not accept a patch to enable support for Mir”
I said that I will not accept a patch for Mir, but this is not a political decision, but a pure technical one. I’m now going to quote myself from my very first blog post on the subject of Mir:
Will KWin support Mir? No! Mir is currently a one distribution only solution and any adjustments would be distro specific. We do not accept patches to support one downstream. If there are downstream specific patches they should be applied downstream. This means at the current time there is no way to add support and even if someone would implement support for KWin on Ubuntu I would veto the patches as we don’t accept distro-specific code.
Maybe Mark thinks that this is a political decision. But not for me: this is a pure technical decision as we would not be able to maintain the code. And Mark should know about the costs of maintaining code. After all at the podium discussion about CLA at Desktop Summit 2011 Mark told us that the CLA is needed because of the maintenance costs.
Furthermore I had dedicated a complete blog post on the technical reasons on why we do not want to and cannot support Mir. Mark should have been aware of this blog post given that Jonathan re-blogged it to Planet Ubuntu. In summary I cannot understand how Mark could think that these are political decisions given that I clearly outlined the technical reasons.
So let’s look at the next part:
you have to wonder what THEIR agenda is
Well yes, one has. As I showed above I gave a technical reason in less than 24 hours after the Mir announcement. I wonder how Mark can seriously think that we could have come up with an agenda against a product we didn’t know of before or that we are that fast. So to make it clear: there is no agenda. My only agenda is to correct false claims as in this blog post.
Personally I’m wondering what Canonical’s agenda is with the strong lobbying for us to support Mir and these constant attacks against my person. Mark is not the first one to directly attack me since the announcement of Mir.
The next part would be the NIH part. I do not know how that would fit in with KDE as I’m not aware of anything we NIH’ed recently. Also Lennart already commented on that. I think there is nothing more to add to what Lennart wrote.
And last but not least there is:
What closely to see how competitors to Canonical torture the English language in their efforts to justify how those toolkits should support Windows but not Mir.
I would be very interested in seeing where anybody from the KDE community justifies the Windows support in favor of Mir. This just doesn’t make any sense. So let’s look at it in more detail. As Mark states himself most of the applications do not have to care about Mir at all as the toolkit (in our case Qt) takes care of that. That’s exactly the reason why KDE can offer Windows ports of applications. It’s more or less just a recompile and it will work. In some cases X11 dependencies had to be abstracted and exactly that will ensure that the applications will also work on Mir. So to say thanks to the Windows port the applications will work on Mir (and on Wayland). Side note: as Aaron explains on Google+ of course Mark is wrong in saying that applications do not have to care, of course the technological split affects all applications.
As Mark also states what will need adjustments are the desktop shell programs. In case of KDE that would be mostly KWin. I’m now quoting the “mission statement” for the KWin development:
KWin is an easy to use, but flexible, composited Window Manger for Xorg windowing systems on Linux.
As one can see we do not consider Windows as a target for our development. It even goes so far to exclude non-Linux based unix systems. I’m quite known for thinking that support for anything except a standardized Linux stack (this includes systemd) is a waste of time. One can find my opinion to that on blog posts, mailing list threads, review requests or just talking to people from the KDE community who know my opinion about that.
There is an additional interesting twist in this claim about Windows vs. Ubuntu. KWin as explained is currently working on Kubuntu and not on Windows and this will stay so as long as Kubuntu is able to offer either Xorg or Wayland packages. If the Kubuntu community would no longer be able to offer such packages it would be due to changes in the underlying stack introduced by Ubuntu. So it can only be Ubuntu to remove support for KWin, not KWin removing support for Kubuntu. Furthermore it’s of course the task of a distribution to integrate software and not our task to integrate with a distribution.
Even more some years ago one was able to use KWin in Ubuntu. But then Canonical decided to introduce Unity and implement it as a plugin to Compiz. Since then it is no longer possible to run KWin in Ubuntu. A decision made by Canonical. I’m not blaming them for that, don’t get that wrong. I’m just pointing out to show how wrong it is to try to blame us for not supporting Ubuntu. It was Ubuntu which decided to no longer offer the possibility to run our software in Ubuntu. This behavior over the time made me think that I’m being made a scape goat, that Canonical tries to blame me for them moving away from the rest of Linux.
In summary we can see all the claims put up by Mark to attack the KDE community are false.
Last but not least I want to say something about a very common claim: I do neither hate Mir nor Canonical. I can hardly give prove to it, but I just point out that I attended the German Ubuntu community conference last weekend and also last year. If I were in general against Canonical I wouldn’t do something like that, wouldn’t I?
57 Replies to “Thoughts about the Open Source Tea Party”
I totally understand your reasoning for not supporting other systems and I really hope all those negative (and wrong) statements won’t discourage you to work on kwin.. that would be a real shame and a BIG loss for KDE and the opensource community..
Thanks for your really hard work and I really hope you will stay in the KDE community for many years to come 🙂
“By contrast, those same outraged individuals have NIH’d just about every important piece of the stack they can get their hands on… most notably SystemD”
Unless you invented SystemD without telling us, I really don’t think he’s directing this to you at all.
as I wrote that part is not addressed at us. But the windows part cannot be addressed at systemd either. I asked Mark to clarify, which he didn’t so I answered as if everything is addressed at us.
I guess everyone has their own absolute truth, but in the end I think the truth is always biased. Every human is biased and thus I think everybody involved in this discussion is right from his/her own perspective (unless of course the person is intentionally trying to spread FUD). For me I’m biased in the way that I don’t like Mark’s blog posts. The discussions after blog posts like the one which is referred here just causes such a waste of energy. Ubuntu was once the distribution recommended for Linux beginners, but last time I had to deal with Ubuntu it was just a patchwork distribution. Lots of patches applied which will never get upstreamed. I don’t know how successful they are on challenging Red Hat at the sever side, but hopefully not too successful considering they tried to let their competitor fix their bug (unfortunately I can’t find the link where Canonical used the Fedora Bug tracker to let them fix their bugs). And know they’re trying to get a foothold in the mobile space. So Mark has to bash the other systems and to praise their own implementations if they want to be successful in this space (at least it looks like that Mark thinks he has to do that). So instead of spreading good energy he’s just spreading bad vibes. And for that I really don’t like him. I don’t even understand what he’s complaining about. He started Mir development but told nobody about it, didn’t invite anybody outside Canonical to have a look at it and get opinions about it from outside. Now he’s pissed that the others do their own thing?! Now who doesn’t play along? Things could look really differently if you look at them from another standpoint…
Anybody is free to not implement MIR, but when Mark talks about the “Tea party”, he talks about those trying to boycott it, like Intel, Mark could care less if KDE implements MIR, is not in his radar.
one could think so, but there was a strong lobbying from Canonical that we support it. I have seen Mark complaining on Google+ about the fact that we don’t support it. So apparently we are on his radar and it is bothering him that we do not support it.
Strong? I don’t think so, since KDE is compatible via x-wayland, the same way Xubuntu is.
sorry, but you don’t know what I know. I don’t think that Canonical approached you about implementing Mir support in KWin, or did they?
As a courtesy, maybe, But I don’t believe is that Kubuntu is that essential for Ubuntu, even the GNOME Ubuntu version is more popular now, and it was released last week.
I must admit: I do not understand why Canonical wants us to support Mir. Fact is that they went great lengths to try to convince us. As they should have realized that we are not interested from the start and nevertheless decided to go after that goal for several months, I hardly think that it was out of courtesy. I don’t understand it, I can only tell you what happened.
Then I don’t understand why are there detractors, don’t like it, ok, don’t implement it, but lets get some facts, Ubuntu is the one that has pushed the Linux desktop, the others that are pushing Wayland like intel and redhad don’t give rats about the linux desktop, and I see a lots of people who real intentions are not about this wayland-MIR issue, some people are just taking the oportunity to attack Ubuntu.
yes, we are not implementing it. Nevertheless Mark (and others in Canonical) is attacking us because of that. This is what this blog post is about.
Is not attacking you, is just questioning the reasons you are giving to not implement it, people keep extrapolating Mark comments, you guys are not that special, Mark talk about Intel mainly, not KDE.
This was exactly my feeling after reading Mark’s post.
He speaks about political reasons on attacking Mir, so I did not think about KDE, especially since I’ve red the perfectly rational and technical Martin’s post on why Kwin is not going to support Mir.
So cheer up Martin, You are doing fantastic work for KDE!
And is not a complain about Mark, he is answering to the MIR detractors the double standards they are using, KDE with MIR is not even a priority for Ubuntu.
Kwin look pretty layered to me. There is a glxbackend, eglonxbackend, egl_wayland_backend just as one would expect.
Canonical would probably be best off implementing egl_mir_backend themselves. And who knows, one day it might even land upstream. I guess it would help if Canonical would contribute resources to upstream too. I don’t see them on the list of KDE Patrons right now.
While we’re at it, it would also be very cool if someone would implement direct3d_windows_backend. That way KDE on Windows could look and feel just as good as it does on LInux.
But no way can a distribution demand that support for their specific stack must be implemented upstream.
Stay cool Martin, we love your work.
The backends you mention are the smallest part for adoption of a different windowing system. The wayland backend doesn’t turn KWin into a Wayland compositor.
You are an amazing developer and a real nice guy, please try not to take things as personal and resist the temptation to rise to the bait. You reasons are completely sound but I do wonder if you are not letting this get to you a bit too much?
In the grand scheme of things, I doubt Mir will not be successful, community projects need collaboration, the worst possible way to do that is to attack other projects and developers.
Canonical managed to get so many people offside with their comments, there are simple now a lot of people wanting Mir to fail; of course, Mark did this all to himself. It could have been handled so much better by the Ubuntu team but instead they came out with fists swinging and attacking community efforts such as Wayland with a lot of easily refuted false claims.
Don’t sweat the small stuff like this, it didn’t need a blog post to defend yourself, Mark already looks scared and is lashing out again with the Tea Party jibe, which comically now basically includes almost everyone but Ubuntu.
What is very interesting to study is the complete mismanagement of Mir from a community relations point of view, there is much to learn about how to not do things. I think there is some truth to the word scapegoat, but not you specifically, when Mir is a disaster, he either is consciously or not setting up an excuse, when as I said, they can only blame themselves by how terribly badly they handed this.
So relax, it’s water off a ducks back to you, don’t give them space in your head and remember you are one of the very many Canonical have managed to get off side with how they have done things.
I agree and I really hope great people like Martin don’t get fed up with Linux and Open Source development with all of that childish stuff going on.
I don’t think political speak is intended to be factually accurate, nor logically sound. The point of political speak is to make a case for your position, and convince others that your stance is right. I think that what you are hearing from Mark, so don’t try to make too much sense from it. You are being far too factual, and far too logical. Politics just don’t work that way.
And please don’t take any of this personally. Do you know what you should take personally? Ever since 4.2, I have been using KDE-SC exclusively. It does not matter as much the underlying distro, as long as it is KDE. Over the years, I have been using an awesome product, free of cost and freedom to use. The quality of the product rivals, and frequently exceeds, any piece of proprietary software I am otherwise using at work. KDE and the SC has made my life more productive, and enjoyable with respect to computers, and I am grateful to every KDE member for this, especially you, Martin. Please take THAT personally, because I certainly do everyday.
You are taking things way too personaly.
In any case, just let technology speak for itself. If Wayland is so superior the users will see it. Look at version control systems – got, hg, bzr, svn. They are all still alive despite people saying git is holy grail and one size fits all. Multiple solutions is a good thing and you should stop actively hampering it. If you don’t like other solutions say you are not interested and move on.
Mark’s posts wrt Mir have all been dripping with half-truths and insults from the very start. Misrepresenting opponents’ arguments is the cornerstone fallacy to end them all.
More than half of me wants to get him into that livecast with aseigo, but then there’s this annoying little gremlin in the back of my head that knows it’ll be fruitless; he’ll never back down on *anything*. Because it’s his darling Mir, and as with any child it’s beyond critique. Try telling a parent theirs is a bad kid.
Regardless, his behaviour is inexcusable, and I think less of him for it.
As an Ubuntu user, I want to say I am sorry. I know it is weird that a user of a distribution apologises for something the distribution does but I feel the need to let you know that I and many of my fellow Ubuntu users do not have any hate or dislike of you, other KDE contributors, or KDE as a project.
There is nothing wrong with Kwin not supporting Mir especially if only one distro is using it at this point and I fear this whole situation is yet another reason why Mark probably shouldn’t be allowed to talk to the open source community.
i can’t get you …. they can fork even c++ but it’s their problem who cares about ubuntu …
btw kubutnu works fine and if one day for drivers\kernel\mir problems there will be a compatibility problems i guess they will use debian like base … so the problem is only ubuntu but ubuntu will fix their problem
you don’t want accept patch ? fine your right , if they want they will patch their kwin their own kde or whatever personally i use kde since kde3 and i like it if ubuntu will create problems with kde i will change distro ….
i dunno maybe arch maybe debian
Aren’t you the guy who introduced himself in a presentation as Mark Shuttleworth’s worst nightmare?
no, I got introduced as Mark Shuttleworth’s latest nightmare. I wouldn’t have chosen those words by myself.
I think the Intel thing is the one he was talking about it, that Intel thing was clearly a political issue (the management undone the patches that a developer accepted them because the code was good ) so I think it was not about you or KDE
well it wasn’t a political move on Intel’s side either. Check the following article: https://lwn.net/Articles/566115/ – also Intel was rejecting a patch for XMir and Mark only talked about Mir and even more XMir got withdrawn as standard for 13.10.
But I agree that Mark wrote it that broad that it can be read as an attack to many communities. Clearly Red Hat with the systemd comment, Intel with the patch and KDE with the Windows comment.
Thanks for clearing things up, although of course, most people aware of the entire situation should already know these things. It’s too bad that confirmation bias plays such a strong role even among Linux users. My sincere hope is that we can all come out of this dilemma with some sort of improvement for users. I don’t doubt KDE and GNOME will do a good job with Wayland, considering the track record of those involved.
So long as we are not impeded by others’ actions, we should do fine. But I suppose I shouldn’t underestimate the emotional price we pay for these disputes, especially among volunteers. Issues like this are enough to make people give up- I know I’ve been swayed from making contributions for much less.
I love KDE because of it’s technological decisions. Even though I do use KDE on windows, I don’t generally use windows and prefer not to in most cases.Stay strong on your ideologies.
Even as an ordinary Linux user (but not developer), I can understand how Canonical’s decisions and claims about Mir hurt the Wayland and KDE communities. Despite those unhappiness, us users do hope you are not discouraged, and continue to make breakthroughs from the land of wobbly windows! We appreciate your work greatly and look forward to the transition to Wayland!
You are doing a fantastic job both on the technical side of things and on the community and public relations side. You always explain the situation and vision, the roadmap and the difficulties and how you think things may be resolved. When there are uncertainties or debates, you reason very well, easily convincing your readers. You may not be aware of it, but this is truly great leadership.
As one of the most visible developers of and speakers for KDE, you are unfortunately easily drawn into political debates as well. Given the unbelievably bad introduction and defense of Mir bu Canonical over the past months, it is unsurprising that you as the X compositor programmer and clear KDE voice were the one person within KDE who could become a target for silly but typical internet blaming and hate by your random “I have broadband and an opinion, let me shit all over the place” type of person. As far as these things happen(ed) on planet Ubuntu, the fault for this is clearly with Canonical and Ubuntu management. This should not happen. Disagreement yes, but if a developer requests moderation, that should be taken seriously.
Nonetheless, I think you should not read Mark’s blog as directed against you in particular. He seems to believe in a conspiracy of nearly the entirety of desktop Linux programmers against Ubuntu. Silly, I know. But the result is this weird diatribe against the totality of this “conspiracy,” whether it’s an Intel decision, or KDE’s or the Wayland devs’. I hope Mark gets over this and back down to earth as this kind of paranoia will make for more bad decisions and PR.
As for you and the KDE community, I hope that you keep your calm and continue to walk along the path you laid out. What you say and do is reasonable and good. And you – both as a developer and as a leader – are exceptionally important for KDE, that is, for the community, for all of us.
Thus, let me end by saying how much we are thankful for your efforts and your presence and how much we support you, even if most of us simply read your blog.
Cheers to you!
I hope Mark Shuttleworth reads this and that the disconnect between the first two quotes gives him some pause.
That said I’m not sure that turning the “what is your agenda” thing back around is helpful. Ubuntu has ambitious plans with the Ubuntu phone and the mobile-desktop fusion thing and I’m sure that Mark isn’t worrying about anything other than how to make that work.
Perhaps the Mir project is more about a bid to control the technology than a technical need for a different approach than Wayland, but that’s understandable when Canonical has so much at stake. If that is the case then the conversation between project Wayland and Canonical.
That said, clearly Canonical have not gone about this well.
Finally as a KDE user, I have to sign off with a massive thank-you for such an awesome product. At work I use Windows and it is painful not having the window management features of KWin that I am used to.
Just wanted to say, as a regular KDE user I am thankful to all KDE devs (including you) for all the hard work you put in. The politics is unfortunate, but please do remember that while some people attack you, there are many of us who are thankful to you and appreciate what you do 🙂
It’s really sad to see Mark acting like Mourinho and taking the role of the negative leader, he only missed Mourinho’s famous quote “¿Por qué?”.
But I think it’s more an internal message to the Ubuntu crowd where he tries to justify why Mir, being so wonderful, wasn’t ready for the new release, and a negative leader never takes responsability for his mistakes.
as a football fan I love that comparison 😀
What I really hate is that most of GNU/Linux community members of my university are so blind to not see what MIR represents. they always come with “if you don´t like MIR you can make your own graphic server like Ubuntu did it with Wayland”
Please tell them that’s exactly the main point we are afraid of. That instead of one display server (scales well) we have multiple display servers (scales not).
Martin, you deny any political reasons about not accepting patches for KWin Mir support. At the end, it seems the real obstacle is the high costs of maintaining the code. Ok, I understand… I use Kubuntu and appreciate KDE, and of course I appreciate your work for Kwin. But … I’m working in both enterprise and academic environments, and in both cases the easier and more accepted answer for an open source choice is Ubuntu. I’ve spent many times some effort to offer KDE as a valid alternative, for now with poor successes. In my experience Ubuntu is better accepted, when it is possible, to replace any proprietary solution. But now I’m very worried about this Mir/Wayland conflict: I want to be free to propose to my students to use Ubuntu and Kubuntu with no distinctions and no limitations, using just the same packages.
May be a good idea to propose a crowdfunding in order to cover the cost of maintaining the Kwin Mir patches? In my little one, I’m ready to contribute… and I guess I will not alone!
Kubuntu will work as long as it’s possible to run Wayland. There is no need for Mir support inside KWin as long as Ubuntu makes it possible to use Wayland.
If you have problems convincing users to not use Ubuntu I would point out the issues with the dash. To me this is for both enterprise and academics not acceptable.
I appreciate your work on KDE, but it seems to me that in this case M.S. (who I generally don;t appreciate) is right in this case.
Deny patches for MIR seems to me just a political move.
Saying is just one distro software, is a very weak excuse.
MIR is developed by Canonical, but that doesn’t mean other distro can’t use it.
The same fact that your refusal came just one day after the Canonical’s announcement, makes it pretty clear to me that. Otherwise, before making such claim, you would have expected more time to understand and eveluate.
That being said, I’m not a fan of Ubuntu, since in general I found that in the last 2 years that distro (that previously I used and enjoyed) became quite buggy (at least for me and my hardware).
But I find quite annoying all those political moves that do nothing good to the linux community, and I wondered since many months, what’s the agenda of many leading developer.
you might notice that I so far have not denied any patches. I only said that I would deny as long as it’s distro-specific. I hope you understand this point and the problems it would cause. Let me ask you a very simple question: how would we ensure to compile the changes if nobody of us runs said distro? Do you expect that I would tell all contributors to switch to Ubuntu to ensure the patches work? They would give me the middle finger, and they would be right in that.
Ok I was wrong then. My understanding was that you would have denied pacthes on MIR , because you woudl necessarily see that as distro-specific (it’s subtle, but my udnerstanding was that you see MIR as distro-specific solely for the prejudice that it’s developed by Canonical).
To answer your question: you don’t know what distro you’ll be using next year, or neither the other KDE developers. Or new developers could join KDE who would use Kubuntu or some Ubuntu-KDE derivattives. Same way neither me or you, know how well MIR or Wayland will be in one year and if they truly will be able to replace their predecessor. Maybe one of the project will die or abandoned. Maybe they’ll both do well. Maybe MIR will become more widespread than Wayland. That’s why I found your early-closure toward MIR totally wrong.
if it becomes widespread, it would no longer be a one-distribution solution, wouldn’t it?
If you and others boycot MIR, you’re obviously reducing chances for the DS to become widespread, since every distro shipping KDE as DE would hardly choose MIR over wayland for such obvious reasons. So ,MS is right in what he says, and it’s true you’re denying users a choice.
Other distro-developers are considering MIR, like Openmandriva: (read end of 1st comment of the review)
Obviously, if you keep denying pacthes for MIR, the developer will probably opt for wayland. It’s just normal to wonder about your hidden agenda, since your choice is certainly not in the interest of the users. Putting myself in your shoes, I see no reason why I would exclude MIR so firmly.
MIR is a display server, regardless of who developed it. Excluding it like you’re doing (you said that Canonical is pushing for having MIR supported) and taking sides going to the length to say that you would refuse patches (based on teh fact that would be distro-specific, which you didn’t had any factual reason to believe when the announcment was made), it’s unreasonable from your position.
Well I could give a likelyhood. I have been using the same distribution for the last five years, so the chances that I will continue to use it are rather high as so far there has never been an issue that would have left me unsatisfied with my distribution.
Just as a former lawyer I cannot help myself but note that this is just a political (from “policy”) decision based on the technical. Not that I wouldn’t agree with it, just saying. Also, I do not like Mark’s incorrect (but very common) use of “politics” when you mean “unjust”. Just saying.
what about having the policy being driven by tech reasons? We don’t put up policies for having policies but technical reasons drive those.
I do not care about politics , I am no programer ,,,,, I’m just an end user 😉
and wanted to say thank you for all your good work ,,,,,I use KDE/kwin and have used KDE for years and will continu to for as far as I can see … 🙂
I’m curious about how Qt is different from GTK+ in respect to “working on Windows.” Martin says it can only be Qt that Mark’s comments were directed at in respect to things working on Windows, but can’t GTK+ applications be proted to Windows as similar to Qt?
Just last week there was the announcement that GTK3 supports windows, too. So when I wrote that GTK3 did not support windows.
Comments are closed.