[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fwd: Re: SEUL: Re: What's the diff to SEUL ?]
> yes, same thing for Gnome & all other desktop managers...
How do you support this claim?
GNOME, to the best of my knowledge, is a collection of the following:
1) libGDK layer, sits on top of Xlib
2) libGTK toolkit, sits on top of GDK and does widgets and soon CORBA
3) a bunch of applications that sit on top of GTK
KDE appears, on the other hand, to do the following (roughly):
1) libkde (?) sits on top of Xlib
2) KFM *process* sits on top of libkde and provides services
3) applications cooperate between KFM and libkde
As has been pointed out on this list and others, KFM is the SPF (single point
of failure). Being a process with a single set of resources, which is used in
some kind of catastrophically blocking mode by *all* KDE-compliant
applications, if it fails, *ALL* of KDE dies with it.
GNOME, on the other hand, provides *libraries*, which have their own data
space for every application, may even be threaded (I dunno), and maintains
independent, non-blocking, semi-stateless connections to the X server and
anything else it communicates with. With the addition of CORBA, this will be
even more the case.
It seems to me, just from listening to the random salient technical bits that
have been spotted in this debate, that KDE's architecture is almost the same
as Windoze. Windoze has a few basic pieces (most notably the "kernel"),
which are implemented as processes (or the doze analog). Any single process
that must provide services to a number of clients, each of which can
theoretically wedge and possibly cascade the failure to the single process,
is inherently unstable.
If someone is willing to write up a detailed technical report on the
differences between KDE and GNOME, I'll put it up on our site.
Erik Walthinsen <firstname.lastname@example.org> - SEUL Project system architect
/ \ SEUL: Simple End-User Linux -
| | M E G A Creating a Linux distribution
_\ /_ for the home or office user