Why so many projects?

[ChrisB111]

This is a general question but, in this case I am referring to desktop environments. Take gnome and xfce, xfce is meant to be faster but when using it I notice no difference. What is its purpose, why didn't the xfce developers just add the functionality they wanted to and existing project like gnome.

Its seams to me generally that the open source community would do much better improving and consolidating its resources that constantly fragmenting? Why is it like this?

Chris

[RiceMonster]

The answer is simple; they can do what they want. Put a bunch of developers in the room, tell them to start a project and see if you can get them to agree on what to do. They're never going to agree.

I think having multiple projects can be good to a point, but I often agree that people would be better off working on a current project rather than starting a new one from scratch.

[MooPi]

I think you've missed the point of what Linux is. Linux is freedom of choice in how you use your software. So the plethora of choices is an indication of a healthy Linux community. Dive in and try some of the differing Desktop Environments, you'll have fun. I agree that the focus of Linux can seem haphazard, but I feel it is a strength and not a weakness. Most distros offer a standard install meant for the mass community, but offer the differing DE for the enthusiast Linux users.

[thatguruguy]

The answer is simple; they can do what they want. Put a bunch of developers in the room, tell them to start a project and see if you can get them to agree on what to do. They're never going to agree.

I think having multiple projects can be good to a point, but I often agree that people would be better off working on a current project rather than starting a new one from scratch.

Even better: take a bunch of developers and put them in a bunch of different rooms, with only one or two in each room. Tell them to start a project, and that they can't talk to the developers in the other rooms (although they get to see the code the others generate).

[Tristam Green]

Even better: take a bunch of developers and put them in a bunch of different rooms, with only one or two in each room. Tell them to start a project, and that they can't talk to the developers in the other rooms (although they get to see the code the others generate).

PROFIT!

wait, this is madness open-source.

imagine how long it would take Shakespeare's monkeys to write Hamlet's soliloquy if they couldn't communicate directly :|

[ChrisB111]

I am not trying to say choice is bad (on the contrary), but why not offer choice in configuration instead of choice of projects? Surely this results in faster development and a more stable system?

[Julita]

Well, xfce and gnome are not just the enviroments; they are the set of tools. I, for example, always choose xfce over gnome or any other because I prefer the tools that are provided by this team, even though my hardware is capable of dealing with KDE. I think it's great when there is a variety to choose from, both for the sake of progress and usability. Why not mention, say, Enlightenment (a lightweight DE) that will be included in Lucid Netbook Remix? Another step forward, IMO.

[Tristam Green]

I am not trying to say choice is bad (on the contrary), but why not offer choice in configuration instead of choice of projects? Surely this results in faster development and a more stable system?

Idealistically, you get both.

Realistically, you get what's normally known as a cluster**** of choice. Which is why most DEs are good-looking, but have some portions of broken functionality.

[ChrisB111]

Why not mention, say, Enlightenment (a lightweight DE) that will be included in Lucid Netbook Remix? Another step forward, IMO.

I'm not sure, ubuntu is made for use with gnome, while enlightenment is good (I use it sometimes) it doesn't really add anything. A little bit of gnome tweaking could produce a similar system to enlightenment, while maintaining common standards and compatibility.

[SuperSonic4]

This is a general question but, in this case I am referring to desktop environments. Take gnome and xfce, xfce is meant to be faster but when using it I notice no difference. What is its purpose, why didn't the xfce developers just add the functionality they wanted to and existing project like gnome.

Its seams to me generally that the open source community would do much better improving and consolidating its resources that constantly fragmenting? Why is it like this?

Chris

xfce is noticably faster than gnome. I have tested this in a number of distros.

The only distro where it does not apply is with xubuntu.

[Julita]

Enlightenment in the case of UNR adds looks rather than functionality, that's for sure. The issue here is that there are no standards per se, which is natural for de-centralized developer community, that's why the users have to adopt themselves to the variety and all kinds of tweaking :)

[Julita]

The only distro where it does not apply is with xubuntu.

Disagree. PIII 1GHz, 256 RAM - Ubuntu Live CD wouldn't load, awfully slow after install. Xubuntu - a few tweaks, and I can run flawlessly multiple apps, one of them is quite "heavy" KDE app.

[SuperSonic4]

Disagree. PIII 1GHz, 256 RAM - Ubuntu Live CD wouldn't load, awfully slow after install. Xubuntu - a few tweaks, and I can run flawlessly multiple apps, one of them is quite "heavy" KDE app.

Fair enough but xubuntu doesn't pretend to be faster than ubuntu IIRC

[sertse]

*sigh* Why does the OP have to pick on xfce? Or believe he can make such a bold claim and not go unchallenged.

Aside from it's FLOSS you can do what you want, that others already talked about...

Xfce and Gnome have different goals. Xfce tries to be reasonably light, and most be modular where possible. (Each part of Xfce fit together, but can be run standalone without bringing a lot of dependencies/other stuff).

Pure xfce is light. You won't notice a thing on 512 and still comfortable 256 as said above. Xubuntu in general is one of the heavier xfce-based distros.

(And there's a reason why Xfce devs use mainly Gentoo/Lunar..., and why unofficially (top placement on the xfce distro page, rapport in mailings lists and irc), Fedora Xfce is the recommended Xfce distro for lay people).

[Julita]

*sigh* Why does the OP have to pick on xfce? Or believe he can make such a bold claim and not go unchallenged.

Aside from it's FLOSS you can do what you want, that others already talked about...

Xfce and Gnome have different goals. Xfce tries to be reasonably light, and most be modular where possible. (Each part of Xfce fit together, but can be run standalone without bringing a lot of dependencies/other stuff).

Pure xfce is light. You won't notice a thing on 512 and still comfortable 256 as said above. Xubuntu in general is one of the heavier xfce-based distros.

(And there's a reason why Xfce devs use mainly Gentoo/Lunar..., and why unofficially (top placement on the xfce distro page, rapport in mailings lists and irc), Fedora Xfce is the recommended Xfce distro for lay people).

My personal preference is actually Zenwalk that uses xfce as well, and, dare I say, it is exceptionally good. So, if anyone would want to enjoy fully the remarkable features of xfce, I would suggest Zenwalk!