gnucash and gnome
Mike or Penny Novack
stepbystepfarm at mtdata.com
Sun Apr 27 20:10:57 EDT 2008
>I read the FAQ on why gnucash depends on gnome and two things struck me.
>It is stated that plenty of KDE users use gnucash just fine. Well I guess that's true, except that they have to install gnome first. And this isn't just a little bit of gnome. The package list to install and use gnome as my desktop isn't much longer.
>It is also stated that the gnucash developers' time is better spent developing gnucash than in developing print libraries, graphing libraries, and HTML renderers. All true and an admirable goal. As a 35 year IT professional, I couldn't agree more. However, what the developers have done, by selecting a particular desktop environment, is offloaded the responsibility for these things to their end users. In doing so, gnucash has contributed to the "geek factor" of Linux and has thrown more flammables on the desktop holy wars. I'm sure that was not the desire of the gnucash team.
>Since I try never to complain without providing a constructive suggestion, I would offer that what the gnucash team should do is to identify those functions that directly depend on gnome and create an abstraction layer from those requirements. Then the end user can feel free to use whichever desktop they have selected without having to install 75% of the one they didn't select. That leaves gnucash out of the desktop debate and opens its use up to whole groups of new users, like me, who won't be able to use it because they don't want to have to install gnome on their KDE system.
>I'm going to check back from time to time to see if the dependency on gnome has been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable point. I would love to use gnucash and contribute to its success story. Until then, I guess it's Microsoft and Intuit for the time being. Bleh!
As somebody not using either Gnome or KDE as a desktop environment.
maybe I can make a non-partisan comment? (yes I've run Linux, but using
IceWM as the window manager)
Steve, there is a BIG difference between requiring you to have Gnome
installed on your systems and asking you to use it. Back (pre fire) when
I had a machine up under Linux and was using IceWM both Gnome and KDE
were INSTALLED (and hence available if I wanted to use them for
something) but unused. I could start either if I wanted to, just never
did. So while I agree that trying to deal with that package list an
excessive nuisance (so as not to have installed one Iota more of gnome
than you had to) isn't that your choice how to deal with the problem
that is casuign the problem. In other words, wouldn't you be doing less
work just to install gnome? You don't have to USE it just becauseGnuCash
needs it there.
I am running Windows XP on the machine on which I am typing this -- also
the machine on which I run GnuCash. Do you imagine that the gnome stuff
installed with GnuCash is used by ANYTHING other than GnuCash?
Is this a space issue? Have you left something out? (some fact we whould
know to make sense out of a complaint that otherwise comes across as if
there were concern that the PRESENCE of Gnome on your system made it
More information about the gnucash-user