Unfortunatly for them it is the component architecture of their competitor. Now that they have done this, is there any reason to develop components for KDE?
I hope so. I also hope that soon there's no reason to develop components for Gnome, aswell.
To me, the idea of trying to keep features and interfaces propriety and restricted to keep market share seems a bit childish. It's like have a website with no links to anywhere offsite in a feeble attempt to lock users in and prevent them from leaving. People will come, but then they're trapped and once they escape they won't come back. It doesn't do anything for the reputation, either.
Also having two (or more) incompatible desktops to develop for is irritating to say the least. The day that developers can develop to a standardised set of API's and let the desktops compete between each other independently is the day that portable software is going to start getting more reliable and usable.
Not that a lot of it isn't already - I'm not trying to troll. But even within window managers, interfaces are often very inconsistent because developers override them to keep the interface consistent within the product.
There's another webpage analogy here, because the web's just starting to get this right with XHTML and independent style sheets. By designing a page to the standards and saying what the bits of the interface are supposed to do, the browser can put together a presentation to suit the user. IMHO, this is what window managers and desktops should do. They can compete with each other based on who the users are and what they want, but keeping the interface consistent benefits everyone.
jesterzog Fight the light