logic: Granted, NIH can run rampant sometimes, but I don't think it's as serious a problem as it's been made out to be. After all, even if GNOME and KDE are separate efforts, it's quite plain that they build off of ideas from each other. As a result, we're seeing two large efforts work towards an end-user friendly Linux desktop with all the features one would expect. But, they are different enough that if a user doesn't like one, he/she may like the other. That kind of choice, being able to use a completely different desktop environment, just doesn't exist for 80% of the consumer market at the moment.

As far as the Konq/Galeon/Moz, those three don't really line up directly in my book. Mozilla is an application framework as much as it is a browser, imho. Galeon filled a much-needed void of using Mozilla's strength (gecko) without the overhead (XUL). Konq goes far beyond being a web browser, though its HTML renderer is also quite good. So from my POV, each of the three apps does something the others don't. (And besides, it's all about choices. Browser choice, desktop choice, etc..)

OpenOffice, I think, will follow much the same fate that Mozilla has. Momentum, but insufficient community support leading to slow development. I don't expect to see anything as usable as KOffice from the OpenOffice group for quite some time. :)

Anyway, there are some rather poorly presented thoughts. I'll leave off with my favorite example of why all this is a good thing, and that's gPhoto. They abstracted out the backend of their very cool digital camera app into a library, and the Kompany picked up on it and hooked up the gphoto library with a kio_slave. Tada. gPhoto-powered access to digital cameras from any KDE app. How cool is that, eh? :) Sure, gPhoto was written as a Gnome app. But while they were working on a solid digital camera app, KDE was working on a solid component system that allowed this sort of collaboration to happen. That's what I like to see, and I hope it will be used as an example to other projects.