And I'm only being half-facetious.
SUSE has been a KDE desktop for ages (again, you can install others as well).
Don't think RH thinks of Gnome as their own. Think instead that the various developers (not all at RH) think of it as their own.
I'd think maybe the anti-parallel argument extends more generally to imperative programming, but they say that this is not the case; the problem is OOP.
More information can be found here: http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.ed...-CS-10-140.pdf
how powerfull oop is and allows for simple and elegant constructions, it also allows for more bad designs if not used right than C ever allowed. though, it is something one may get only the chance to see this in larger projects.
though, there are various attempts in cutting down a lot of that power to put the developer back in line... as far as i have seen with very very bad results. leads to such bad though designs like java, where features where cut off, claimed they are not needed and make things worse and then you start doing ugly things around just to compensate for that.
though, most common devs won't observe this. they actually indeed profit from this reduced modularity and features because they were never able to handle it. and this closes the circle to the thesis of that announcement ;)
though the funny thing is: i always tended to code oop style, even before i heared about oop the first time in my life, while coding in C ;)
edit: just a very small example about how oop can reduce modularity by its nature:
while using C you have access to every method / module (what ever you define as a module) you can restricte in oop things very easy in such a way, that you totally lose all modularity. you declare fields and methods private or protected etc. thinking of controlling bad usage of your design, and end up often cutting down all roads of an efficient and effective way of modular extention or integration.
what i mean is, that you have far more to plan into the "future" to not lock down future code development than in most other "styles" and it tends to overcomplicate things.
As far as anti-parallel goes I strongly disagree here too because parallelism is more a function of imperative languages themselves as stated by Sergio, and with languages beginning to pick up async keywords and such this issue becomes a whole lot smaller because you're no longer having to play games in that regard. Also I fail to see how OOP makes it harder as opposed to easier, at least compared to other imperative programming styles. Again you're breaking things down into components which is going to make work as split up and as isolated as possible, which makes things easier.
I will however grant that functional languages do have a bit of an edge in parallelism because everything is const but these aren't reasons.. they're lies.