Slashdot Mirror

No he said flexible and powerful, neither can be applied to WxWidgets.

Of course you'd say that, being a KDE Developer and all. Great way to advertise, by spreading FUD about the competition.

I guess the Microsoft approach to advertising is spreading to the KDE team now. Nice.

Zack's blog doesn't say anything about KDE 3.4, but QT Mozilla is available now for testing. Yay! http://www.kdedevelopers.org/blog/14?PHPSESSID=e5d d84569f3907829c4a09159b7901f4/

Zack Rusin, one of the authors of this port, has written some more information about it in his blog.

See his blog

Also read this blog entry by one of the developers which answers the most common asked questions.

Apple has demonstrated Dashboard mini applications which use khtml to bring simple CSS HTML pages to life with javascript, without looking like a webpage or plugin. Would it not be great if such miniapps were the same on both Mac OS X and KDE? That would make Linux another step closer to the average user. I wouldn't mind KDE taking over the office while Apple keeps the DTP HDTV creation part.

Now Apple uses Core graphics to give these web-applications a freeform outline. This part could be replaced by the alpha channel mask of PNG. I wonder if KJSEmbed can have any role in this. There is a stream of free handy applications from artistically capable webtech users coming our way next year so why not pick the same fruit and look into compatibility with KDE today?

The one valid point I see this article bringing up is the developer support of the underlying languages. I admit, I am anything but a good coder. I dabble in PyQt, PyGtk, HTML, PHP. And I can tell you that if there was anything that let me write a simple web based application that was easier to use than PyQt, I would use it. That is where I believe the future of the web is going. This is what I would like to see happening in the browser.

The authors have used part three as a technical reference, including some frank talk about Linux vs. Windows in chapter six. Sure, many people like Linux better, however you have to take into consideration who will be using the system. In a system the whole family uses, it has to be user-friendly enough for the whole family to use.

Four year olds can use Linux easily. But Windows frustrates four year olds as much as the rest of us. I sincerely hope this chapter discloses this hard truth...

And now I wait to be modded -1, Troll...

If the thing was designed properly, integration wouldn't be much of an issue.

Most of a 'desktop environment' important details are underneath, not the pretty GUI. ( though the importance of having a CONSISTANT GUI shouldn't be dismissed. )

They should have had mechanisms in place from DAY ONE for shared information and intercommunications.. not something that was seemingly tacked-on later.. Integration of the desktop must be done on the fonctionnality level, not on the software level.

KDE is MUCH closer to this, as they planned ahead, and didn't just wing-it since it was 'pretty'. See here for example.

The problem with GNOME is that they use GTK+ object-oriented style, but don't borrow the most important aspect of (early, anyhow) GTK... cleanliness and simplicity! Without that, the GTK-inspired GNOME macro, er object, system is COMPLETELY INCOHERENT and to put it completely blunt: SHIT.

Not to mention the fact that the numerous API libraries do not work well together and stability will _never_ be achieved since one package will _always_ depend on something that is considered beta or unstable.

Don't even get me started on the various ad-hoc configuration mechanisms and the nightmare that is CORBA and Bonobo.

Sorry to sound harsh, but it was a complaint of mine from day one of GNOME, it just wasn't professional.. They worried more about a smelly foot in the menu then making it solid and consistent.. Now they are finding out the price to be paid if they want to stick around and be more then a cute plaything...

But I'm not really sure what to think of it, honestly. That they'd have to involve money to have things that SHOULD be simple get done.

1. More consistentcy between apps due to the Human Interface Guidelines
And this has been a big problem in KDE?

2. Nicer interface layout. Better spacing, and I like the OS 9 style menu up the top, feels less like a windows clone, taking the best from both worlds. Also less flashly, more standard than KDE.
Well, I like the KDE one is better, and ofcourse you can customize them as you like. Not big problem.. Btw, what do you mean with more standard?

3. Options. Apart from Gconf, GNOME comes with far less options. KDE is nice, but trying to locate an option in the KDE Control Center is hell. GConf is a far better way to go.
Have you tried the search of kcontrol? Anyways yes, it's too complicated imho too. But it's far more userfriendly than gconf.. But if you like gconf is better, maybe you should try kconfedit when it comes out (don't ask me when :)

4. Apps. GNOME/GTK2+ has all the apps I want. Gems like Rhythmbox and the GIMP when there is nothing that compares on KDE. Also the old standbys like Abiword, Bluefish and Gnumeric.
Oh, since when GIMP has been a gnome app? Yes I've heard something work on this is going on, but it isn't yet here.. And there is JuK in KDE which is pretty similiar Rhythmbox, I think.. And how about koffice stuff? Bluefish is HTML editor right? Quanta+ then..

5. Lastly, the GNOME community! Sites like planet.gnome.org and gnomedesktop.org help GNOME rock just that much more.
Yes, I love KDE community a lot too! :) Sites like Dot aka news.kde.org, KDE-Look and KDE-Apps are pretty actives and you can see from those what's happening there in community. For developer stuff there's KDEDevelopers site with developer blogs on it. And at last there's a good wiki (KDE Community Wiki Site) maintained by developers and users of KDE.

Just when I was ready to try linux again, I read this paragraph and remembered why I got rid of it last time.

To be fair, this was developer software under development, not something for your average desktop user. Here's more info.

The GPL FAQ is a bit zealous. See the GPL-compatible licensing page.

This thread has been done before. See this kde developers blog thread.

Note the second comment by yours truely, and the reference to the RMS post.

In fact, I seem to remember Bruce pointing out, in an earlier version of the paper, that the license is the sole reason for the choice. Today's is a new version which is much shorter and to the point. For reference, see this blog entry.

Most of a 'desktop environment' important details are underneath, not the pretty GUI. ( though the importance of having a CONSISTANT GUI shouldn't be dismissed. )

GNOME should have had mechanisms in place from DAY ONE for shared information and intercommunications.. not something that was seemingly tacked-on later.. Integration of the desktop must be done on the fonctionnality level, not on the software level.

KDE is much closer to this, as they PLANNED ahead, and didn't just wing-it since it was 'pretty'. See here for example.

On the other hand, the problem with GNOME is that they use GTK+ object-oriented style, but don't borrow the most important aspect of (early, anyhow) GTK... cleanliness and simplicity! Without that, the GTK-inspired GNOME macro, er object, system is COMPLETELY INCOHERENT and to put it completely blunt: SHIT.

Not to mention the fact that the numerous API libraries do not work well together and stability will NEVER be achieved since one package will ALWAYS depend on something that is considered beta or unstable.

Don't even get me started on the various ad-hoc configuration mechanisms and the nightmare that is CORBA and Bonobo.

Sorry to sound harsh, but it was a complaint of mine from day one of GNOME, it just wasn't professional.. They worried more about a smelly foot in the menu then making it solid and consistent.. Now they are finding out the price to be paid if they want to stick around and be more then a cute plaything...

But I'm not really sure what to think of it, honestly. That they'd have to involve money to have things that SHOULD be simple get done.

Most of a 'desktop environment' important details are underneath, not the pretty GUI. ( though the importance of having a CONSISTANT GUI shouldn't be dismissed. )

GNOME should have had mechanisms in place from DAY ONE for shared information and intercommunications.. not something that was seemingly tacked-on later.. Integration of the desktop must be done on the fonctionnality level, not on the software level.

KDE is much closer to this, as they PLANNED ahead, and didn't just wing-it since it was 'pretty'. See here for example.

On the other hand, the problem with GNOME is that they use GTK+ object-oriented style, but don't borrow the most important aspect of (early, anyhow) GTK... cleanliness and simplicity! Without that, the GTK-inspired GNOME macro, er object, system is COMPLETELY INCOHERENT and to put it completely blunt: SHIT.

Not to mention the fact that the numerous API libraries do not work well together and stability will _never_ be achieved since one package will _always_ depend on something that is considered beta or unstable.

Don't even get me started on the various ad-hoc configuration mechanisms and the nightmare that is CORBA and Bonobo.

Sorry to sound harsh, but it was a complaint of mine from day one of GNOME, it just wasn't professional.. They worried more about a smelly foot in the menu then making it solid and consistent.. Now they are finding out the price to be paid if they want to stick around and be more then a cute plaything...

But I'm not really sure what to think of it, honestly. That they'd have to involve money to have things that SHOULD be simple get done.

> One of the articles you presented was an exposition of the
> difference between writing for GTK in C and Python and Qt in C++.
> It seemed a little apples-and-oranges, since nice C++ interfaces
> are available for GNOME.

Maybe it -seemed-, yep. Unfortunately, it -is- not, as clearly expressed in another of the articles I presented, that from a Rosegarden developper, written after he switched to Qt/KDE from GTK/GNOME-with-C++. Interestingly, you'll note that the GTKmm maintainers didn't understand either how Qt/KDE in particular made his life a lot easier.

Besides, I still have more articles to link to -- I've been studying that precise issue for quite some time now, you know, and ressources on that matter don't lack. Although I fully understand why you wouldn't want to hear that... Apparently, from the way our minds work, emotional reactions have a lower interrupt level than what philosophers like to call our higher functions, which, frankly, sucks. (Which is why I tried to thoroughly study the depth of -both- desktop environments before I cared either way, if you want to know.)

> If you want to talk about the proprietary companies on GUIs, you
> might consider that HP and Sun do that on GNOME. Even on their
> Unix platforms.

I know, yes. However, and even though for each of these two you could prolly quote as many or twice as many other companies using the other desktop API, there's another reason still why Sun and HP are a subtly, but importantly different matter, I think.

They're selling desktops for OTHER people to develop on. It's -their- best interest to make the offer look as cheap as possible, and then let the customers deal with the (possible) costs of additional development times. Which is exactly what they should be doing, of course. That's what MS does as well, and it works great, commercially speaking.

Besides, you'll note that both Sun and HP are large corporations with money to spare, making them not the best example one could pick when talking about which choice is less costly, I think.

> One of the things I'd like to go for is the principle of least surprise.

I totally agree with you on this! Not on your conclusion, however.
In terms of development, the principle of least surprise would have it that development tools are paid for separately. Sometimes much expensively.

This, frankly, sucks. But that's the principle of least surprise for you, though, I suppose...

The best situtation would be to be able to develop either way without fixed costs, of course. As another poster suggested, the best thing that could happen to the Linux desktop would be if someone like IBM bought off Qt and LGPL'ed it. However, until then, people for whom money isn't a commodity will pick the least costly choice. That's the way this world works, unfortunately. I wish it was otherwise, you can believe me.

If the thing was designed properly, integration wouldn't be much of an issue.

Most of a 'desktop environment' important details are underneath, not the pretty GUI. ( though the importance of having a CONSISTANT GUI shouldn't be dismissed. )

They should have had mechanisms in place from DAY ONE for shared information and intercommunications.. not something that was seemingly tacked-on later.. Integration of the desktop must be done on the fonctionnality level, not on the software level.

KDE is MUCH closer to this, as they planned ahead, and didn't just wing-it since it was 'pretty'. See here for example.

The problem with GNOME is that they use GTK+ object-oriented style, but don't borrow the most important aspect of (early, anyhow) GTK... cleanliness and simplicity! Without that, the GTK-inspired GNOME macro, er object, system is COMPLETELY INCOHERENT and to put it completely blunt: SHIT.

Not to mention the fact that the numerous API libraries do not work well together and stability will NEVER be achieved since one package will ALWAYS depend on something that is considered beta or unstable.

Don't even get me started on the various ad-hoc configuration mechanisms and the nightmare that is CORBA and Bonobo.

Sorry to sound harsh, but it was a complaint of mine from day one of GNOME, it just wasn't professional.. They worried more about a smelly foot in the menu then making it solid and consistent.. Now they are finding out the price to be paid if they want to stick around and be more then a cute plaything...

But I'm not really sure what to think of it, honestly. That they'd have to involve money to have things that SHOULD be simple get done.

If the thing was designed properly, integration wouldn't be much of an issue.

Most of a 'desktop environment' important details are underneath, not the pretty GUI. ( though the importance of having a CONSISTANT GUI shouldn't be dismissed. )

They should have had mechanisms in place from DAY ONE for shared information and intercommunications.. not something that was seemingly tacked-on later.. Integration of the desktop must be done on the fonctionnality level, not on the software level.

KDE is MUCH closer to this, as they planned ahead, and didn't just wing-it since it was 'pretty'. See here for example.

The problem with GNOME is that they use GTK+ object-oriented style, but don't borrow the most important aspect of (early, anyhow) GTK... cleanliness and simplicity! Without that, the GTK-inspired GNOME macro, er object, system is COMPLETELY INCOHERENT and to put it completely blunt: SHIT.

Not to mention the fact that the numerous API libraries do not work well together and stability will NEVER be achieved since one package will ALWAYS depend on something that is considered beta or unstable.

Don't even get me started on the various ad-hoc configuration mechanisms and the nightmare that is CORBA and Bonobo.

Sorry to sound harsh, but it was a complaint of mine from day one of GNOME, it just wasn't professional.. They worried more about a smelly foot in the menu then making it solid and consistent.. Now they are finding out the price to be paid if they want to stick around and be more then a cute plaything...

But I'm not really sure what to think of it, honestly. That they'd have to involve money to have things that SHOULD be simple get done.

If the thing was designed properly, integration wouldn't be much of an issue.

Most of a 'desktop environment' important details are underneath, not the pretty GUI. ( though the importance of having a CONSISTANT GUI shouldn't be dismissed. )

They should have had mechanisms in place from DAY ONE for shared information and intercommunications.. not something that was seemingly tacked-on later.. Integration of the desktop must be done on the fonctionnality level, not on the software level.

KDE is much closer to this, as they PLANNED ahead, and didn't just wing-it since it was 'pretty'. See here for example.

The problem with GNOME is that they use GTK+ object-oriented style, but don't borrow the most important aspect of (early, anyhow) GTK... cleanliness and simplicity! Without that, the GTK-inspired GNOME macro, er object, system is COMPLETELY INCOHERENT and to put it completely blunt: SHIT.

Not to mention the fact that the numerous API libraries do not work well together and stability will _never_ be achieved since one package will _always_ depend on something that is considered beta or unstable.

Don't even get me started on the various ad-hoc configuration mechanisms and the nightmare that is CORBA and Bonobo.

Sorry to sound harsh, but it was a complaint of mine from day one of GNOME, it just wasn't professional.. They worried more about a smelly foot in the menu then making it solid and consistent.. Now they are finding out the price to be paid if they want to stick around and be more then a cute plaything...

But I'm not really sure what to think of it, honestly. That they'd have to involve money to have things that SHOULD be simple get done.

XMMS uses the old 1.x toolkit, and is due to be replaced with the superior JuK in KDE 3.2 in most distributions when it comes out.

Are you on crack? You're telling me that this JuK player is going to replace XMMS? Go ahead and use that fugly pos if you want but I sure as hell won't.

... and expected to be released in September according to this blog entry.