Slashdot Mirror

XChat would like to have a talk with you.

Also, isn't that exactly what XChat currently does? Of course, there are a lot of unnoficial windows binaries (listed on Wikipedia and all).

I believe that XChat is doing this, see http://www.xchat.org/windows/

Hm. I tried pidgin, but I found it bloated in comparison to xchat. There may also be even leaner text-based clients, but I didn't try them, because xchat is just exactly right to my taste.

IM: Trillian (needs to be replaced with a Jabber client + aim/yahoo transport)
Been done. gAIM for Windows. Why not clutter up our 100% closed source, proprietary monolythic OS with all sorts of inferrior extensible, modulized open source apps? ;)

IRC: Chatzilla
Well, here's another cross-platform solution: XChat. It has a nifty tabbed based chat management system. Of course, if you want the true Windows/IRC experience, get mIRC, load it up with tons of scripts (both self-activating, and manually activated), and go running through the networks of the world. Just watch out for the UNICODE nasties (mIRC doesn't support UNICODE)

Firewall: Sygate (needs to be replaced)
I can't speak for Sygate, but ZoneAlarm is pretty good, in my opinion. (With exception to games) this is the only closed source recomendation I have here, but what Windows experience is complete without some closed-source freeware/shareware?

This fun game: Typing of the Dead
This one is definately worth a try. Quite fun! It's a little old, but worth it. Speaking of old and worth it, see if you can locate a copy of Commander Keen. It's not really Windows (DOS, actually), but I doubt you'd see it on a Mac.

I use Gaim to connect to the AOL IM servers, and I've found it surpasses the traditional AOL AIM client by far, as well as alternatives such as Trillian (bloated and graphically immense.)

The Gaim interface can be customized down to being nothing but a window with a list of user names (customizable names can be introduced for your list), and has optional buttons on the bottom of the user list for quick action. Bottom buttons can be graphics, textual, or removed entirely. This is a user list interface at its best.

The user list spawns a traditional 1-on-1 chat window with a remote client, and supports tabs allowing switching between conversations easy, as well as noting other conversation changes without needing to reference another window.

Gaim is portable, and runs on Linux, Mac, and Windows.

Gaim is modular. I have quite a few nice little plugins that do interesting tricks. For example, if I'm too busy to respond to someones IM (this is rare), there is a plugin to set your idle time. Sure it may be a little cheap, but it allows me to avoid talking to someone if I'm deep in writing code without making them feel like I'm just ignoring them if they see I've been idle for say, 20 minutes or so.

I also find Gaim's logging system efficient. The AOL IM client tends to save all logs in HTML format, including all the color tags and formatting. This seems to me to be a waste in hdd space (granted it's small, it's still annoying.) Gaim saves only the textual information, and provides a nice interface to viewing and searching logs based on the user you're searching for and the date of the conversation.

Being a developer myself I think it would be beneficial if there were some sort of drawing utility on the client, similar to a traditional chat window but with graphical point-and-draw type interface. A feature such as this would help in discussing new ideas for programs between developers, or perhaps go as far as drawing driving directions for friends.

Of course if we're talking "chat rooms" where the communication line is more than 1-to-1, IRC is always the best :) In that case I would recommend X-Chat.

X-Chat is my personal favorite. The Linux version, at least, is free and GPL. The Windows version... not so much, but there's a free fork for Win32 that's built from the Linux source.

Geez, all this whining about proprietary half-assed IM networks. Show people how to use irc! They can use it with GAIM or any other various GUI client. (Or text if they prefer.) It's been around for decades, anyone can run a server, there are a multitude of clients on every platform, and it's entirely open. You can transfer files, and even have stupid graphical smileys and sounds if you want (or filter them if you don't).

Seriously, if people want an "open IM network", fire up an irc server, give everyone GAIM or Google Messanger, and be done with the AOL angst.

XChat did this a few monthes ago with their Window's version. I seem to recall there being a Slashdot article on it.

XChat did this a few monthes ago with their Window's version. I seem to recall there being a Slashdot article on it.

I'm using gAIM and mIRC, should I use the IRC feature of gAIM, rather than running two applications? The only thing that's keeping me from leaving mIRC is the fact that mIRC is so expandable with scripts and everything. Does IRC on gAIM support scripts and addons? Or should I stick with mIRC?

How about a third option? (This is a shameless plug, I've contributed code to the project I'm about to recommend.)

Try X-Chat for all your multi-platform IRC needs. It is highly expandable with plugins and scripts that can be written in python or perl.

The official Windows build is shareware (a decision I disagree with, but it's not my project), however, the source is GPLed and there are third-party Windows builds that are free.

The advantages of X-Chat?
* Open Source
* Not subject to mIRC vulnerabilities
* Not subject to mIRC script viruses
* Plugin interface
* Perl and Python scripting.
* No built-in trout-slap popup.

undeniable proof that open sores is a failed business model

... but it seems that it also the OpenSSL licence

Relevant?

http://forum.xchat.org/viewtopic.php?t=484/

You'd think some of these idiots would check the damn facts before writing this crap. From The Xchat Homepage Q. Has the license for X-Chat changed? A. The Windows version is shareware, however, you may still download the source code, released under the G.P.L.

Yawn - much ado about nothing.

If people actually bothered to read the info regarding the Win32 port on the xchat website, instead of making assumptions, you'd see that it's a storm in a tea cup.

Taken from the Win32 download page of xchat.org

Questions and Answers

Q. If I register, will I get future versions for free?
A. Yes, absolutely.

Q. Why isn't the Windows version free?
A. Building X-Chat for Windows is a difficult process, it requires quite some skill and expertise to accomplish. It takes time, and is by no means automated.

Q. Has the license for X-Chat changed?
A. The Windows version is shareware, however, you may still download the source code, released under the G.P.L.

Q. What if I compile my own version from the source code?
A. You are quite welcome to do so, and redistribute it under the terms of the G.P.L. license.

Q. What about the LGPL libraries you link with?
A. The source code is here if you wish to download it. The bugs I've fixed have already been submitted to the relevant bugzillas with patches.

As you can see, there's absolutely no GPL infringement taking place (or anything close to an infringement). The source code for the Win32 port is still available for downloading. All the author /builder is charging for, is the time and effort required to compile the Win32 binary - nothing else.

Gaim + IRC does anything but "work well"... You should at least get a decent client like X-chat. ;)

And in xchat. And in epic4.

• Abiword - Word processor, supports .doc, .rtf, GPL.
• Open Office - Whole Office suite, including a database frontend and BASIC macro language.
• Perl - Scripting language
• Python - Scripting language
• Cygwin - UNIX emulator. Can create Windows programs, reliant on a cygwin1.dll.
• MinGW - Port of some of the UNIX utilities (BASH, gcc, vi...) to Windows.
• djgpp - UNIX emulator for DOS.
• Mozilla, Firefox, Thunderbird - Web browser, e-mail client, IRC client, lots more.
• Filezilla - FTP client.
• xchat - IRC client.
• putty, pscp, psftp and others - Telnet/SSH clients.
• Gaim - Client for IRC/Yahoo/MSN/ICQ/AIM and more.
• gzip - Compression (usually better than .zip).
• tar - Extracts/Makes tar archives.
• bzip2 - Totally ace compression (usually better than gzip).
• Info-ZIP - Support for .zip. Good free substitute for Winzip.
• 7-zip - Support for multiple compression formats.
• frhed - Hex editor
• Ext2fs - Several programs for doing Ext2 under Windows.
• Antiword - Converts documents out of the proprietary .doc format.
• MySQL - RDBMS.
• Apache - Web/Proxy server
• sendmail - Mail server
• squid - Proxy server
• freeamp - Audio player
• winlame - MP3 encoder
• cd-ex - MP3/OGG encoder?
• gimp - Very detailed graphics program.
• imagemagick - Graphic manipulation. Provides the 'convert' utility under UNIX.
• freeciv - Civilisation clone.
• gnuplot - Plotting package.
• TightVNC - A fork of VNC, with enhancements.
• RealVNC - The original VNC.
• rdesktop - Access Windows Terminal Services and Remote Desktops.
• Nmap - Well known port scanner.
• John the Ripper - Password cracker. Does NT and MD5.

• gentoo linux
• FreeBSD
• bash
• vim
• perl
• ruby
• MySQL
• PostgreSQL
• Apache
• PHP
• links www browser
• wget
• K Desktop Environment
• Mozilla Firefox
• xchat
• gimp
• Openoffice.org

This is not an issue dealing with PHP and MySQL, this is an issue with weak programmers writing bad code, and I'm sorry to say, you find it in every language. As a regular in #php on freenode, we are constantly correcting bad coding practices.

In fact, it's not uncommon to find people using GET and POST variables straight out of the box without any kind of validation whatsoever. Many people do not learn the de-facto first rule of web programming: the user can not, and should never be trusted.

To make matters worse, applications like PHP-Nuke spring up which are notorious for sloppy coding practices, and people tend to see them as reflect on the PHP community as a whole. That's like blaming the C language because someone, one day, wrote some bad code in it that got someone else hacked. This happens all the time, but we don't make claims like "C security is weak". Instead, we worry about the truth of it, that the programmer in question did a bad job, or just flat out missed something.

One of the key points that seems to trip most novices up (and granted, this is one of the stupider moves presented by the PHP Core Development team) was a thing called magic_quotes_gpc, which attempts to auto-escape incoming GET, POST and COOKIE variables in an attempt to sanitize user input. This is usually a double-edge sword because newbies are typicly not aware if it is, or isn't on. In later versions, this is on by default, and does prevent many SQL injections from occuring. However, for the more experienced user, having your input auto-munged can be something of a pain. Unfortunatly, to write truely portable code one must test this value and normalize data accordingly.

The issues don't stop there though. I've seen many a more serious faux pas committed by the newbie. Another more serious flaw that I see happen on a regular basis is the use of user data within include statements without proper path checking. This is probably one of the more disasterous errors I see occuring because it typicly exposes sensitive data. There has been more than one occasion where i've shown a user their own passwd file in a browser to make my point.

Anyhow, to the newbies: we, the more experienced people of PHP are on our own quest to educate people, many times in a one-on-one basis on Freenode. If you're not sure about a particular issue, grab an IRC client and ASK US (irc://irc.freenode.net). We're there to help!

> ...or at least make a Linux client

Many people would not like the idea of only being able to use a single binary-only client. If they built "google IM" on an existing protocol such as IRC or Jabber, then people would be much more likely to use it. Releasing protocol specifications in the case of a new protocol would also be a good reason for many people to start liking it.

> ...manage to get your friends off MSN...

That's what IRC is good for! Give them a nice client like X-Chat, irssi, or maybe even gaim, and there'll be no reason to use MSN/AIM/Yahoo IM.

I agree. IRC may not be fully P2P, but it is very reliable and complete. There's a client for every known OS, and its name is X-Chat. Only one big problem: seizure of the server can reveal who connected, which isn't good for sharing files. For chatting, though... it works wonders.

Normally I wouldn't respond to junk like this, but just to defend myself against the statement "you dont even deserve to touch fucking computers because you dont do one god damn useful fucking thing with them", I will.

First of all, I have contributed to a few open-source projects out there. I am one of the many people that have submitted patches that fix and add new features to X-Chat, for instance.

I have also had my code published in The Perl Journal and in this book.

What have you done?

Better download the best! Then come and join us on #gnaaa

For mail we have mutt, for IRC we have xchat or irssi or BX or epic, for composing we have vim. All highly flexible tools perfectly suitable for each job.

I bet you haven't tried to keep up with a conversation amount friends with about 300 emails in an hour with mail.yahoo.com

It's a great collection of software to wean people off the "software horders".

When you update the site, don't forget to add the best IRC client to you list - XChat!

Also a very addictive game called crack attack, which runs on windows and linux, and is under the GPL:
Crack Attack

Other things that you should consider include Python and PyGame (don't forget SDL as well!).

[x]Chat runs under windows (native), and is the only irc I'd consider using (beats the hell out of mirc).

Putty is an open source ssh/telnet client. Its possibly the best telnet client for use under windows. Then again, could anything be worse than C:\Windows\Telnet.exe ?

I've probably missed quite a few good ones, but these are things I seriously like.

X-Chat is available as windows builds, works great.

Confronting the KDE propaganda machine.

The KDE project is famous for its funded and organised trolling of weblogs and message board associated with Linux and Free software/open source. Outrageous newbie impressing claims are made for the software and huge quanities of FUD are spread to destroy competitors. If this sounds familiar, then you are correct, most of these tactics were lifted straight from Microsoft's arsenal of dirty tricks. The Windows look and feel is not the only thing the KDE project has copied! In this short article I will address some of the lies and FUD spread by the KDE trolling teams. It is my hope that this, in some small way, will redress the balance and re-introduce two things almost eradicated by the KDE project: Honesty and facts.

• Myth #1 - KDE is more integrated than GNOME

  The oft-heard cry of the noisiest KDE advocates. No explanation is given, the reader is expected to simply grok the wholesomeness of KDE and the lack of this mystical quality in GNOME. It is nonsense of course. Neither desktop is particularly "integrated" compared to Windows XP, and certainly not compared any version of the Apple Mac. Whatever "integrated" actually means.

• Myth #2 - KDE is easier to use

  Again, such nebulous arguments are never explained, and the reader is expected to simply understand the truth of the zealots statement. Both KDE and GNOME have user-interface irritations (all systems do), but "ease of use" is not a simple thing to measure. KDE has never been subjected to detailed user testing, unlike GNOME, and the claims of user-friendliness are from crazed supporters and not average users. Furthermore, the KDE faithful rarely look beyond simple-minded copying of Windows, and forget that administering a desktop system is just as important as having widgets in the correct place on the toolbar. For example: What about application installation and removal? GNOME has the excellent RedCarpet by Ximian, which makes the installation, removal and updating of applications trivial. KDE users are expected to fend for themselves with brutal command line driven systems. GNOME also has the excellent Ximian setup tools to handle various tricky cross-platform and potentially risky system configuration operations. KDE offers none of this, only a few small and lame Linux-only tools, which make no attempt at check-pointing to return to known working configurations.

• Myth #3 - KDE is more popular

  In what sense? Arguably more people use KDE, but it is a close run thing. Most KDE zealots use the results of online polls as proof of their superior userbase - which is, quite frankly, complete and utter nonsense. Online polls are the joke of the century; it doesn't even require a motivated script kiddie to render then worthless. A single post alerting the faithful on a zealot-ridden site can skew the result so much it makes American presidential elections look fair and well organised. Popularity is also difficult to measure when *both* GNOME and KDE are frequently installed on the same system. The systems can co-exist and even run at the same time, except for certain applications such as panels. Many KDE users actually run GNOME applications for their superior features and stability, not realising that by doing so they are barely running KDE at all.

  One of the few solid measures of popularity is commercial use of a desktop, and here, GNOME is far ahead with both Hewlett Packard and Sun committing to using GNOME as the desktop for their Unix systems. This also ties in with the previously mentioned ease of use. Sun's major contribution to the GNOME project is in the areas of user/developer documentation, testing, accessiblity and user-testing. Three of the less glamourous parts of desktop development. The arrival of the GNOME 2.x series will see these contributions reach fruitition and allow GNOME to make a quantum leap ahead of KDE in most of the basic computer/user issues.

• Myth #4 - Konqueror is the best Linux browser

  Oh for a penny every time this lie is told in any KDE story! Konqueror not a bad piece of software. It's authors deserve praise for the work done on it. However, the sheer amount of orgasmic gushing by the KDE faithful is completely out of proportion to its actual quality. It is quite unreliable and even simple standards compliant pages can crash it quite comprehensively. It is also lax in its support of basic web standards compared to either Mozilla or Opera. It is also extremely slow - much slower than the latest incarnations of the GNOME Nautilus filemanager/browser (a target of much KDE FUD during its development).

• Myth #5 - KDE applications are better/more advanced than GNOME ones due to the ease of developing in C++ using the Qt toolkit

  This is the most common wail heard by KDE developers, and yet it is easily disproved by looking at the actual applications for GNOME/GTK and KDE/Qt. KDE applications often have larger version numbers than GNOME ones... an old trick played by commerical software developers. Most KDE apps seem to jump for 1.x releases long before they are ready - KOffice being the best example. None of the components in Koffice are worthy of a 1.0 release, let alone 1.1 or 1.2.

  GNOME applications get a good deal more testing in their 0.x stages, and despite shorter development phases they mature and reach stable featureful release versions much more quickly. Some examples of this are: the superb Evolution (groupware/email), Gnumeric (spreadsheet), Pan (newsreader), The GIMP (image manipulation), Abiword (word processing), RedCarpet, X-Chat (IRC client), XMMS (media player), Galeon (web browser), and for developers: Glade and Anjuta. All of these packages ooze quality, and far outclass their KDE counterparts. It is no understatement to say that GNOME is at least 18 months ahead of KDE in applications, and pulling still further ahead.

  It's not just in the area of user applications that GNOME is vastly more advanced. With the forthcoming 2.x release, a number of impressive behind the scenes technologies will finally mature: component technology (bonobo), media (Gstreamer), internationalisation (pango). As a developement platform, GNOME 2.x is, conservatively, 2-3 years ahead of KDE. And what is more, because it is not tied to a lowest common denominator cross-platform bloat-fest like the Qt toolkit, the lead (as with applications) can only increase further.

  It is also worth noting that GNOME also develops code for use outside the project (see the XML libraries as one example) - the KDE project rarely (if ever) engages in this kind of work. KDE developers ensure that all software must link with Qt, and hence tie it closely with the Qt toolkit preventing re-use and enhancing the value of TrollTech intellectual property.

  
  Yet despite all this, we are still regularly fed the lie that Qt and C++ makes application and desktop development easier. Judge for yourself.

• Myth #6 - KDE is faster and takes less memory than GNOME

  KDE is written in C++. While this is not necessarily a problem, it can be when Visual Basic reject programmers (which the KDE project is overrun with) do not know enough to avoid important pitfalls that plague C++ software projects. Stupid use of autoincrementing operators and iteration with C++ objects; and masses of unnecessary allocations and deallocations of memory are two of the most common. KDE suffers badly from both problems.

  Perhaps the most cretinous of all problems is blaming the extremely slow startup times of KDE apps on GCC. The GNOME 1.x releases were hardly svelt (2.x fixes many of these issues - in fact, GNOME 2 is significantly faster with fewer resources than previous version, a feat quite beyond the KDE project), but GNOME is a fashion cat-walk superwaif when compared to KDE's 500lb fat-momma cheese-burger scoffing trailer trash. One need only look at the recent fuss over ugly KDE hacks (such as prelinking) used to bandage up the design and coding flaws in the decrepit KDE architecture to see the truth.

• Myth #7 - GNOME development is slower. KDE releases faster.

  Fundamental misunderstanding. The KDE project releases as one big lump of code due to its use of C++ and the many problems this causes with libraries. The project bumps the version number of the entire KDE system for the smallest modifications. GNOME, on the other hand is componentized and each component releases on a (almost) separate schedule, bumping it's own version number but not the main GNOME version (1.4, for example). Occasional releases of the entire GNOME system happen, and that's when the GNOME version number is bumped (currently it is at 1.4). To see this in action, use RedCarpet and you will regular updates to GNOME components. GNOME development is not slower, it is in fact faster and more advanced. Lamers and newbies, however, fail to understand the advantages of this method and just see KDE 1.1.1 followed a few weeks later by KDE 1.1.2. Wow! KDE roolz.
  
  Perhaps the greatest example of KDE release games occured with the recent KDE 3.0 release. In a desperate race to beat GNOME 2.0 to, the KDE team did not put back their schedule in the middle of a late release freeze when they suddenly added lots of new features - and, as expected, this has proved to be disasterous. KDE 3.0 is the worst KDE release yet in terms of reliablity - and is essentially early beta software put out as a stable release. Compare this with GNOME, which has had a number of betas and quality assurance procedures leading up to the eventual release of GNOME 2.0. The difference in approach is obviously due to the ultimate destinations of the systems and the vastly more experienced developers behind GNOME. GNOME is heading for commerical use on Sun and HP desktops, and hence requires commericial release quality. While KDE is destined for the porn and MP3 boxes of noisy advocates who don't mind huge numbers of crashes while waiting for KDE 3.0.0.4 to fix issues overlooked in the mindless rush to release. Quality control is an afterthought to the KDE project - the version number and releasing first are everything.

• Myth #8 - The Qt toolkit is cross-platform and yet takes advantage of each individual platform

  The Qt toolkit (the software at the heart of KDE) is supposedly a cross-platform toolkit allowing the lucky developer the opportunity to write Windows/Linux/Mac software all at once. And yet, among the magical mythical claims made, the most nonsensical is that it makes applications which take advantage of the distinct features of the different platforms. This is of course, nonsense. Qt is a bloated, slow layer that is slapped over a native system's APIs in an attempt to make all the systems look alike. It no more takes advantage of Linux/Windows/Mac than Java does - in fact it offers many of the disadvantages of Java with few of the advantages. If you have ever wondered why the KDE desktop looks so much like Windows... you need look no further than Qt. Qt is a lowest common denominator toolkit, and that LCD is Windows - Trolltech's, the creator of Qt, real market.

• Myth #9 - TrollTech is a friend of Free software

  To Be Written. Ideas: Qt started out as non-Free. KDE developers knew this violated the GPL, didn't care, stole others' GPL code by porting it to link (in violation of the license) with Qt and are therefore untrustworthy. KDE core developers work for TrollTech. Expensive per developer licensing for writing closed-source with Qt, and hence KDE. Trolltech only moved towards the GPL because of the success of GNOME. Labyrinthine licensing nightmare (3 licenses to deal with). Gradual migration of features belonging in KDE into Qt (and so into TrollTech's IP portfolio), allowing easy porting of apps to the revenue generating Windows world (see TheKompany for a perfect example), thereby making KDE an irrelevant launcher of Qt applications. Claims made that Qt is GPL, while true, hide the real truth. There cannot be a real fork of Qt for the KDE project: Core developers work for Trolltech; any fork would need to be full GPL and hence ban any closed-source apps from KDE altogether (all KDE apps must link with Qt); Any commerical licensees of Qt (non-GPL) would and could only follow TrollTech. KDE is stitched up good and proper.

• Myth #10 - KDE is more than attractive, but GNOME/GTK is ugly

  To be Written. Ideas: Mosfet liquid theme is an ugly and unstable hack. GNOME GTk icons are better thought-out and of a far higher quality than the poorly drawn and cartoonish and confusing KDE ones. Qt is basically a Windows-look on a Unix platform.

Confronting the KDE propaganda machine.

The KDE project is famous for its funded and organised trolling of weblogs and message board associated with Linux and Free software/open source. Outrageous newbie impressing claims are made for the software and huge quanities of FUD are spread to destroy competitors. If this sounds familiar, then you are correct, most of these tactics were lifted straight from Microsoft's arsenal of dirty tricks. The Windows look and feel is not the only thing the KDE project has copied! In this short article I will address some of the lies and FUD spread by the KDE trolling teams. It is my hope that this, in some small way, will redress the balance and re-introduce two things almost eradicated by the KDE project: Honesty and facts.

• Myth #1 - KDE is more integrated than GNOME

  The oft-heard cry of the noisiest KDE advocates. No explanation is given, the reader is expected to simply grok the wholesomeness of KDE and the lack of this mystical quality in GNOME. It is nonsense of course. Neither desktop is particularly "integrated" compared to Windows XP, and certainly not compared any version of the Apple Mac. Whatever "integrated" actually means.

• Myth #2 - KDE is easier to use

  Again, such nebulous arguments are never explained, and the reader is expected to simply understand the truth of the zealots statement. Both KDE and GNOME have user-interface irritations (all systems do), but "ease of use" is not a simple thing to measure. KDE has never been subjected to detailed user testing, unlike GNOME, and the claims of user-friendliness are from crazed supporters and not average users. Furthermore, the KDE faithful rarely look beyond simple-minded copying of Windows, and forget that administering a desktop system is just as important as having widgets in the correct place on the toolbar. For example: What about application installation and removal? GNOME has the excellent RedCarpet by Ximian, which makes the installation, removal and updating of applications trivial. KDE users are expected to fend for themselves with brutal command line driven systems. GNOME also has the excellent Ximian setup tools to handle various tricky cross-platform and potentially risky system configuration operations. KDE offers none of this, only a few small and lame Linux-only tools, which make no attempt at check-pointing to return to known working configurations.

• Myth #3 - KDE is more popular

  In what sense? Arguably more people use KDE, but it is a close run thing. Most KDE zealots use the results of online polls as proof of their superior userbase - which is, quite frankly, complete and utter nonsense. Online polls are the joke of the century; it doesn't even require a motivated script kiddie to render then worthless. A single post alerting the faithful on a zealot-ridden site can skew the result so much it makes American presidential elections look fair and well organised. Popularity is also difficult to measure when *both* GNOME and KDE are frequently installed on the same system. The systems can co-exist and even run at the same time, except for certain applications such as panels. Many KDE users actually run GNOME applications for their superior features and stability, not realising that by doing so they are barely running KDE at all.

  One of the few solid measures of popularity is commercial use of a desktop, and here, GNOME is far ahead with both Hewlett Packard and Sun committing to using GNOME as the desktop for their Unix systems. This also ties in with the previously mentioned ease of use. Sun's major contribution to the GNOME project is in the areas of user/developer documentation, testing, accessiblity and user-testing. Three of the less glamourous parts of desktop development. The arrival of the GNOME 2.x series will see these contributions reach fruitition and allow GNOME to make a quantum leap ahead of KDE in most of the basic computer/user issues.

• Myth #4 - Konqueror is the best Linux browser

  Oh for a penny every time this lie is told in any KDE story! Konqueror not a bad piece of software. It's authors deserve praise for the work done on it. However, the sheer amount of orgasmic gushing by the KDE faithful is completely out of proportion to its actual quality. It is quite unreliable and even simple standards compliant pages can crash it quite comprehensively. It is also lax in its support of basic web standards compared to either Mozilla or Opera. It is also extremely slow - much slower than the latest incarnations of the GNOME Nautilus filemanager/browser (a target of much KDE FUD during its development).

• Myth #5 - KDE applications are better/more advanced than GNOME ones due to the ease of developing in C++ using the Qt toolkit

  This is the most common wail heard by KDE developers, and yet it is easily disproved by looking at the actual applications for GNOME/GTK and KDE/Qt. KDE applications often have larger version numbers than GNOME ones... an old trick played by commerical software developers. Most KDE apps seem to jump for 1.x releases long before they are ready - KOffice being the best example. None of the components in Koffice are worthy of a 1.0 release, let alone 1.1 or 1.2.

  GNOME applications get a good deal more testing in their 0.x stages, and despite shorter development phases they mature and reach stable featureful release versions much more quickly. Some examples of this are: the superb Evolution (groupware/email), Gnumeric (spreadsheet), Pan (newsreader), The GIMP (image manipulation), Abiword (word processing), RedCarpet, X-Chat (IRC client), XMMS (media player), Galeon (web browser), and for developers: Glade and Anjuta. All of these packages ooze quality, and far outclass their KDE counterparts. It is no understatement to say that GNOME is at least 18 months ahead of KDE in applications, and pulling still further ahead.

  It's not just in the area of user applications that GNOME is vastly more advanced. With the forthcoming 2.x release, a number of impressive behind the scenes technologies will finally mature: component technology (bonobo), media (Gstreamer), internationalisation (pango). As a developement platform, GNOME 2.x is, conservatively, 2-3 years ahead of KDE. And what is more, because it is not tied to a lowest common denominator cross-platform bloat-fest like the Qt toolkit, the lead (as with applications) can only increase further.

  It is also worth noting that GNOME also develops code for use outside the project (see the XML libraries as one example) - the KDE project rarely (if ever) engages in this kind of work. KDE developers ensure that all software must link with Qt, and hence tie it closely with the Qt toolkit preventing re-use and enhancing the value of TrollTech intellectual property.

  
  Yet despite all this, we are still regularly fed the lie that Qt and C++ makes application and desktop development easier. Judge for yourself.

• Myth #6 - KDE is faster and takes less memory than GNOME

  KDE is written in C++. While this is not necessarily a problem, it can be when Visual Basic reject programmers (which the KDE project is overrun with) do not know enough to avoid important pitfalls that plague C++ software projects. Stupid use of autoincrementing operators and iteration with C++ objects; and masses of unnecessary allocations and deallocations of memory are two of the most common. KDE suffers badly from both problems.

  Perhaps the most cretinous of all problems is blaming the extremely slow startup times of KDE apps on GCC. The GNOME 1.x releases were hardly svelt (2.x fixes many of these issues), but GNOME is a fashion cat-walk superwaif when compared to KDE's 500lb fat-momma cheese-burger scoffing trailer trash. One need only look at the recent fuss over ugly KDE hacks (such as prelinking) used to bandage up the design and coding flaws in the decrepit KDE architecture to see the truth.

• Myth #7 - GNOME development is slower. KDE releases faster.

  Fundamental misunderstanding. The KDE project releases as one big lump of code due to its use of C++ and the many problems this causes with libraries. The project bumps the version number of the entire KDE system for the smallest modifications. GNOME, on the other hand is componentized and each component releases on a (almost) separate schedule, bumping it's own version number but not the main GNOME version (1.4, for example). Occasional releases of the entire GNOME system happen, and that's when the GNOME version number is bumped (currently it is at 1.4). To see this in action, use RedCarpet and you will regular updates to GNOME components. GNOME development is not slower, it is in fact faster and more advanced. Lamers and newbies, however, fail to understand the advantages of this method and just see KDE 1.1.1 followed a few weeks later by KDE 1.1.2. Wow! KDE roolz.
  
  Perhaps the greatest example of KDE release games occured with the recent KDE 3.0 release. In a desperate race to beat GNOME 2.0 to, the KDE team did not put back their schedule in the middle of a late release freeze when they suddenly added lots of new features - and, as expected,

• Myth #10 - KDE is more than attractive, but GNOME/GTK is ugly

  To be Written. Ideas: Mosfet liquid theme is an ugly and unstable hack. GNOME GTk icons are better thought-out and of a far higher quality than the poorly drawn and cartoonish and confusing KDE ones. Qt is basically a Windows-look on a Unix platform.

• Myth: KDE is more integrated than GNOME
  
  Reality: The oft-heard cry of the noisiest KDE advocates. No explanation is given - the reader is expected to simply grok the wholesomeness of KDE, and the lack of this mystical quality in GNOME. It's nonsense of course. Neither desktop is particularly "integrated" compared to Windows XP, and certainly not compared any version of the Apple Mac.

• Myth: KDE is easier to use
  
  Reality: Again, such nebulous arguments are never explained, and the reader is expected to simply understand the truth. Both KDE and GNOME have user-interface irritations (indeed, all systems do) - but "ease of use" is not a simple thing to measure. What about application (see GNOME apps later) installation and removal: GNOME has the excellent RedCarpet by Ximian , which makes the installation, removal and updating of applications trivial. KDE users are expected to fend for themselves with brutal command line driven systems. GNOME also has the excellent Ximian setup tools to handle various very tricky cross-platform and potentially risky system configuration operations - KDE offers a few small half-assed Linux-only tools, which make no attempt at check-pointing to return to known working configurations.

• Myth: KDE is more popular
  
  Reality: In what sense? Arguably more people use KDE - but it is a close run thing. Most KDE zealots claim the results of online polls as proof of their superior userbase... which is, quite frankly, complete and utter nonsense. Online polls are the joke of the century; it doesn't even require a motivated script kiddie to render then worthless. A single post on a zealot-ridden site can reduce the result to a running joke. Popularity is also difficult to measure when both GNOME and KDE are frequently installed on the same system - and indeed, can co-exist except for certain applications such as panels. Many KDE users actually run GNOME applications for their superior features and stability.

  One of the few solid measures of popularity is the adoption in commercial use - and here, GNOME is far ahead. Both Hewlett- Packard and Sun Microsystems have committed to using GNOME as the desktop for their Unix systems. This ties in with the previously mentioned ease of use - Sun's major contribution to the GNOME effort is in the areas of user/developer documentation, testing, accessiblity and user-testing. Three of the less glamourous parts of desktop development. The arrival of the GNOME 2.x series will see these contributions reach fruitition and allow GNOME to make a quantum leap ahead of KDE in most of the basic computer/user issues.

• Myth: Konqueror is the best Linux browser
  
  Reality: Oh for a penny every time this lie is told in any KDE story! Konqueror is a fine piece of software - it's authors deserve plently of praise - it is, however, quite unreliable and lax in its support of basic web standards compared to either Mozilla or Opera . It is also extremely slow - slower than the latest incarnations of the GNOME Nautilus filemanager/browser.

• Myth: KDE applications are better/more advanced than GNOME ones due to the ease of developing in C++ using the Qt toolkit
  
  Reality: See also: Qt/TrollTech. Easily the most common wail heard by KDE developers - and yet it is easily disproved by looking at the actual applications for GNOME/GTK and KDE/Qt . KDE applications often have larger version numbers than GNOME ones... an old trick played by commerical software developers. Most KDE apps seem to jump for 1.x releases long before they are ready - KOffice being the best example. None of the components in Koffice are worthy of a 1.0 release, let alone 1.1 or 1.2. GNOME applications wait longer and get more testing in their 0.x stages and despite shorter development phases mature more quickly and reach stable featureful release states more quickly: the superb Evolution (groupware/email), Gnumeric (spreadsheet), Pan (newsreader), The GIMP (image manipulation), Abiword (word processing), RedCarpet ,X-Chat (IRC client), XMMS (media player), Galeon (web browser), and for developers: Glade , Anjuta . All of these packages ooze quality, far outclass and are, at least, 18 months ahead of their KDE/Qt counterparts. It's not only in the area of user applications that GNOME is lightyears ahead, with the forthcoming 2.x a number of impressive behind the scenes technology will finally mature: component technology (bonobo ), media (Gstreamer ), internationalisation (pango ). As a developement platform, GNOME 2.x is, frankly, years ahead of KDE. And what's more, it is not tied to a lowest common denominator cross-platform bloat-fest like Qt. Yet despite all this, we are still fed the lie that Qt and C++ makes development easier. Judge for yourself.

• Myth: KDE is faster and/or takes less memory than GNOME
  
  Reality: KDE is written in C++. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, it is when the programmers do not know enough to avoid certain pitfalls that can plague software projects. Stupid use of ++/-- with C++ objects; masses of unnecessary allocations and deallocations of memory, and the most cretinous of all, blaming the extremely slow startup times of KDE apps on GCC. The GNOME 1.x releases were hardly svelt (2.x fixes many of these issues), but GNOME is a fashion cat-walk superwaif when compared to KDE's 500lb fat-momma cheese-burger scoffing trailer trash. One need only look at the recent fuss over ugly KDE hacks (such as prelinking) to see the problem inherent in the KDE architecture and basic design.

• Myth: GNOME development is slower. KDE releases faster.
  
  Reality: Fundamental misunderstanding. KDE releases as one big lump of code due to its use of C++ and the consequent problems with libraries. It bumps the version number of the entire KDE system for the smallest modifications. GNOME, on the other hand is componentized and each component releases on a (almost) separate schedule, bumping it's own version number but not the main GNOME version. Occasional releases of the entire GNOME system are done, and that's when the GNOME version number is bumped (currently it is 1.4). To see this in action, use RedCarpet and you will regular updates to GNOME components. GNOME development is not slower, it is in fact faster and more advanced. Lamers and newbies, however, fail to understand the advantages and just see KDE 1.1.1 followed a few weeks later by KDE 1.1.2. Wow! KDE roolz.

• Myth: TrollTech is a friend of Free software.
  
  Reality: Qt started out as non-Free. KDE developers knew this violated the GPL and are therefore untrustworthy. KDE core developers work for TrollTech. Expensive per developer licensing for writing closed-source with Qt. Labyrinthine licensing nightmare.

• Myth: Most good GNOME apps are actually GTK applications.
  
  Reality: Most KDE apps, such as those from The Kompany are actually Qt apps because they want to port to the more lucrative Windows/Qt market.

• Myth: KDE is attractive/GNOME/GTK is ugly
  
  Reality: Mosfet liquid theme is an ugly and unstable hack. GNOME GTk icons are of a far higher quality than the cartoonish and confusing KDE ones. Qt is basically a Windows-look on a Unix platform.

• Myth: KDE is more integrated than GNOME
  Reality: The oft-heard cry of the noisiest KDE advocates. No explanation is given - the reader is expected to simply grok the wholesomeness of KDE, and the lack of this mystical quality in GNOME. It's nonsense of course. Neither desktop is particularly "integrated" compared to Windows XP, and certainly not compared to any version of the Apple Mac. Whatever "integrated" really means.

• Myth: KDE is easier to use
  Reality: Again, such nebulous arguments are never explained, and the reader is expected to simply understand the truth of the zealots statement. Both KDE and GNOME have user-interface irritations (indeed, all systems do) - but "ease of use" is not a simple thing to measure. KDE has never been subjected to detailed user testing, unlike GNOME [gnome.org], and the claims of user-friendliness are from crazed supporters and not average users. Furthermore, the KDE faithful rarely look beyond simple-minded copying of Windows, and forget that administering a desktop system is just as important as having widgets in the correct place on the toolbar. For example: What about application installation and removal? GNOME has the excellent RedCarpet [ximian.com] by Ximian [ximian.com], which makes the installation, removal and updating of applications trivial. KDE users are expected to fend for themselves with brutal command line driven systems. GNOME also has the excellent Ximian setup tools to handle various very tricky cross-platform and potentially risky system configuration operations - KDE offers none of this, only a few small half-assed Linux-only tools, which make no attempt at check-pointing to return to known working configurations.

• Myth: KDE is more popular
  Reality: In what sense? Arguably more people use KDE - but it is a close run thing. Most KDE zealots claim the results of online polls as proof of their superior userbase - which is, quite frankly, complete and utter nonsense. Online polls are the joke of the century; it doesn't even require a motivated script kiddie to render then worthless. A single post alerting the faithful on a zealot-ridden site can skew the result so much it makes American presidential elections look fair and well organised. Popularity is also difficult to measure when both GNOME and KDE are frequently installed on the same system. Indeed, the systems can co-exist and even run at the same time, except for certain applications such as panels. Many KDE users actually run GNOME applications for their superior features and stability, not realising that by doing so they are barely running KDE at all.

  One of the few solid measures of popularity is the adoption in commercial use - and here, GNOME is far ahead, with both Hewlett-Packard [hp.com] and Sun Microsystems [sun.com] committing to using GNOME as the desktop for their Unix systems. This also ties in with the previously mentioned ease of use - Sun's major contribution to the GNOME project is in the areas of user/developer documentation, testing, accessiblity and user-testing. Three of the less glamourous parts of desktop development. The arrival of the GNOME 2.x series will see these contributions reach fruitition and allow GNOME to make a quantum leap ahead of KDE in most of the basic computer/user issues.

• Myth: Konqueror is the best Linux browser
  Reality: Oh for a penny every time this lie is told in any KDE story! Konqueror [konqueror.org] is not a bad piece of software - its authors deserve praise for the work done in it. However, the sheer amount of orgasmic praise lavished by the KDE faithful is completely out of proportion to its actual quality. It is quite unreliable and even simple standards compliant pages can crash it quite comprehensively. It is also lax in its support of basic web standards compared to either Mozilla [mozilla.org] or Opera [opera.com]. It is also extremely slow - much slower than the latest incarnations of the GNOME Nautilus [eazel.com] filemanager/browser (a target of much KDE FUD during its development).
  .

• Myth: KDE applications are better/more advanced than GNOME ones due to the ease of developing in C++ using the Qt toolkit
  Reality: Easily the most common wail heard by KDE developers, and yet it is easily disproved by looking at the actual applications for GNOME/GTK [gtk.org] and KDE/Qt [trolltech.com]. KDE applications often have larger version numbers than GNOME ones... an old trick played by commerical software developers. Most KDE apps seem to jump for 1.x releases long before they are ready - KOffice [koffice.org] being the best example. None of the components in Koffice are worthy of a 1.0 release, let alone 1.1 or 1.2.

  GNOME applications [gnome.org] wait longer and get more testing in their 0.x stages and despite shorter development phases mature more quickly and reach stable featureful release states more quickly. Some examples of this are the superb Evolution [ximian.com] (groupware/email), Gnumeric [gnome.org] (spreadsheet), Pan [rebelbase.com] (newsreader), The GIMP [gimp.org] (image manipulation), Abiword [abisource.com] (word processing), RedCarpet [ximian.com], X-Chat [xchat.org] (IRC client), XMMS [xmms.org] (media player), Galeon [sourceforge.net] (web browser), and for developers: Glade [gnome.org] and Anjuta [sourceforge.net]. All of these packages ooze quality, and far outclass the KDE counterparts. It is no understatement to say that GNOME is at least 18 months ahead of KDE in applications, and pulling still further ahead.

  It's not only in the area of user applications that GNOME is lightyears ahead. With the forthcoming 2.x a number of impressive behind the scenes technology will finally mature: component technology (bonobo [gnome.org]), media (Gstreamer [gstreamer.net]), internationalisation (pango [pango.org]). As a developement platform, GNOME 2.x is, conservatively, 2-3 years ahead of KDE. And what's more, because it is not tied to a lowest common denominator cross-platform bloat-fest like the Qt toolkit, the lead (as with applications) can only increase further.

  Yet despite all this, we are still regularly fed the lie that Qt and C++ makes application and desktop development easier. Judge for yourself.

• Myth: KDE is faster and takes less memory than GNOME
  Reality: KDE is written in C++. While this is not necessarily a problem, it can be when Visual Basic reject programmers (which the KDE project is overrun with) do not know enough to avoid important pitfalls that plague C++ software projects. Stupid use of autoincrementing operators and iteration with C++ objects, and masses of unnecessary allocations and deallocations of memory, are two of the most common. KDE suffers badly from both problems.

  Perhaps the most cretinous of all problems is blaming the extremely slow startup times of KDE apps on GCC. The GNOME 1.x releases were hardly svelt (2.x fixes many of these issues), but GNOME is a fashion cat-walk superwaif when compared to KDE's 500lb fat-momma cheese-burger scoffing trailer trash. One need only look at the recent fuss over ugly KDE hacks (such as prelinking) to see the problem inherent in the poor KDE architecture and basic design flaws.

• Myth: GNOME development is slower. KDE releases faster.
  Reality: Fundamental misunderstanding. KDE releases as one big lump of code due to its use of C++ and the many problems this causes with libraries. The project bumps the version number of the entire KDE system for the smallest modifications. GNOME, on the other hand is componentized and each component releases on a (almost) separate schedule, bumping it's own version number but not the main GNOME version (1.4, for example). Occasional releases of the entire GNOME system happen, and that's when the GNOME version number is bumped (currently it is at 1.4). To see this in action, use RedCarpet and you will see regular updates to GNOME components. GNOME development is not slower, it is in fact faster and more advanced. Lamers and newbies, however, fail to understand the advantages of this method and just see KDE 1.1.1 followed a few weeks later by KDE 1.1.2. Wow! KDE roolz.

• Myth: TrollTech is a friend of Free software.
  Reality: TO BE WROTE -- IDEAS Qt started out as non-Free. KDE developers knew this violated the GPL, didn't care, stole others' GPL code by porting it to link (in violation of the license) with Qt and are therefore untrustworthy. KDE core developers work for TrollTech. Expensive per developer licensing for writing closed-source with Qt. Trolltech only moved towards the GPL because of the success of GNOME. Labyrinthine licensing nightmare. Gradual migration of features into Qt (and so into TrollTech's IP portfolio), allowing easy porting of apps to the revenue generating Windows world (see TheKompany for a perfect example), thereby making KDE irrelevant.

• Myth: Most good GNOME apps are actually GTK applications.
  Reality: TO BE WROTE -- IDEAS Most KDE apps, such as those from The Kompany [thekompany.com] are actually Qt apps because they want to port to the more lucrative Windows/Qt market.

  Myth: KDE is more than attractive - GNOME/GTK is ugly
  Reality: Mosfet liquid theme is an ugly and unstable hack. GNOME GTk icons are of a far higher quality than the cartoonish and confusing KDE ones. Qt is basically a Windows-look on a Unix platform.

This troll was reposted from the Troll Library without permission of the original author. If you object to this post, or if you wish to add your troll to the Troll Library, please reply to this message.

> mIRC is the only decent IRC client on Windows there is.

Uhm, what about X-Chat for Windows? The installer is right here

xchat has also a win32 binary, and it uses gtk. Though, it isn't as stable as the *nix version, I think...

I talked to a guy recently who was writing a free (open source, I think) 3D modeller. He was complaining about getting Direct3D and MFC to work together, so I suggested that he use a cross-platform toolkit and OpenGL. That way, I said, his code would be portable. He told me of his personal distaste for Unix, and that he didn't think there was any value in porting his software to it.

I was shocked. I'm sure many of you were, too. But then, how many of you have written non-portable software for Linux? You probably figured Windows sucks, and there was no reason to support it. If so, you were no better than that guy.

Wonderful platforms like BeOS are suffering because people won't write portable code; there is a serious lack of good software for any OS other than Windows, Mac, and Linux (with a few Unix's managing to get easy ports of the Linux stuff).

Now, being open source does NOT automatically make your software portable! If you use POSIX system calls all over your code (and I'd hate to see your code if you do), porting the thing to Windows would probably be harder than simply re-writing the damned thing from scratch. You must consider portability from the beginning!

I'm not saying that you should personally port your software to every known OS -- that would be impossible

• Java (well, duh; Sun has been hyping Java's portability for a while now)
• Tcl
• Python
• Perl

KDE comes with so many other good programs as well, like KNode (News reader) and KMail (lightweight email program)... Does GNOME have any comparable programs?

Errr... yes! Pan is probably the best free newsreader for any platform, Evolution is an incredibly well-integrated mail, calender and addressbook program, and Balsa is a very decent more lightweight mail reader. For office programs, Gnumeric is way more advanced than KSpread, Guppi (still in CVS) is one of the only serious free graphical data analysis tools, GnuCash is very polished, and Dia rocks. Graphically, Sodipodi is shaping up very nicely, gPhoto rules, and the GIMP integrates better with a GNOME environment than with KDE. And then there's XMMS (the best mp3/ogg/mpeg/divx Linux player), Grip (the best CD player/ripper combo) and GStreamer for multemedia; there's GnomeICU, Gabber, Gaim and X-Chat for messaging; there's Gnapster for file-sharing; and there's more useful utilities (e.g. Bug Buddy), system utilities (e.g. Red Carpet), and panel applets than you could shake a stick at. And I know I've missed out quite a few more (Gnome-DB, Oregano and Dr. Genius have just spring to mind - and, yes, Galeon, which rocks and is now my primary browser). In other words, GNOME is hardly short on applications.

If anything, I've often found it to be the other way round. While Konqueror rules, and KWord is much better featured than AbiWord (though I personally dislike the interface), I think where KDE usually excels is in the underlying desktop core, rather than the applications. But that's just my opinion.

PS Sorry for ranting.

Gnome is not just a desktop. It is also an application framework. I personally think it would be very cool to be able to run the Gnome apps I love in Windows. x-chat, for example, is the best IRC client I've found, for any platform. However, I don't like the idea of having to use a commercial tool like U/WIN and an X-server.
----

X-Chat 1.5.7-devl fixes the issue mentioned. Perhaps the author could have looked at the home page and seen for himself.

PMIRC! My favorite client for a *LONG* time, till I ended up on X-Chat and Linux, OpenBSD, etc etc.