Slashdot Mirror

IMHO, the greatest feature of Lindows is Click-N-Run. In my experience of introducing users, even fellow geeks, to linux, the #1 barrier of entry was "how do I isntall software x, y, z". Even after explaining red hat's rpm and apt-get (as well as methods via console), they still miss the convienence of just double clicking an installer and having the work done for them.

Funny, you didn't mention the ease of double-clicking on the Ximian Red Carpet icon.

Did you get permission to steal KDE's icon's for your website?!!

LOL! They're Gnome icons, made by Ximian, and available here.

Seeing as how it's IIS crap I'll bet you think you can just walk all over the free software people, eh?

Uh, yeah -- that's why I released XSLTFilter under the LGPL. Yeah. That's it. Oh, I also used the xml and xslt libraries from XMLSoft.

christ!

On a stick!

How about registering domains like www.oeone.org, www.oone.com, www.oone.com or www.oe-one.com? Any permutations or slight modifications of the original domain would be enough to catch a few users. , this is a horrible way to do things. Whatever happened to the days of downloadable installers? I would expect that people who install Linux would have enough sense to choose a link off a website related to their distribution. This is how Ximian does it on their download page. I think they still provide the old lynx -source http://? | sh method as well.

How about registering domains like www.oeone.org, www.oone.com, www.oone.com or www.oe-one.com? Any permutations or slight modifications of the original domain would be enough to catch a few users. , this is a horrible way to do things. Whatever happened to the days of downloadable installers? I would expect that people who install Linux would have enough sense to choose a link off a website related to their distribution. This is how Ximian does it on their download page. I think they still provide the old lynx -source http://? | sh method as well.

Well it has seemed to work fine for Ximian for quite some time. I haven't heard about anyone compromising go-gnome.

I'm assuming when you say you are a Microsoft user you mean that you have only ever used Microsoft products. At this stage, any Unix-based operating system, be it a Linux distribution, Lindows (I do not personally count Lindows as a true Linux distribution), FreeBSD, or whatever, will be like jumping into a cold swimming pool. That is to say, it will be a shock at first, but if you are reasonably intelligent and you have picked a newbie distribution (Mandrake, Lycoris, Lindows, ELX), you should be able to adjust.

Some things to keep in mind:

1. You will not have perfect compatibility with Windows apps like MSOffice. You can use OpenOffice and most of your docs will look fine, but some will have visible display glitches (although I have never seen one that was unreadable). You can also download browser plugins for Mozilla (the best Linux web browser) which give it virtually all the worthwhile functionality of IE. Ximian Evolution is an excellent replacement for Outlook. OpenOffice, Mozilla, and Evolution all come with most new Linux distributions today. Another solution is Codeweavers Crossover Office and Crossover Plugin, which let you use Windows office apps and browser plugins. However, this option requires a subscription fee.

2. Many/most Windows games will not work at all, or without a good deal of tinkering. If you are a hardcore gamer, check out Transgaming WineX which can let you play some of the most popular Windows games with a minimum of glitches. This option also requires a subscription fee.

3. A Linux installation needs either its own hard drive, a free partition of space on a Windows drive (at least a few gigabytes) or its own machine. If you have only one machine with one partition on one hard drive, and that is for Windows, then you *might* damage your Windows installation installing Linux. Your best bet if you don't know what I am talking about is to ask a friend who knows more for some help in the installation.

4. While most hardware I have ever purchased is supported, some things just don't have support yet. One example is the "winmodem". Most modems sold today are sneakily designed to work only with Microsoft Windows. Yes, this is a conspiracy between Microsoft and the manufacturers of those modems. If your modem doesnt work, you will probably have to buy a new modem which specifically says it is a "hardware modem". As someone in [your local computer/electronics store] for help.

**Aside from all that, a tonne of things are different in the actual underlying operating system, but if you aren't a developer, you proably won't be intersted in those details. (Feel free to continue this thread if you are, I will be happy to answer more questions.)

With all this, I was trying to provide full disclosure of pitfalls to migrating, not to discourage you. I definately think the switch to Linux is worthwhile in the long term.

If as you implied you have only ever used Microsoft products, the best path you could take is to switch to OpenOffice and Mozilla running on Windows, then if you are comfortable with them, try to dual-boot with a newbie distribution like the ones mentioned above.

The underlying issue is whether those students will end up as vassals of the mighty MS empire, and every product of their labours for the rest of their lives results in another ka-chink of license revenue into the big money jar, because MS owns the runtime that their labours will be deployed on.

At least with Java it's already a given that multiple production-quality free (and not free) runtimes will be available. No-one becomes Sun's vassal by learning Java.

With C# we need to trust that initiatives like Mono will one day result in a realistic alternative to the monopoly platform.

Personally I think anyone who believes MS will let that happen should be studying Astrology, not CS.

From: http://lists.ximian.com/archives/public/mono-list/ 2002-September/001862.html

Hi,

I've released a new project based on mono called mod_haydn, an Apache module that allows you to run MSIL bytecodes under Apache 1.3. Currently, the Apache Request, Translation and Authentication handlers are tested and working; from within these handlers you can also access a good part of the Apache API.

More information can be found at http://haydn.sf.net/.

Best Regards,

Sterling Hughes
sterling@edwardbear.org

This is most excellent news!

"but there is no Exchange client"

It may not be part of OpenOffice but what about Evolution with Connector?
It connects with Exchange 2000 and is a great email client on its own too. Evolution is free, Connector costs $69, but that's still a lot cheaper (and with much less chance of a vulnerability or viral infection) than Outlook.
I know a very (until now) Windows-using friend of mine saw this running and said to me "this is the missing link" in people moving from Windows to Linux in the corporate environment.

Cheers,
Mark.

"but there is no Exchange client"

It may not be part of OpenOffice but what about Evolution with Connector?
It connects with Exchange 2000 and is a great email client on its own too. Evolution is free, Connector costs $69, but that's still a lot cheaper (and with much less chance of a vulnerability or viral infection) than Outlook.
I know a very (until now) Windows-using friend of mine saw this running and said to me "this is the missing link" in people moving from Windows to Linux in the corporate environment.

Cheers,
Mark.

Actually, I believe you need Ximian Connector, a non-free piece of software (not that I have qualms about buying from Ximian), to use Evolution with Exchange.

If you have it, you get shared calendar and whatnot.

It'd be interesting to try running Mozilla + OpenOffice + Evolution and see what people think (aside from not liking the three different UIs :-) )

The automatic updating is totally optional, and it will never "force" an update, so dependency problems can be resolved by the user.

Unless redcarpetd has the ability to prevent upgrades on selected packages I wouldn't trust it.

It does, through an .rcexclude file. It's not ideal (yet), but it's a start.

And until the packages get vetted better for conflicts I would be careful.

If you see dependency problems in our packages, it's almost certainly a bug. File it: http://bugzilla.ximian.com.

120 comments and still not a single one about one of the most important evolution of this year !!!

...integrating e-mail and calendaring into the same window?

I understand the legitimacy of being e-mailed new/change meeting requests, etc., but WTF is this irrational draw towards Outlook? Why isn't WebCalendar (or Meeting Maker for that matter) and your favorite desktop mailer (or SquirrelMail and your favorite browser) an equally good solution? Please don't tell me it's because of those gawd-awful blackberry things.

The problem with evolutions is that is doesn't run on windows, so it is fairly usless to mixed shops. Also, it only supports exchange AFAIK when it comes to calendar/scheduling. In theory it supports LDAP for the address book, but the gloss factor in the manual on that point is very high. (see for yourself: here)

I know that the small software company I work for would love to have Evolution on every desktop (windows and linux) using LDAP for a shared address book and calendar, but it just can't happen today. Oh well, here is hoping that the Kompany can get Aethera right sometime this decade...

Ximian Evolution supports integration with Exchange on what looks like the level you're looking for. Check out their press release. A quote:

"With Ximian Connector installed, Ximian Evolution will function as a Microsoft Exchange 2000 client, enabling users to manage their email, personal calendars, group schedules, address books and tasks lists using existing company Exchange 2000 servers."

I'm not certain this is what you're looking for, but it seems to fit the bill to me. I use Evolution myself, and highly recommend it.

Shut the fuck up.

Don't feed the trolls, I know, I know...

Average Joe will not go to Linux or OS/X because of this dog shit. It will keep them from it.

I love this argument! The average Joe and Jane, namely my parents, use Linux on their home box. They are far from what anyone would call "computer literate." Try Ximian before you make stupid, uninformed comments.

Face it, you will never have the GUI responsiveness with XFree86 (in particular, not attacking OS/X for this one) that Windows has always had.

Obviously you haven't tried the latest in BloatWare from Microsoft, namely Windows XP, and compared it to Linux.

I don't know what kind of config you have, but I've run a Linux/Win98 dual boot on the following systems:

Pentium 266, 64MB RAM
The programs menu in Windows was slightly faster (and only in the beginning). All other window operations in Linux were equal or faster.

Pentium 333, 190MB RAM (laptop)
Same story (on this system now).

Duron 750, 256MB RAM
Linux: Faster

Thunderbird 1.3gig, 512MB DDR RAM
Linux: Faster

I can take an Athlon XP2000+, with a GeForce 4 and 1.5 gigs of ram and have slower "snappiness" and performance than with a 200mhz, 4mb video card and 64M of ram with even Windows 98.

With even Windows 98? You obviously don't know much about Microsoft software progression. You see, over time, they add more "features" to the OS, such as bloated, fruity, 3d-ish interfaces (Read: XP) that drag down the system. "Even Windows 98" is hardly a correct thing to say. Using 98 would be a better solution for speed than using anything newer. Try Windows XP on that 200mhz machine, it'll be slow as a dog. Glad I could help.

In fact, my parent's box, which used to run 98, was unbelievably slow due to the normal system degradation common with Windows. Even after a default install (which I had done at least two times previously due to system problems), 98 wasn't very quick to respond. Linux, on the other hand, while the menus are slower (at the beginning only), handles windows (max, min, etc), virtual desktops, etc., with the same perkiness of Windows 98.

Hey guy, install Windows XP on a Celeron 300 and Red Hat, Debian, SuSE, or about anything else on the same box. Tell me which one runs faster.

Then go find an old 486 and find a version of Windows that's still supported that you can use on it. Oh, can't find one? Now go try Linux.

Take your uninformed/unbalanced opinion to www.linuxsucks.com, some of the folks there might understand you.

The number one most useful product they could offer OS X users right now is a port of the Connector!

Microsoft has stonewalled on delivering a native Exchange client for Mac OS X. In fact, according to a recent posting on Macintouch (scroll down to the second or third message), their official recommendation is that you set up a separate PC and use the new Remote Desktop client to access it!

Here at NIH, we want to move to OS X soon but the lack of a native Outlook client is really going to hurt us. If Evolution+Connector were available instead, we would likely take a serious look at spending some serious money on it.

> I find it interesting that they are considering
>Linux workstations when there isn't actually a Linux
>client for their messaging system.

Er. . .ever heard of Ximian's Connector?

• The installer appears to be based on Ximian's Red Carpet. This is actually a pretty snazzy tool, but it can be unresponsive while it resolves dependencies. It will download any packages it needs into /var/cache/redcarpet and clobber the installer file in that directory, so backup if you think you're going to need it.
• It wants to install a huge great pile of dependencies (115MB on my system), like Abiword and OpenSSL and many others, even some perl modules, even though most of them were already installed. So be warned that it may clobber (and possibly break) a lot of your existing software. My advice is to use a sacrificial machine if you want to try it out.

Yes, and strangely enough, it's called Evolution. :-)

Also, isn't Outlook/Exchange a proprietary enough system that Microsoft could raise a stink over Apple developing their own Outlook client, or even take measures (legal or technical) to stop/prevent it?

Moron moderator - get a clue. This is 100% on topic - it shows what .Net compatable runtime, Mono, is capable of.

Mono embedded in Gnumeric, running a web server and then an ASP.NET web page that allows people to modify gnumeric values from ASP.

O'Reilly Mono Presentation

Mono embedded in Gnumeric, running a web server and then an ASP.NET web page that allows people to modify
gnumeric values from ASP.

O'Reilly Mono Presentation

The Alphora Dataphor DAE is the first relational database management system since IBM BS12 and the QUEL version of Postgres.

It was coded for MS .Net, thus it should be readily portable to Ximian Mono or GNUs & Southern Storms DotGNU Portable.Net.

If such a potentially useful software became publicized and free software, we could have a really innovating no Marketspeak intended , probably killer application the proprietary vendors would have a hard time scrambling after.

And that with unreprochable theoretical foundations attested by the luminars of the field.

LOL! Like you'd get modded down for praising the Mac around here.

First, XFree was a pain in the ass to get set up. I haven't tried it since 4.x, but 3.x sucked because all the setup programs wanted to compute "optimum" modelines for your monitor and display card, which inevitably never worked for me. This instead of what I wanted: resolution and refresh, from the list of VESA standard modes.

What, you mean like this?

Then there's getting the desktop environments running themselves. I didn't get very far on them, but in my experience, if you didn't pick the window manager favored by the distro, the others simply weren't configured to do anything useful. The only way to get menus to contain anything useful seemed to be by editing config files, and by this time I wasn't in any mood to search for more damn config files to edit.

a) You're wrong. I don't know which distros you tried, but I've never had to edit config files to edit menus (this is SuSE 7.3)

b) You're right. Desktops don't share applinks currently, so if you install a KDE app, it may not play nice with the GNOME menu and vice-versa. There is currently a standardisation effort underway to fix this (and it'll provide a far more advanced menu system than any other OS to boot). Check out freedesktop.org for more info.

It just works, without a bunch of tweaking, partly because Macs have nowhere near the hardware nightmare that exists in the x86 world.

Yes yes, we know. "It just works" - what a good slogan. People seem to miss the point about Linux: IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT. It relies on people creating things themselves, them on users liking it and adopting it, then on people forming standards etc. There is no "Steve says we do this, so we do this" policy. That has the advantage of the fact that it scales reliably as seen in other industries, however there is no overall guiding vision other than what people agree on collectively.

I don't see why people have trouble understanding this. Everything else works in this way, for instance the car market. You have choice, standards, competition. Why do people bitch when governments don't protect them from monopolies in real life, but run straight into the arms of proprietary systems in computing?

And it's full of that unix-y goodness which let me kill a frozen AOL client on her machine remotely.

Hmm, but from what I remember, you can't start Mac apps from the command line (because they are directories). So you can kill AOL from SSH, but not start it. Great. Please, stop with the Mac shills.

Finally, I can't believe people still stay things like "Linux lost, Windows won". Or something. I must have missed the point at which Linux started competing on level ground with Windows. Because right now, as far as I'm concerned, it's not there yet in terms of ease of use (software management etc, but it's being worked on). Linux hasn't lost - au contraire, it hasn't started the race yet. But it will soon - once awareness of Linux is high, and normal (read non geeks) are trying it on the desktop THAT is when the race will have begun. Not before.

Read:

Red Hat 7.x with the Ximian GNOME Desktop.

Ximian is working on a control panel like application, and although it loses a bit of the power from the original Gnome Config, it's quite similar to Windows and easy to use.

In my experience, a RH 7.1 install w/Ximian GNOME involves very few steps. I found it to be less painful than a Windows (to be fair, 98) install.

It's not exactly where you and I would like it *yet*, but it's damn slick, and very close, at least IMO.

Red Carpet makes all other package management systems look silly, including rpm, and up2date.

In a world like ours with Joe and Bob trying to unify/standardize their linux (United Linux, LSB), and Fred and Sam trying to stabalize theirs (Debian GNU/Linux), users are left to figure out what might be best, safest, easiest to use.

If your a newbie, do yourself a faver and use Ximian Gnome, red-carpet in particular. I use KDE, but still use red-carpet to keep my system up to date when a new security hole needs patching, or to do cool stuff like install ruby.

There is life beyond apt.

Doesn't my hometown have beatiful girls?

Red Carpet makes all other package management systems look silly, including rpm, and up2date.

In a world like ours with Joe and Bob trying to unify/standardize their linux (United Linux, LSB), and Fred and Sam trying to stabalize theirs (Debian GNU/Linux), users are left to figure out what might be best, safest, easiest to use.

If your a newbie, do yourself a faver and use Ximian Gnome, red-carpet in particular. I use KDE, but still use red-carpet to keep my system up to date when a new security hole needs patching, or to do cool stuff like install ruby.

There is life beyond apt.

Doesn't my hometown have beatiful girls?

Ximian and Red Hat, in some ways, are competitors on two fronts.

First, Red Hat provides the Red Hat Network which is a competitor to Ximian's Red Carpet CorporateConnect.

Second, Red Hat provides "priority downloads" with the Red Hat Network, so you can download packages from Red Hat faster. Ximian on the other hand, offers Red Carpet Express to help speed up Red Carpet downloads.

Ximian and Red Hat, in some ways, are competitors on two fronts.

First, Red Hat provides the Red Hat Network which is a competitor to Ximian's Red Carpet CorporateConnect.

Second, Red Hat provides "priority downloads" with the Red Hat Network, so you can download packages from Red Hat faster. Ximian on the other hand, offers Red Carpet Express to help speed up Red Carpet downloads.

i feel that ximian has been doing some good stuff to make linux easier to use. they have ximian setup tools which can help many end users. By making system configuration easier, i think it might help linux grow on the desktop

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 - 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 - 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 - 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.

We have a few Linux users (and more, all being well) on the desktop ,with Exchange 5.5 as the company's internal mail server. This actually recludes us using Connector, as it's only available for 2000.

We have no problems, we use IMAP & SMTP for mail, we can access the directry using LDAP, the only thing we can't access is shared calendaring, but we don't care about that ;-) (Will be nice when someone writes a free backend calendar server for Evo though - will make it easier for us to propse a wholesale movement away from Exchange)

When we schedule meetings, Outlook users can happily see & use the appointment dobries sent to them in iCal format, although when they do the same to use, Outlook doesn't send them in the right format, so the information just appears as the body of the mail, it's readable though ,and trivial to copy/paste into an appointment in your own calendar.

It even handles mails sent in that annoying TNEF format of Outlook's, provided you have an up-to-date version of WINE or gtnef (See bug #232)

The Desktop ain't rocket science... It just takes time effort and experience to get it workng the way most people want it to. Ximianis doing a pretty decent job at it and will only get better. I personally love the redcarpet feature for installing updates or new software. It just handles everything for you like it should.

I think this guy got into it too early and bailed at the wrong time. This is just the start of Linux on the desktop, before now nobody but a commited hacker could install and work with a linux desktop, now I think things are changing. Still could be better, but I would say things are in some ways better than the windows desktop. How many people install windows from scratch?

Linux just needs to come pre installed and pre configured on desktops and laptops, then we can start having some real fun.

Personally, I'm using:
Red Hat Linux 7.1 with XFS support and Ximian GNOME

My only problem was downloading drivers for my NIC card, and I will admit, that was a b*tch. However, the card was new, and it's supported in newer versions.

You're having sound problems, hmm? I remember the first time I installed 6.2, I had to run sndconfig manually to get my sound card initialized. Maybe try this?

Also, IRC, mailing lists, forums, etc., are *very* helpful. I can't stress this enough! Find a related IRC chat or forum or such and ask for help. This applies to anything Linux. Often when asking for help about a certain program or project, you'll wind up talking to one of the developers in person. People do OSS (Open Source Software) because they love to do it, and it really does show.

Please feel free to email me with more information, I'd be happy to help. =)

Links you might be interested in:
linuxnewbie.com
linuxdoc.org
rpmfind.net

Try google for something similar to "Windows to Red Hat Linux transition guide." I'm sure there is a good one out there.

Is it possible to run X "rootless" in winblows like you can in OS X? It'd be really nice to be able to have X apps appear side by side with winblows ones. Plus maybe then I could convince people that they should use evolution instead of outlook. And having galeon in winblows would rock too.. its tabs are just plain better than moz's.

Did you see that? I actually used "its" instead of "it's" for possessive! It's really not that hard people...

I love it and have been running it for a while. I use blackbox as my WM since I only run programs over the network it doesn't get in the way and leaves a tiny footprint.

I get by day to day with Kmail, GnuCash, Red-Carpet and a few other miscellaneous apps that I run over the in-house LAN.

As the subject says I noticed that programs use the same fonts whether I run the program on the Mandrake box locally or over the network, however when I run the progs over the network to the Windows machine all the fonts look nice....??!?!? Is that a feature? I think most the programs just plain look nicer in the Win32 port... maybe I'm delusional...... anything's possible.

MS Exchange server won't play nice with any Linux 'outlook like' display

Uh, Ximian micah have something to say about that...

IMO the worst thing that could happen to the Free Software community is the situation where the bulk of user-layer applications are dependent on a non-free platform. SharpDevelop is coming along very nicely too. Support .NET and the Mono project!

IMO the worst thing that could happen to the Free Software community is the situation where the bulk of user-layer applications are dependent on a non-free platform. SharpDevelop is coming along very nicely too. Support .NET and the Mono project!

Huh?? I believe if this author got his facts straight, Evolution is an email client.

This author doesn't know half of what Linux is, so how can he be informed on it in the desktop environment. He obviously hasn't checked out the German government or schools all over.

And they have OEM Licensing.. A couple groups to license it for inclusion in their prodcuts are Ximian ($9.95 per month, or $59.95 purchase) and Suse ($24.95).

A Mandrake user who installs Ximian GNOME on their computer can upgrade their machine automatically using Red Carpet. I'm 90% sure that this includes necessary Mandrake upgrades.

A Mandrake user who installs Ximian GNOME on their computer can upgrade their machine automatically using Red Carpet. I'm 90% sure that this includes necessary Mandrake upgrades.

X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=23.7 required=7.0 tests=SUBJ_HAS_SPACES,NO_REAL_NAME,OPT_IN,CLICK_BE LOW,EMAIL_MARKETING,EXCUSE _3,BIG_FONT,CLICK_HERE_LINK,MAILTO_LINK,CTYPE_JUST _HTML,DATE_IN_FUTURE,RCVD_ IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM,SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID version=2.20

X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=23.7 required=7.0 tests=SUBJ_HAS_SPACES,NO_REAL_NAME,OPT_IN,CLICK_BE LOW,EMAIL_MARKETING,EXCUSE _3,BIG_FONT,CLICK_HERE_LINK,MAILTO_LINK,CTYPE_JUST _HTML,DATE_IN_FUTURE,RCVD_ IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM,SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID version=2.20