Posted by
emmett
on from the kde-last-train-to-trancentral dept.
[vmlinuz] writes: "Linux UK has got an interview with one of the key KDE developers - David Faure. Interesting reading, particularly with all the press that KDE/Debian is getting."
Is this different from Microsoft?
by
FFFish
·
· Score: 4
Oooh, this is going to cost me karma as trolling, but...
How is this all-inclusive, single-source applications/OS environment any different than, say, Windows and Office?
I know, I know: it's not monopolistic, you are able to run other GUIs, it isn't tied into the OS, etcetera.
On the other hand, there are a *LOT* of Linux supporters who really get off on flaming Microsoft for packaging Office with Windows, for the way Office buggers with the GUI, for their scripting support, for bloatware, and so on.
All accusations that could be made toward KDE, and probably Gnome. Like, when Linux finally rules the common man's desktop, is an installation package that by default installs KDE and KOffice really any different than what MS does? Isn't there a parallel with Office's non-standard dialogs and widgets, and KDE's different-from-other-GUIs dialogs and widgets (there being a complete lack of standard for Linux GUIs)? Is KDE scripting going to be any less a security risk than VBA? Isn't X-Windows+KDE+KOffice not abhorrently oversized, just like Office?
Yes, I'm fully aware that it's a different situation... but not so different that it's not more than a little ironic that what KDE is praised for, MS is condemned for.
Ouch.
--
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Re:Is this different from Microsoft?
by
SurfsUp
·
· Score: 2
Really, in what way is downloading & compiling KDE less easy than doing the same for Mozilla?
Instructions for building Mozilla:
1) Download the source tarball 2) Unzip into directory of your choice 3) cd into the directory and type: make 4) Go for coffee, come back in 40 minutes 5) Type./mozilla and go for a surf
Instructions for building kmail:
0) Look for a kmail.x.x.tgz. Find a very old one. Get confused. Hunt around with RPM. Figure out it's now part of kdenetwork. Look for kdenetwork.x.x.tgz. Find a version that's way too old. Learn you have to get it out of CVS, and you have to get all of KDE with it. 1) Explore kde.org. Find the part that tells you about cvsup 2) Download and install cvsup 3) Find the instructions about how to get download KDE via cvsup 4) Decide what parts of KDE you actually want to download. Get confused. Decide to download everything 5) Start the download and go to sleep 6) Wake up, discover you got disconnected, repeat as necessary 7) Get a cup of coffee, sit down, and start figuring out how to build it 8) Guess that you have to build QT first. Try to build QT in the obvious way. It doesn't work. Go back to instructions. Learn you have to link a directory first. Do it and try again. 8) Go out for a walk while QT builds. Come back, find it's still building. Play Mahjong. 9) Try to use the same strategy to build kdebase. It doesn't work. Try some more. It still doesn't work. 10) Go back to developer.kde.org. Learn about the build script. Download it. Fiddle with it until all the path variable are correct. It finally seems to work. Out of fear, decide to build everything. 11) Go to sleep while it builds. 12) Wake up. One of the first packages failed to build - it's because somebody checked in something ugly that broke the build. Start cvsup again. Go for another walk while the tree updates. Later that day, start the build again and go to sleep. 13) It builds this time. Now figure out how to install it, without conflicting with your current KDE installation. Go for a surf. Find a howto on this subject. Read it. Fiddle with paths. Now it works. 14) Run kmail from the new desktop
OK, I may have missed a couple of steps, or a couple of details, but that's essentially what has to happen. Umm, don't you think there's a difference in difficulty and time investment between the two procedures?
There ARE snapshots of libs and app-packages available, and the next set of those will even contain CVS information, so you just need to update a specific directory from that on.
But why can't I just download a tgz of the specific package I want to compile, like almost any other open source project? Then all I need are headers for kde and qt, and I'm up and hacking. There is a *radical* difference in the amount of work required to get started. Later, when I've got some code I'm proud of, I can figure out how to submit it to a maintainer. In other words, the normal open source process.
Package snapshots only eliminate a few of the steps I listed, and you still have to figure out which packages you need, which directories to put them in, and how to set the paths. This is a *lot* of work if you've never done it before.
Mainly, what I hear you saying is: there's no problem, it's just your imagination. But it's not my imagination, I've been through this. I know what the difference is between downloading and compiling "spruce", for example, versus downloading all of kde and qt just to compile "kmail". It amounts to *days* of extra work the first time you do it. It's not my imagination.
Perhaps I should rejoin the KDE mailing list and we can continue this discussion there. *But* I still have this nagging feeling - why should I do that, when the last time I did, I just got flamed? --
-- Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Re:Is this different from Microsoft?
by
SurfsUp
·
· Score: 2
Yes, the list is longer than for Mozilla. OTOH KDE IS much more than one app, it's an environment/application framework.
This is exactly my point. I do not want to compile KDE. I want to compile kmail. So why am I force to compile 6 more apps and a good part of KDE and possibly QT? When we both know that it would be easy to provide to me the source code I need just to compile kmail? And after doing what you suggest, I wind up with the wrong version of kmail - one that runs under a beta desktop that I'm not using. Fixing bugs there doesn't fix the immediate problems. Downloading other snaps doesn't gives me an old frozen version that nobody is fixing bugs in.
Good gosh, man, can't you see that if people are complaining, there must be a problem? It takes a lot to get people to speak up on something like this. My original post was moderated up by four readers and not marked a troll by any, as it easily could have been. What does that tell you? And what does it tell you about how it will be perceived if you keep sticking to your guns instead of looking for a resolution?
By the way you left out the "fiddle with environment variables" step in your list, maybe others. --
-- Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Re:Is this different from Microsoft?
by
SurfsUp
·
· Score: 5
Oooh, this is going to cost me karma as trolling, but...
How is this all-inclusive, single-source applications/OS environment any different than, say, Windows and Office?
You may be surprised at how much support you get. Disclaimer: I *use* KDE every day and I think it's great. I use lots of KDE mainline applications and lots of what I'd have to call "3rd party" applications. (though I probably use even more Gnome/GTK applications, running them from the KDE desktop.)
I have some experience compiling KDE out of CVS, have done a small amount of KDE/QT development and have participated in the KDE mailing list. My intention was to become a regular KDE contributor.
This was short lived, however, as I quickly found that the KDE mailing list, was being run as a sort of private fiefdom by this same David Faure. Any comments of the form "KDE mainline applications development should be opened up to more developers" i.e., not just be restricted to the main CVS tree, were met extremely aggressively. I didn't want to press the point because I thought "maybe he's right" and all the core applications *do* have to be tightly controlled by the core developers in order to have the highest possible quality.
But now, 6 months later, I know he's wrong. KDE development has slowed down *a lot*, and especially KDE core applications development. I've been putting up with the same bugs in kmail for almost a year now - it hasn't changed a bit, because kmail development has been inextricably bound into the main KDE CVS tree, and it's all oriented towards KDE 2 now. So if you're not compiling out of CVS, you're out of luck. The bottom line is that KDE users have to wait and wait and wait for bug fixes.
Now, I'm a developer and I should just be able to download the code, make the fixes and send them in. But in the case of kmail, you have to download practically the whole tree, and let me tell you, it isn't that easy to get it to build. I would have done that anyway, except for the agressive reception I got on the KDE mailing list. Anyway, I'd still have a problem with it, because suppose I put in a bunch of great features - It would still be months and months before anybody gets to use them, because they have to wait for the official release of KDE 2. One of the reasons developers develop for free is to see their stuff get used *immediately*, and this just doesn't happen with KDE development.
I did what open-source developers are famous for doing - I moved on to other projects that are more to my taste (e.g., Freenet!!). Now, I'm not bitter - why should I be, I'm still getting KDE for free and it's still darn good - but I am concerned that a certain prima-donna mentality is hurting the KDE development, and because of that, hurting the entire open-source movement. I wonder how much of this is due to the fact that some fulltime, paid developers (Faure is one) don't feel compelled to play by the traditional, unspoken rules of the community. OK, I've said my piece, and I'm posting this without my +1 bonus because I'm not sure whether this is a flame or a troll or constructive criticism. --
-- Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Re:Is this different from Microsoft?
by
dfaure
·
· Score: 3
I am very sorry to hear that:( You wish that KDE core applications were developed out of CVS ? With the changes that happen in kdelibs quite often - to build a better API, and because of all the new stuff in KDE 2.0 (KParts, DCOP, XMLGUI, etc.) - this is almost impossible. What you gain from having apps in CVS is that they can be fixed by many people, especially those who change kdelibs. Out of CVS, it's up to the author to fix his app to cope with the changes, and _that_ can be piss him off a lot, obviously. This is not about "controlling", this is effectively about helping....
To answer the more personal comments, KDE is definitely nobody's fiefdom. My answer (which I can't remember) may have sounded not nice and I apologize for that, but the idea of developing core apps out of CVS really doesn't make much sense. You want to "open more" the development by making it private ? About KDE 2 apps that are not in CVS : from 1.91 onwards, they should be able to compile and run on top of KDE. The API shouldn't change anymore. No need to wait for the official 2.0. Finally, I'm not a paid fulltime developer... yet.
Re:Is this different from Microsoft?
by
nitehorse
·
· Score: 2
If you've got problems with the KDE development model, nobody's stopping you from forking the KMail code and integrating your changes. Personally, I think David's an awesome guy- he knows what's going on with the code, he has some really brilliant ideas about how to implement features in Konqueror, and he's never been rude that I've seen. Brusque, maybe, and possibly curt, but never rude. And about him getting paid- he gets money to develop KDE, sure, but it's not a fulltime job for him (yet), as he replied already.
It's not his fiefdom nor is it the fiefdom of any of the other main developers- but there is a definite centralized development model. IMHO, I have to say that this has worked very well. The KDE project consistently puts out good code and good programs.
As far as KMail goes, you might want to check out kdenonbeta/kmail2 and help out with that. It can use some new developers, and it's definitely not release status yet.
Re:Is this different from Microsoft?
by
chandler
·
· Score: 3
To answer your question:
Not everyone thinks the same way as the usual/. crowd about these technologies. I happen to believe that Microsoft had (I'm not going to argue over whether they thought of them first) quite a few good ideas about integration of components, COM, ActiveX, scripting, but horribly botched the implementation (as always).
What the KDE project is the vision of a true integrated desktop in a clean, non-bloated implementation. I've run KDE1.89 and 1.9, as well as from CVS on a variety of systems, and it never seemed slow or bloated. Instead, it was clean and easy to use. I enjoyed using it because of the integration, unlike Windows where I hate using it because of the botched implementation.
To put it simply, KDE2.0 is the ideas of integration and usability done right. It's a different beast than KDE1.1. KDE2.0 is actually more usable than windows, and easier to program, while implementing the ideas that Microsoft used.
--
Visit
Re:Is this different from Microsoft?
by
Hard_Code
·
· Score: 2
Replace "KDE" with "BSD". Nobody is obliged to use your patches. I for one, wouldn't mind having routine and stable releases, instead of a new micro revision every day.
Re:Is this different from Microsoft?
by
SurfsUp
·
· Score: 2
If you've got problems with the KDE development model, nobody's stopping you from forking the KMail code and integrating your changes.
Believe me, I seriously considered that and would have done it if I had not gotten fully committed to other projects. The need to spend several hours downloading the full CVS tree (analog modem) and fiddling with the build process was the final straw. (I've since done that, and it did in fact take a lot of time.) But why is it necessary to solve the problem by forcing a fork? Why not address the problem in the first place by having a well-defined fork a la the stable-vs-development strategy of the Linux kernel?
Personally, I think David's an awesome guy- he knows what's going on with the code, he has some really brilliant ideas about how to implement features in Konqueror, and he's never been rude that I've seen.
I must have caught him on a bad day then, and what I've seen recently supports your opinion. I still I think I'm right about the question I raised and that KDE app source code needs to be more accessible to developers outside the inner circle. It's a real problem that bugs aren't getting fixed in the stable releases and it's a problem that isn't hard to fix.
Please note that none of what I say reflects in any way on the KDE 2 development - I think that's working great, and there's fundamental progress going on there, particularly in object embedding techniques. And the attention to detail and useability in the KDE development has always impressed me. No doubt such things are in part due to David's skills. --
-- Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Re:Is this different from Microsoft?
by
scrytch
·
· Score: 2
How is this all-inclusive, single-source applications/OS environment any different than, say, Windows and Office?
Source.
-- I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Re:Is this different from Microsoft?
by
SurfsUp
·
· Score: 2
But there IS a KDE_1_1_STABLE branch in CVS! It's just that nobody used it after releasing 1.1.2 (besides some bug fixing).
Close, but no cigar. It has to be: KDE_1_2_STABLE CVS, and it has to be complemented with the individual apps also posted in simple tgz format. In addition, the individual apps in, for example, kdenetwork, should be available as individual tgz's. Why should you have to download and build 6 apps when you're only interested in one?
There's no particular difficulty or excessive work in accomplishing it: a script can simply be written to extract and zip the necessary branches of CVS, and to create the necessary new CVS trees (so development of the stable apps can proceed independently from the development tree, the way it does in the Linux kernel). The script just needs to be run *once* following each stable release.
The only thing I see getting in the way is core developers are not, at this point, willing to recognize that non-core developers have a big barrier to getting started - much bigger than most other open-source apps. Even mozilla is easier to download and compile than KDE, let alone individual KDE core apps which have to be dug out with considerable effort from a rather indimidating CVS tree. --
This blurb was taken from KNews: KMail Security....Lessons from ILUVYOU? -- There was some discussion on the kde-devel mailing list about KMail's security. As it looks KMail is far more secure than most of its counterparts. The testing and discussions continue.....
It works perfectly on the stable kernels. The development kernels occasionally break VMWare and this is rapidly corrected, no big deal. --
-- Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Thinking right about KDE2.0
by
chandler
·
· Score: 5
I've noticed several wrong impressions of KDE2.0 here. First of all, throw out all notions of KDE1.1 and whatever you think of it. Secondly, go download Konfucious (the 1.9 beta) from the KDE site. Here's what's different:
QT2.1x is a different beast than QT1.x or even QT2.0. It's faster, more stable, and less ugly. The theming support is great. It's just a more capable toolkit.
KDE is now structured differently. There is no more kpanel (RIP). It's been replaced with kicker. There is no more kfm. Half of its functionality was inhereited by kdesktop (which puts icons on the desktop and sets the background), and the other half by konqueror.
Konqueror is not just a file manager. It's a file viewer, as well as a file viewer for the network. The combination of these two functionalities means that it's also a web browser, but it does other cool things like embed a KOffice part to be a KOffice file viewer.
KDE is no longer just a library that you need to run. While there are kde libraries, there is also a dcop server that handles interconnections between programs. Running a KDE2.0 program requires you to have an active instance of the dcop server, or else the application will bomb.
The KParts technology is a beautiful thing. While it may be superficially similar to M$ technology, in reality it's much more cleaner and useful. Microsoft's technology starts to look like a horrible kludge compared to the elegance of KDE2.0. KDE2.0 also implements enough of the M$-like ideas (KOM, etc.) that major commercial ports of traditionally windows-centric applications (e.g. project Kylix) can start to happen.
KDE2.0 does not look anything like KDE1.1. KDE1.1 may have looked like the illegitimate offspring of CDE and Win 9x, but KDE2.0 has an elagance of its own, particuarly with the System theme, though you can theme it any way you want.
Best of all, it's modular, so you can replace any single component with another and have it work fine.
Not really. I work for mandrakesoft now, and quite a lot of people here prefere gnome to KDE (although we started as RedHat+KDE). The reason for KDE in Germany is that SuSe dominates the markt there, and they have been pro-KDE from the very beginning...
This does make me worry about SECURITY.
by
arcade
·
· Score: 2
I really really hope the KDE folks know what they are doing. Konqueror.. and security.. I'm sure its secure as of now. As long as it only SHOWS things as they are. I just hope they're intelligent enough to *never ever* allow scripting in Konqueror. When it comes to luser-friendlyness, linux is still behind windows. And it will always be. They *must not* go into the same trap as MS has done, and include scripting capabilities - even though it may be tempting.
Konqueror is very modular, if I've understood it correctly. That means its possible to write extensions (easily). *That* make me worry. What if someone gets this great idea of showing emails, and executing the javascript included in them? What when Linux get visualbasic script support - what happens when some idiot thinks "Hey! What a great idea! Email reader with js and vbs execution support! It's User Friendly!"(bad pun intended).
As long as linux programmers avoid these pitfalls, we should all be safe.
-- "Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
Re:This does make me worry about SECURITY.
by
dfaure
·
· Score: 2
Linux programmers DO avoid these pitfalls.
> "never ever allow scripting in konqueror" Why ? What's wrong with scripting "open a new window, open that URL inside it", and even "type my login and password for that site" ? As long as _I_ run the script, where's the problem ?
For too many people, scripting == security risk, without really thinking about it. No. But automatically launching untrusted scripts (such as those received by e-mail) is a security risk, yes. That's why kmail doesn't launch scripts.
There was an interesting point brought up in one of the comments (by Dave Smith) on the interview link.
Shouldn't some restrictions be put on open scripting like this? We don't want a microsoft problem coming and haunting KDE too... Perhaps you can have a database of signed scripts that are able to use the KDE system or somein...
Here's what facilitated that comment:
What elements are mainly shared between all applications in this framework?
Scripting is, in fact scripting is shared between all KDE applications. How you talk to a KDE application and how you script it is a generic system. Among all of the KOffice applications you can also find a lot of common dialogs, and a lot of common tools that are in the framework that allows the user to see a very integrated office suite, not a different set of applications. It's all about having a full, complete office suite which has the same elements for everything.
No, I disagree. The scripting system should not be crippled. We should look specifically at how ILOVEYOU (and Melissa et al) worked.
First, it was stupid users, apparently. I've heard that MS Outlook will automatically run the script if the e-mail is viewed in the preview panel; I've heard some Outlook users say that that's false. I've used Outlook all of about twice in my life, so I can't say. If the script is run automatically from the preview panel, then I would say that's bad engineering (and hence bad Microsoft), but it sounds like they've at least fixed the problem.
There's also the question as to whether scripts should be executed automatically by default (e.g. when you double-click or otherwise "activate" them). Personally, I don't care. Turn it off by default, sure, sounds good.
Most importantly, though, I think the users need more control over their scripting. This is one area where KDE and Gnome have been falling down (gently). By far the most annoying thing about Windows and MacOS is that the user has almost no control, either over the OS or the applications. A few years ago I would have almost literally killed for the ability to put some scripting into Netscape that said "yes, Mr. Javascript, you can open a new window, but not when I am viewing a page from Geocities". You can argue that I could have just disabled Javascript (which I did), or made something similar to Junkbuster which would automatically parse and change all Javascript, thereby eliminating the pop-up windows (hah!), but this would have been such a nice solution.
So anyway, back on topic. I think the user should be able to do some metascripting, scripting exactly how the script should behave in certain situations. This is not the same as clicking checkboxes (especially vague ones like "Run untrusted scripts"); I want some actual *control*. If KDE (and Gnome, but they're not important in this article) do not do this, then they're just going to end up as Yet Another Inferior MacOS. I think it's time for Something Actually Different From MacOS.
Yes, this is offtopic, but this interview was a bridge too far. David Faure may not speak English as a first language, but didn't the interviewer either?
"I run the CVS version of KDE2, and I remember seeing an IRC thread in one of packages regarding not running a mail composer within Konqueror, but a mail viewer, so will the composing of documents mainly be launched by an external editor? "
"In terms of KOffice, what parts of KOffice are you working on? "
These are barely grammatical, and very hard to read, certainly not reviewed by whoever wrote them. We all get fed up with web sites that abuse HTML, so why should be stand for abusing English just as badly.
If anyone from linuxuk.co.uk is reading, I hereby volunteer for a job as a sub-editor so no-one else has to read this kind of stuff...
-- -----.sig: file not found
Re:Why make kde specific apps?
by
chandler
·
· Score: 2
KDE doesn't tie you to a specific window manager. Early versions of KDE2.0 (around KRASH) simply called KDE support "we'll make a big window, title it the Desktop, and you know not to put a border around it." I believe the support has gotten better for window hints, etc., but you can still run an outside window manager. You just won't get full hints - like running another window manger (such as fvwm) and GNOME.
--
Visit
Re:Why make kde specific apps?
by
JabberWokky
·
· Score: 3
but wouldn't the Linux/UNIX community be better served if these apps ran in any X windows environment?
They do. Let's take your questions one by one:
What is I want to use an app while I'm at my Solaris machine, or at an NT machine?
Well, you can run KDE on BSD, Solaris and quite a few other OSes. NT is not included - nobody has really expressed an interest, but I'm not sure how large the technical hurdles would be. That means running native on the system (Note that it's periodically broken for OSes other than the core developers during alpha/beta testing. The core devels use Linux, BSD and something else I can't remember, but might be Solaris).
What if I'm enamored with an older windowmanager?
Use it. KWM is nice, and has *quite* a few new features, many of which are integrated into KDE, but are not necessary. I've run KDE 1.x with E with no problem, and 2.0 is supposed to work (dunno what features you lose, though. Themeability woul be my first guess).
What if I have a hacked i-opener and I don't want to run kde on it?
X Windows is network transparent. There are a handful of NFS and "running apps remotely" bugs that cross the lists. They are addressed as valid concerns, so I would imagine that they will be addressed. The lightweight KDE communication mechanism DCOP (used instead of Corba where appropriate, although Corba is still used where *it* makes more sense (like the multimedia subsystem)) operates over a X Windows standard communication system. To quote the developer site: "DCOP is built on top of the Inter Client Exchange (ICE) protocol, which comes standard as a part of X11R6 and later."
In short, it is an X system that is portable to many platforms. Some of this I've verified myself, the rest I know from the mailing lists, where KDE 2.0 beta is already in use.
-- Evan
-- "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
What worries me about KDE is that it has the potential to become a windows. Do we really want ONE unified X manager? yes it makes it easier to develop, but we dont want a single solid LINUX. ick! that is one of the reasons i use linux, there are many different flavors and aspects to it.
a better solution would be to have interfaces where you just load the library for the features you want.... which we pretty much have, but could have in a better way. for example, right now you can run KDE apps in enlightenment, but how about a totally minimalist X program that is not so bloated? i am thinking of moving to sawmill unsure tho...
Even More Pathetic Licensing Answer
by
Jeff+Licquia
·
· Score: 2
OK, let's go over this one more time:
- The GPL prohibits you from placing any greater restrictions on software you distribute.
- The QPL places such restrictions (you must give Troll a copy).
- Therefore, the licenses are incompatible.
No one is suggesting that Qt isn't free. What we're saying is that your license is logically inconsistent, and that therefore it's impossible to know what license you really want.
Essentially, you don't distribute KDE under the GPL. You *say* you do, but really you don't, because distributing KDE binaries would be illegal if so, and you haven't seemed to mind so far.
What Debian wants here is a statement of *what* your license really is.
Re:Even More Pathetic Licensing Answer
by
Jeff+Licquia
·
· Score: 2
Well, I don't want to detract any more from the otherwise good stuff in the interview than I already have. Dave, if you want to, E-mail me, and we can discuss our differences. If not, fine; and good luck with Konquerer.
I will say a few things:
I don't particularly like the situation with the licensing, either. But I can't do anything about it. KDE has chosen to give an internally inconsistent license to its users; it must accept the resulting confusion and missed opportunity that results.
We ridicule programmers who dismiss usability; indeed, KDE is about bucking that trend. Usability implies that a project listens to its users and assists them. If there is a usability issue with your license, why must it be consistently ignored? If incomplete bug fixes are not to be accepted in code, why should they be accepted in licensing?
Licensing matters. One would think that the recent incidents with the CyberPatrol crack, DeCSS, UCITA, Napster, and MP3.com would cause people to realize this.
I'll shut up now.
Re:Lame excuse for Qt license
by
dfaure
·
· Score: 2
I indeed withdraw that answer - to a very unexpected question, which caught me by surprised (this was an oral interview, not a written one, and I misunderstood the question). Please read the thread "pathetic licensing answer".
Oh come on...X is a server, you have truetype servers and clipboard servers, there are myriad little servers running all over the place in a typical *nix configuration...
The problem is the other way round
by
divec
·
· Score: 2
I understand what you're saying, an interesting argument which implies that the GPL might not hold up in court for libraries (depending on the particular court).
But the problem here is the other way round - some people wrote GPLed apps, and the KDE people have linked derivative works to Qt. Troll may not be able to control what links to QT, but they certainly have legal control over how the library is distributed. The way they license this control is not free enough to be compatible with the GPL which the original app was placed under.
--
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Re:KDE acceptance
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2
Speaking for Germany KDE is the quasi-default here. If you go into well-equipped bookstores you can choose among 12 different titles dealing with KDE which are already present there. With much luck you'll find 2 books about Gnome there. In addition in most books covering linux you'll also mostly find KDE being dealt with when it comes to the desktop.
And if you read the mainstream-pc-magazines you'll also discover that KDE is being mentioned as "the" desktop for Linux there.
Nah, you got that wrong. You'll still be able to download and run a KDE 2.x app even if you don't have the rest of KDE 2. dcopserver is auto-started if it's needed and it's not running, so you won't even see that happening. And it certainly requires no configuration.
Ask some true lawyers (not some license-crack-pots from debian) and you'll get the answer that permission to link against QT is implicitly given by just creating code that is obviously meant to be linked against QT.
This is true for stuff written *for* KDE. But for pre-existing GPLed stuff which the KDE people borrowed, there is no such implicit permission.
Please don't dismiss people as "license crackpots" unless you are sure you understand what they are saying.
--
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
This is insightful? KDE runs on all modern Unixes
by
hatless
·
· Score: 2
KDE isn't a "Linux" thing.. nor is GNOME for that matter. Precompiled, ready-to-run versions of KDE are available for several Unix variants including BSD, and it's long been available for Solaris as a one-step-install ".pkg" package.
As for running on NT.. NT isn't a Unix-like OS, so the entirety of KDE running on Win32 is fairly unlikely any time soon, even with the help of the porting and runtime libraries from companies like MKS. Windows isn't Unix, MacOS isn't Windows, and your refirgerator isn't a houseplant.
The Qt toolkit, on which KDE is built, however, is available for Windows--but not for free. Several of the apps in the KDE family are indeed available for Windows, and some others could easily be made available for it. But not so for apps that take advantage of the integration that the KDE layer provides. In other words, one might be able to port individual KOffice applications to Windows pretty easily, but they wouldn't integrate with each other, because the integration requires the KDE infrastructure underneath.
Similarly, the GTK+ toolkit, the basis of GNOME's UI, is also available under Windows. This has allowed GIMP to be ported to Windows; just don't expect it to communicate cleanly with other WIndows GTK+ apps like Mozilla without special work.
Slashdot Mirror
Oooh, this is going to cost me karma as trolling, but...
How is this all-inclusive, single-source applications/OS environment any different than, say, Windows and Office?
I know, I know: it's not monopolistic, you are able to run other GUIs, it isn't tied into the OS, etcetera.
On the other hand, there are a *LOT* of Linux supporters who really get off on flaming Microsoft for packaging Office with Windows, for the way Office buggers with the GUI, for their scripting support, for bloatware, and so on.
All accusations that could be made toward KDE, and probably Gnome. Like, when Linux finally rules the common man's desktop, is an installation package that by default installs KDE and KOffice really any different than what MS does? Isn't there a parallel with Office's non-standard dialogs and widgets, and KDE's different-from-other-GUIs dialogs and widgets (there being a complete lack of standard for Linux GUIs)? Is KDE scripting going to be any less a security risk than VBA? Isn't X-Windows+KDE+KOffice not abhorrently oversized, just like Office?
Yes, I'm fully aware that it's a different situation... but not so different that it's not more than a little ironic that what KDE is praised for, MS is condemned for.
Ouch.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
This blurb was taken from KNews:
KMail Security....Lessons from ILUVYOU? -- There was some discussion on the kde-devel mailing list about KMail's security. As it looks KMail is far more secure than most of its counterparts. The testing and discussions continue.....
Visit
It works perfectly on the stable kernels. The development kernels occasionally break VMWare and this is rapidly corrected, no big deal.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Visit
Not really. I work for mandrakesoft now, and quite a lot of people here prefere gnome to KDE (although we started as RedHat+KDE). The reason for KDE in Germany is that SuSe dominates the markt there, and they have been pro-KDE from the very beginning...
I really really hope the KDE folks know what they are doing. Konqueror .. and security .. I'm sure its secure as of now. As long as it only SHOWS things as they are. I just hope they're intelligent enough to *never ever* allow scripting in Konqueror. When it comes to luser-friendlyness, linux is still behind windows. And it will always be. They *must not* go into the same trap as MS has done, and include scripting capabilities - even though it may be tempting.
Konqueror is very modular, if I've understood it correctly. That means its possible to write extensions (easily). *That* make me worry. What if someone gets this great idea of showing emails, and executing the javascript included in them? What when Linux get visualbasic script support - what happens when some idiot thinks "Hey! What a great idea! Email reader with js and vbs execution support! It's User Friendly!"(bad pun intended).
As long as linux programmers avoid these pitfalls, we should all be safe.
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
There was an interesting point brought up in one of the comments (by Dave Smith) on the interview link.
Shouldn't some restrictions be put on open scripting like this? We don't want a microsoft problem coming and haunting KDE too... Perhaps you can have a database of signed scripts that are able to use the KDE system or somein...
Here's what facilitated that comment:
What elements are mainly shared between all applications in this framework?
Scripting is, in fact scripting is shared between all KDE applications. How you talk to a KDE application and how you script it is a generic system. Among all of the KOffice applications you can also find a lot of common dialogs, and a lot of common tools that are in the framework that allows the user to see a very integrated office suite, not a different set of applications. It's all about having a full, complete office suite which has the same elements for everything.
Yes, this is offtopic, but this interview was a bridge too far. David Faure may not speak English as a first language, but didn't the interviewer either?
"I run the CVS version of KDE2, and I remember seeing an IRC thread in one of packages regarding not running a mail composer within Konqueror, but a mail viewer, so will the composing of documents mainly be launched by an external editor? "
"In terms of KOffice, what parts of KOffice are you working on? "
These are barely grammatical, and very hard to read, certainly not reviewed by whoever wrote them. We all get fed up with web sites that abuse HTML, so why should be stand for abusing English just as badly.
If anyone from linuxuk.co.uk is reading, I hereby volunteer for a job as a sub-editor so no-one else has to read this kind of stuff...
-----
KDE doesn't tie you to a specific window manager. Early versions of KDE2.0 (around KRASH) simply called KDE support "we'll make a big window, title it the Desktop, and you know not to put a border around it." I believe the support has gotten better for window hints, etc., but you can still run an outside window manager. You just won't get full hints - like running another window manger (such as fvwm) and GNOME.
Visit
They do. Let's take your questions one by one:
What is I want to use an app while I'm at my Solaris machine, or at an NT machine?
Well, you can run KDE on BSD, Solaris and quite a few other OSes. NT is not included - nobody has really expressed an interest, but I'm not sure how large the technical hurdles would be. That means running native on the system (Note that it's periodically broken for OSes other than the core developers during alpha/beta testing. The core devels use Linux, BSD and something else I can't remember, but might be Solaris).
What if I'm enamored with an older windowmanager?
Use it. KWM is nice, and has *quite* a few new features, many of which are integrated into KDE, but are not necessary. I've run KDE 1.x with E with no problem, and 2.0 is supposed to work (dunno what features you lose, though. Themeability woul be my first guess).
What if I have a hacked i-opener and I don't want to run kde on it?
X Windows is network transparent. There are a handful of NFS and "running apps remotely" bugs that cross the lists. They are addressed as valid concerns, so I would imagine that they will be addressed. The lightweight KDE communication mechanism DCOP (used instead of Corba where appropriate, although Corba is still used where *it* makes more sense (like the multimedia subsystem)) operates over a X Windows standard communication system. To quote the developer site: "DCOP is built on top of the Inter Client Exchange (ICE) protocol, which comes standard as a part of X11R6 and later."
In short, it is an X system that is portable to many platforms. Some of this I've verified myself, the rest I know from the mailing lists, where KDE 2.0 beta is already in use.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
What worries me about KDE is that it has the potential to become a windows. Do we really want ONE unified X manager? yes it makes it easier to develop, but we dont want a single solid LINUX. ick! that is one of the reasons i use linux, there are many different flavors and aspects to it.
a better solution would be to have interfaces where you just load the library for the features you want.... which we pretty much have, but could have in a better way. for example, right now you can run KDE apps in enlightenment, but how about a totally minimalist X program that is not so bloated? i am thinking of moving to sawmill unsure tho...
OK, let's go over this one more time:
- The GPL prohibits you from placing any greater restrictions on software you distribute.
- The QPL places such restrictions (you must give Troll a copy).
- Therefore, the licenses are incompatible.
No one is suggesting that Qt isn't free. What we're saying is that your license is logically inconsistent, and that therefore it's impossible to know what license you really want.
Essentially, you don't distribute KDE under the GPL. You *say* you do, but really you don't, because distributing KDE binaries would be illegal if so, and you haven't seemed to mind so far.
What Debian wants here is a statement of *what* your license really is.
I indeed withdraw that answer - to a very unexpected question, which caught me by surprised (this was an oral interview, not a written one, and I misunderstood the question).
Please read the thread "pathetic licensing answer".
Oh come on...X is a server, you have truetype servers and clipboard servers, there are myriad little servers running all over the place in a typical *nix configuration...
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I understand what you're saying, an interesting argument which implies that the GPL might not hold up in court for libraries (depending on the particular court).
But the problem here is the other way round - some people wrote GPLed apps, and the KDE people have linked derivative works to Qt. Troll may not be able to control what links to QT, but they certainly have legal control over how the library is distributed. The way they license this control is not free enough to be compatible with the GPL which the original app was placed under.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Speaking for Germany KDE is the quasi-default here. If you go into well-equipped bookstores you can choose among 12 different titles dealing with KDE which are already present there. With much luck you'll find 2 books about Gnome there.
In addition in most books covering linux you'll also mostly find KDE being dealt with when it comes to the desktop.
And if you read the mainstream-pc-magazines you'll also discover that KDE is being mentioned as "the" desktop for Linux there.
A.C.
Nah, you got that wrong.
You'll still be able to download and run a KDE 2.x app even if you don't have the rest of KDE 2.
dcopserver is auto-started if it's needed and it's not running, so you won't even see that happening. And it certainly requires no configuration.
This is true for stuff written *for* KDE. But for pre-existing GPLed stuff which the KDE people borrowed, there is no such implicit permission.
Please don't dismiss people as "license crackpots" unless you are sure you understand what they are saying.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
KDE isn't a "Linux" thing.. nor is GNOME for that matter. Precompiled, ready-to-run versions of KDE are available for several Unix variants including BSD, and it's long been available for Solaris as a one-step-install ".pkg" package.
As for running on NT.. NT isn't a Unix-like OS, so the entirety of KDE running on Win32 is fairly unlikely any time soon, even with the help of the porting and runtime libraries from companies like MKS. Windows isn't Unix, MacOS isn't Windows, and your refirgerator isn't a houseplant.
The Qt toolkit, on which KDE is built, however, is available for Windows--but not for free. Several of the apps in the KDE family are indeed available for Windows, and some others could easily be made available for it. But not so for apps that take advantage of the integration that the KDE layer provides. In other words, one might be able to port individual KOffice applications to Windows pretty easily, but they wouldn't integrate with each other, because the integration requires the KDE infrastructure underneath.
Similarly, the GTK+ toolkit, the basis of GNOME's UI, is also available under Windows. This has allowed GIMP to be ported to Windows; just don't expect it to communicate cleanly with other WIndows GTK+ apps like Mozilla without special work.