jhughes wrote to us with the
report that Debian will be including KDE2 within Woody, and according to the article, backtracking it into Potato. Of course, you've been able to get the packages by editing your sources.list
[?] , but apparently this will mean including it in the "official" list.
Slashdot Mirror
You avoid "desktop environments" because of bloat...
Then you run Emacs?
Isn't that similar to refusing to eat pork because it's cruel to pigs... and eating veal instead?
Qt 2.0/2.1 was free, but still wasn't compatible with the GPL. KDE remained available outside of Debian (which so far as anyone could tell was acceptable if you considered Qt a system library (we didn't, but the argument could be made...))
Qt 2.2 is available under the GPL. Problem resolved in a way nobody really expected was even possible. Anyone for a ski trip in hell? heh
As far as I can tell, the issues that Stallman brought up deal with 1) the GPL rights of those who had copies of KDE made before Qt 2.2 was dual licensed under the QPL and GPL, and 2) the GPL rights of KDE developers who incorporated third-party GPL'd code into software linked with Qt. Neither of those issues affects the current KDE2 codebase, so Debian is in the clear.
Thx
(unless, of course, it was using the source code . . .)
:)
I am a lwyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
The illegal distribution argument is now, always was, and always will be a red herring. Although it has been repeated over and over again, it is not even arugable as a legal issue, and any half-way capable judge would impose sanctions on the party raising the claim to pay the other party's fees and costs in defending it.
KDE *was not* GPL software, despite the claims of the authors. By distributing and publishing it they altered the terms of the putative license. That is, their actions override the boilerplate.
RMS has hinted in this direction with his "I supose there's an imp[licit permission," but that's far to soft. Distributing binaries never violated the KDE licesne.
However, this does not get aropund the use of *third party* GPL'd code--as KDE was not GPL, it could not use GPL code in a manner that violates the GPL, which is apparently done in two pieces (kghostview and one other, iirc).
The whole bit on "legal concerns" for the rest of KDE, though, was a matter of willful ignorance of the law on an issue that isn't even debatable.
hawk, esq.
The former statement was written in ignorance of how exactly Mozilla was embedded.
However, it brings up an intriguing possibility-the KDE license dispute could have been settled long ago! The Harmony project could have simply had someone write up a spec (which I believe was in the works at one time) and could have written an LGPL wrapper lib to cover up the licensing issue. No fuss, no muss.
Now, the former paragraph is clearly wrong--that wouldn't solve the problem. Or would it? Apparently, it does for Nautilus--the interface between Mozilla and Nautilus has been Bonoboized. What does that mean? Mozilla is called through Bonobo, which is LGPLed, which in turn uses CORBA to communicate--and, as it has been explained to me, this means that there is *no linking* of Mozilla to Nautilus.
Is this true? Is this all that is required? We just use the LGPL library to do as we see fit? Wow...you know, this doesn't seem right, somehow. It wasn't OK for the QPL to give permission to link not-for-charge GPL programs to GPLed programs, but it's OK to write an LGPL wrapper for anything--and link to GPLed software with not legal problems.
Yet another reason I would never consider the GPL/LGPL...
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Everyone is entitled to their own views. I have been using KDE since KDE BETA 3 and just yesterday looked at KDE2 which btw is a magnificent piece of work (love the command line under the filemanager, truly sensible idea).
The only point I wish to take issue with in the above post is the "speed" of Gnome development. When you consider that the web browser was someone elses app (though now is a port of KDE's khtml lib), the window manager was someone elses app, the file manager was mostly someone elses app etc etc etc. The office suite will be some elses app, I think I'm right in saying that even the spreadsheet was around before Gnome and is therefore someone elses app and this is the reason for Gnomes stability issues and also why it feels less consistant. The point being, KDE got to where it is on it's own, raw code whereas Gnome has integrated the major components into itself. KDE DID have qt and Gnome had a fair bit of work to do on gtk to get it usable but in my view, the speed of Gnome development has been really slow by comparison to KDE.
It might have been faster for Gnome to start from scratch rather than shoe horn all these different apps together. On the other hand Gnomes' panel was always better than KDE's though the new KDE kicker looks nice.
Regards
Only if by "contemporary" you mean "more like Windows". I can't really think of much in the way of older user interfaces that GNOME resembles.
KDE takes a less timid approach to making use of others interface design philosiphies than GNOME does.
KDE is certainly more eager to imitate Windows. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's a dead end strategy when it comes to winning hearts and minds. "Chase the dream, not the competition." It also presumes you like the Windows-style interface. If I did, I wouldn't be using Linux. Windows does come "free" with new computers. (Okay, but you have to pay for it either way.) ;)
KDE has more mature app integration than GNOME
I can't really argue that point. But GNOME is newer, and it is plainly advancing faster than KDE, which is to be expected for a system attempting to blaze new territory rather than to simply achieve parity with a competitor. Still, I'll be glad when I can cut and paste more often.
The KDE UI is centered around implementing what works best for the user, where GNOME appears to do what is best for the developer.
Huh? I think you can make a case that GNOME is friendlier to C programmers than KDE's C++ API -- which is part of why I like it, being a C programmer -- but I can't really say that either system is better for developers than end users. Except for the actual task of GUI design, character-based commandline systems are a lot more developer-friendly than GUIs in general.
What's really disturbing to me about these pointless advocacy debates is the hidden presumption that everybody must be forced into one standard interface despite their personal preferences. That's a BS viewpoint fostered by commercial software. What we need are solid interoperability standards so you can use KWrite, I can use AbiWord, and the next guy can use Word, and we can all use each other's data without respect to each other's software. Killing the competition is only good if you're selling software; if you're giving it away, the competition ought to be more friendly and cooperative.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Apparently Nautilus could call Mozilla because it used inter-process communication, which is basically a "loophole" in the GPL. But it really isn't one you can close in my opinion, since the same mechanism can be used for local and remote communication
They were able to get QT under the GPL. So why not. Can someone elplain what hte problem with the QPL was that made this whole issue? Other than it was not the GPL. Does this mean that a MPL version of mozilla will not be able to be included with debian? Good thing they are dual licensing it. I am amazed at how many companies are now bowing to the GPL and Linux. Don't get me wrong I love Linux and think it is great, but I am kind of suprised. ;-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't want a lot, I just want it all
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
http://www.debian.org/~branden/
Here, the official X debian package maintainer has some pre-beta debs of X4 waiting for you, if you're feeling adventurous. Apt-able packages are due to follow soon.
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
You're incorrect on the naming.
2.2, AKA Potato is the Joel 'Espy' Klecker (sp?) release.
Note, it is NOT called 'Espy', it is just dedicated to him. There's a big difference...
If I write a book and call it 'Foobar', and dedicate it to Bob Smith, it is not called 'Bob Smith', but rather Foobar.
You can still use WM with KDE - I have on occasion. WM is just replacing kwm - you can still use kicker and the other KDE stuff at the same time.
I'd imagine that this would be the case for KDE2 as well...
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
KDE2 won't be in the official Debian archive for Potato. Potato is closed now, updates are normally due to security fixes and some others to fix some outstanding bugs that really shouldn't be in later point releases. Debian KDE maintainer, Ivan E. Moore II, will probably continue to maintain his unofficial Debian packages for Potato.
More info in:
<a href="http://kde.tdyc.com/Debian/">RevKrusty's Site</a>.
It should be noted that it is KDE that is being included, and not QT.
QT has always been in Debian; the QPL is a DFSG-license, and QT2.1 is in Potato (the stable branch) right now (I think the qt1.x is in Debian as well, though in non-free). However, now that QT2.2 will be GPLed, KDE's licensing conflict is over and that's why it's being included.
http://www.talknerdy.org
Not having KDE built in has been one of the bigger reasons I haven't moved to Debian from Red Hat yet.
Not trying to start any flame wars here, but I think the KDE interface is a lot cleaner and more professional than the Gnome interface, even if I still neet GTK to run gnucash et al.
Besides which, choice is always a good thing. I'm glad the licensing was resolved. Gook work, guys!
Then why the hell is everyone so hostile to KDE! The person I was replying to acts as if KDE linking to Qt violated on of the 10 commandments or something.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Ok, your post assumes two things which are incorrect. The first assumption is that KDE and GNOME are the only two Desktop Environment/Window Manager/Et Cetera. Second, people do have a tendency to make better products whether there is competition or not. The people writing X application probably use X application, so they are going to want it to be better regardless of whether there is competition or not.
With the Debian release schedule change to around 6 months you could safely assume that Woody will contain KDE 2 which will give Debain enough testing time - which is one of their trademarks. I am also guessing that any KDE 2 packages will be add on packages to potato. I would not expect to see them added to the offical version since its already released.
Hopefully woody will have a nice installer too:
Debian + Gnome + KDE2 =
For Debian users wanting to get an easy install or introduce friends to Linux try Storm Linux 2000 which is based on Potato.
The idea that some had of Debian being anti-KDE seems to have been smashed - it was always a pure legal issue. Ok, thats more boring than the gossip but true.
It amazes me how many people still confuse the desktop with the window manager, and the window manager with the graphics (X) server.
- Graphics (X) Server - draws stuff
- Window Manager - handles the windows on the display
- Desktop - Is the users tools/interface
You can have Sawfish/Gnome/X or KDE/WindowMaker/X. KDE just happens to come with its own window manager KWM.So a desktop is mostly for the average user not so much the techie, for this reason I think KDE2 looks more suitable for the average Windows user to make the leap over to Linux. Isn't this what we want?
I wonder if Qt was GPL what the outcome for the "standard" desktop would have been?
I know all the GNOME vs. KDE arguments, and trust me I've been a big GNOME supporter, but as of later, KDE has definitely been coming into it's own (open-sourcing Qt).
:)
Plus, I'm looking forward to getting ahold of Magellan!
Hey guys, keep in mind that part of what we love about Linux is the fact that we have a CHOICE. That choice should definitely extend to the GUI we use, whether you agree with their politics or not.
El riesgo vive siempre!
If this trend continues, they're going to have to beg for Stallman's forgiveness too...
deb http://kde.tdyc.com/debian/ potato kde contrib
Pardon the pun, but then it's automatic... for the people!
--
--
We have fought the AC's, and they have won.
Have they asked RMS for forgiveness yet?
---- Click here to flame
|
V
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]
Last I checked, anything that depended on qt was in non-free. There's quite a bit in non-free, like non open SSH, and portsentry, and tripwire. And the debian social contract states that non-free software can be included, it just cant be something that the system cant be dependant upon its install. That being said, debian should have had kde a long time ago, and just put it in non-free. But adding kde.tdyc.com to my sources.list wasnt that big of a deal anyways.
"My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett
I'm a FreeBSD user, administrator, and advocate, BUT -
Mr. Stallman's website (www.stallman.org) is hosted by idiom.com, not his own personal web server. The choice of FreeBSD was made by Idiom Communications. A good choice if you ask me, but nothing to hold agains RMS.
Note: I happen to like GTK better than Qt, but I think the KDE guys have a better attitude than GNOME. And I avoid all "desktop environments" since they're too bloated and enforce too much of a system-wide look for me. (A WM, an Emacs, and 20 terminals, and I'm happy...)
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Now we can be thankful to have even more choice in the Debian distribution. Regardless of the past, I am quite happpy to see Debian embrace the newly licensed Qt library and subsequently KDE. I find myself switching from Gnome to KDE to XFCE on a regular basis, as I have yet to really decide on the environment I like best.
This will also give a nice boost to the number of available packages in the Debian archive once all of the KDE based apps are ackaged and placed into main.
Marc
11*43+456^2
it'll be KDE 3 by then...
How Jaded Are You?
I recently rediscovered the commandline while installing a X-Free-free debian 2.2 on my Linux box. Previously, I had Mandrake 7 installed with KDE, but I had a hard time trying to manage it. /etc/*.conf files are for and one day (hopefully) I'll get Apache running.
It makes me wonder what these graphical environments are good for. I'm not an expert admin neither a unix old timer, but I discovered that all the graphical configuration tools really hide the system to the user. If you don't know how to configure your system "by hand" you'll run into trouble sooner or later, and if you know it why would you want to use the graphical tools?
I think Linux (as any unix) is a complex OS and you _have_ to read a lot of docs to understand it, I'm not sure there will be point-and-click administration any time soon. KDE and Gnome give you the (wrong) feeling that you don't have to understand at least the basic of Linux architecture to use it.
A lot of people say that KDE or Gnome will put Linux on the end-user's desktop, I would agree as long as these users have a system administrator who knows what he's doing.
Why is this related to Debian? Because I found Debian to be very command line friendly, I can understand its directory tree (maybe all Linux distribution have the same) and I'm able to use what I learned in a Unix administration book (not Linux specific) I just bought.
I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm not comparing Linux with Windows or MacOS. I just realised I didn't understand what I was doing with Mandrake's Drakconf. Now I'm learning what all these