Slashdot Mirror
KDE 2.2.1, On Win32/Cygwin
m_ilya writes: "It looks like KDE 2.2.1 has been ported on Cygwin. More than year ago I was forced to use WinNT at work, and I've been missing the Linux desktop a lot. I hope if I will be ever forced to use Windows again I would be able to have more Unix-friendly desktop :). Here's the announcement.
Kudos to all the KDE hackers." Check out the posting on the Dot for some more links.
Nice, I'd be great to run a few KDE apps on Windows. However, IMHO, many of the same Windows equivalents would be better to use, as they are native. I'd take IE over Konqueror, for example.
And what about KDE 2.2.2? Any plans to port that or are they just going to KDE 3?
Sure you can. Qt/X11 is gpl'd without any other restrictions other than what the GPL has. So you can port it to whatever you want, including distribute binaries of said Qt port.
Afaik, these guys are using Cygwin, which has a X11 server anyways, so not even that applies here.
> I wonder if it would not be more effective (or possible?) to port Kde as a litestep style shell replacement.
I think they'd have to port Qt to windows natively. This, fortunatly, wouldn't be hard for an experienced programmer who knows the Windows API AND xlib. Most of the platform specific code of Qt is pretty well split off from the rest of the code. They are in the QXXX_x11.cpp files. There are only about 20 of these files, and KDE doesn't even use/require all of them (like QSound).
Their own project site says it's 'alpha'-level software. One of the guys in the office had played with Cygwin and Xfree86 running some stuff - nice idea, but seemed a bit kludgy at the time. Still, I suppose it can only get better. :)
To those who ask "why bother?", at this time you might be right. However, as KDE matures, it'd be nice to know you could write apps that would run on many more boxes than just native Linux boxes. (Haven't seen KDE run on anything but Linux - I assume it might run on Solaris? *BSD?) Yeah, it's an early hack right now - if it matures to become a good alternative, it certainly can't be a bad thing in any sense of the word (unless you were to argue that that time could have been better spent developing some other apps).
creation science book
Konqeuror, while perhaps not the best browser on the planet, DOES give you much better control over cookies than IE. The new IE6 privacy mgr stuff is, imo, just horrendous.
creation science book
is here.
There are a few screenshots of kde 1.2.x there, but very little on the kde 2.X port.
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
I hope they don't do this. If they do, they will just discourage companies from GPLing their products.
TrollTech has been very supportive of KDE's development since the beginning, and has bent over backwards to please Free Software advocates by GPLing their main, high-quality product. They took a risk in doing that. So far it has not come back to bite them, but if the GPL'd QT was ported to Windows against their will, it would be very bad for them. They couldn't stop anyone from doing it, but it would be bad. A lot of TrollTech's revenue comes from companies doing in-house windows apps. In-house apps can be GPL'd easily because the source only has to be distributed where the binaries go. If the program never goes outside the company, the source doesn't have to either. If there is a free, GPL'd QT on windows, all those people will stop paying TrollTech and simply use the free version. There is a reason TrollTech hasn't released a GPL'd QT for windows. There is of course a free as in beer version, but it is not GPL. It has a license forbidding commercial use, for this very reason.
TrollTech has gone very far in its support of free software, but it is still trying to make money. It is trying to be a company that will balance Open Source and profit. Porting a GPL QT to windows would hurt TrollTech, and it would make the GPL look like poison for companies that want to make a profit. It would be more ammunition for Microsoft's "virus" analogy. It is the wrong thing to do.
On the other hand, making XFree on Cygwin "rootless" would be a much better solution. Then there would be a high-quality, useable, Free X-Server for Windows, which would be great. Then you would have the ability to make KDE a shell replacement or whatever. It might still be less than optimal for TrollTech, but I think most companies would still elect to buy the Windows version of QT. Commercial X servers have had this capability for a while now, and it hasn't been a problem so far (that I know of).
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
In some area's, Konqueror is a better file manager than Windows Explorer. For example, whenever I use explorer, I itch to have the menu that Konqueror pops up when moving around files. It's incredibly useful.
On the other hand, Windows Explorer beats the shit out of all X11 in terms of speed, esp. Nautilus, and Konqueror to less off a degree. And no, I'm not counting ROX because it's not in the same field as Explorer in terms of features.
pstools
strings
grep
Actually, I prefer it over Konqueror's cookie management (which I also think is very good, don't get me wrong). With IE6, I have separate control over first- and third-party cookies. I can set all cookies to "block" except for harmless and sometimes useful single-session cookies. If I ever want to let one through, I simply click the little icon in the status bar, and it gives me a summary of what it has blocked. BTW, it blocks more than cookies: it's on to some other privacy-invading tricks as well (sometimes it blocks loading of certain apparently invisible .gifs). I can select any one of those blocked items and let it through.
Konqueror doesn't really have anything comparable. The closest you can get is to make it ask you about cookies whenever you visit a new site. That generates lots of questions, which is annoying. You can set it to block always, but when you want to let a cookie through then, you have to go deep into the preferences, which is annoying. Especially because the preferences dialog takes forever to load and forever to go away afterwards. The cookie deleter dialog is nice, but I don't really find myself using it much. I'd like more convenient control over what gets in there in the first place.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
I don't think a GPL'd port of Qt for Windows would be necessarily bad to TrollTech. People who used this port of Qt would have produce Free (as in Speech) Software anyways. Since most companies could not accept this anways, they'd buy the commercial license anyways.
I don't see many Free Software developers rushing out to buy commercial Qt licenses so they can produce Free Software for Windows. So, basically, TrollTech would not be harmed financially, and would probably gain more users (which could mean more Commercial licenses, if some of the Free Software developers wished to make non-Free Software).
The point is that companies developing in-house software don't care about the GPL one bit. They could care less whether they have to give the source to their own employees. There's nothing in the GPL that says you have to make the source available to everyone who asks. You only have to make the source available to people who have the program. In-house programs never are distributed outside the company so the source isn't distributed outside either. Why do you think TrollTech has not yet released QT/Windows as GPL if they are not worried?
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Yeah, they did. The free copy was technically only an evaluation copy for a long time. However, they had to make it totally free in order to compete with IE. There were lots of other channels which Netscape tried to use to make money, including partnerships with solution providers like Sun (Java in the browser - ugh), content providers (remember Netcaster? that thing was fucked up), licensees of the client software etc. They were fucked in almost every area by Microsoft, either because IE was free or because MS used its market power to stop people from entering any business relationship with Netscape. Netscape was also partially at fault because some things they did were really stupid.
If we assume that IE had not existed (Microsoft realizing in 2001 that the Internet may be relevant, or something), Netscape would certainly be a highly profitable company by now, and a very decent web-browser.
You're right though, choice is good, more browsers are good, standards compliance is good.
Bleh!
The problem is that a lot of the POSIX-style system calls don't map well to the Win32 system layer. One main example is fork():
In Unix, it's fork and be done with it. The code's built in. Under Cygwin, fork() is emulated like in the first versions of Unix, involing some wierd scheme of memory address copying and process signaling, since Win32 has no need in itself for a function like fork.
There was another in the similar line, I forget what exactly, but the cygwin FAQ or thereabouts said that those two system calls are what causes such a massive performance hit in emulation.
Anything that has to do real-time conversions for an app is going to be slower than the native environment, even on a fast computer.
It's a unix desktop, not a computer desktop
Why can't it be a computer desktop? Pretty much all the programs except the control center are not unix specific. When you say "I sure won't be taking care to make it portable to Win32" is that implying you are a KDE developer/contributer? I wasn't implying that every developer would have to ensure their code will work on Win32. I was figuring a small porting team would work on that and make their commits and build binaries, etc, since after the project as a whole is ported, it shouldn't be too difficult to maintain new additions, maybe do nightly/weekly builds from cvs to see what (if anything) needs some work to keep it Win32 compatible.
I think it would be nice to offer the KDE desktop as an alternative to the standard Win32 desktop, or at the very least offer the KDE applications as native Win32 apps (kinda like how the Gimp works, but it's GTK+).
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Can I use WINE to emulate win32 in Linux and run KDE with it?
TrollTech didn't do this out of charity, they did it to popularize a toolkit that otherwise wouldn't have had a chance in the market: at the time Qt came out, there were already several established commercial toolkits out there, with better tool support and much better documentation. The only gimmick Qt had was the QPL, and the adoption by KDE the popularized it.
I hope they don't do this. If they do, they will just discourage companies from GPLing their products.
The GPL is a two-way street. TrollTech has profited handsomely from the adoption of Qt by the open source community. If they didn't like the deal, they didn't have to take it--they were under no obligation to put Qt under the GPL. I hope any other company will take notice and think carefully about putting software under the GPL.
I don't think a GPL'd port of Qt for Windows would be... bad to TrollTech. People who used this port of Qt would have produce Free Software anyways. Since most companies could not accept this anways, they'd buy the commercial license anyways.
I don't see many Free Software developers rushing out to buy commercial Qt licenses so they can produce Free Software for Windows. So, basically, TrollTech would not be harmed financially, and would probably gain more users (which could mean more Commercial licenses, if some of the Free Software developers wished to make non-Free Software).
Amen!
I'd have to hope Troll Tech is confident enough to GPL the native Windows version.
Troll Tech keeps relaxing their licensing according to the successes of GTK and GNOME. Fine, competition is great. I have no doubt the Qt license will change AGAIN in the future...
However the current COST of a Qt license is hurting Linux. By that I mean, they are hurting the small software developer. Troll Tech should have pity on low volume commercial software companies -- including shareware (what I call "mom and pop dot com") -- because the current licensing is way too expensive for the small guy. We want to encourage innovative, small developers... not just cheer and jeer for Oracle, and the latest game port. Qt licensing is like a head tax.. fair for some, but too steep for many.
I'll give you a great example of Qt-like licensing:
I lived in the state of New Hampshire. There in the land of "small government" the distribution of alcohol is a state-run monopoly. In order to have your alcoholic beverage "approved" to go on the wholesalers list, you pay a set tax regardless of the quantities sold. So, whatever Budweiser pays is also paid by Nutfield brewing company, or any outside brewer who wants access to the NH market.
The result is, while the Northeast is a boom region for microbrews, New Hampshire lags the pack with just one midsized microbrew. This is artificial and due to the state tax, because NH consumes more microbrew per capita than anywhere in the northeast. The tax brings in income, but it's miscarried an entire industry.
Anyone who thinks Linux on the desktop will "get there" without "shareware" is deliding themselves. There are just too many varied interests for the free software teams to fill.
Now, you and I probabnly don't care about shareware... but these tiny niche apps will keep THOSE people on Windows forever. These apps COULD be ported to Linux if the right toolkit were available.
Now, GTK gets around this totally by being LGPL. I don't think Troll Tech want to go THERE. So, they should address the vacuum by producing a low-volume commercial license. It will help the platform considerably!
Does this company have a policy against using anything other than windows?
At my former job (a bank), company policy was indeed that windows was mandatory. So those jobs do exists. Funny that anybody would doubt this, I always lived under the impression that most jobs required windows, and that places where you are allowed to run Linux on the desktop (such as my current job) were still the exception.
If they do, I doubt that the poster will be permitted to run KDE even if it is win32.
Good point. Indeed, during the first couple of month, while working on a java project, it was impossible to get permission to install Cygwin. However, after that I got involved in a project with Tcl, and as there is (fortunately) no Visual Tcl, I got permission to install Cygwin, Emacs, the works. Certainly, being good friends with the guy in charge of security helped too, but this experience shows that places which mandate Windows, while still allowing Cygwin do indeed exist.
The fact of the matter is that this guy uses windows at work to be productive as his line of work is in win32 applications no doubt.
Nope. In general such policies exist to make IT support more productive. If they only have to know one operating system, it's easyer for them. Although this may seem backwards (IT are there to support the users, not the other way round), this is unfortunately what happens in many places.
Say no to software patents.
Whatever, don't be a mindless sheep.
The guys has his opinion, if it doesn't match yours don't scream foul.
KDE is a clone of MS Windows? How? Because it uses a list box widget to display a list of applications? Sorry to burst your bubble, the Start menu came from OS/2, not that it's especially unique or anything.
KDE is findamentally different from Windows in a variety of ways - style guidelines word strongly against MDI apps, which are the standard for most Windows apps despite being confusing to end users. KDE is more focused around using multiple desktops than Windows is, Windows still encourages users to log on as someone else if they'd like to run a program as another user (runas is flaky) rather than KDE's kdesu approach.
Windows looks like my AtariST. MacOS looks like Next, and older MacOS looks like Xerox porototype work.
Everyone's stealing ideas from everyone else - XPs task grouping came about after GNOME had this feature for years. KDE grabs concepts from MacOS and OS/2 too, as does Windows.