Slashdot Mirror
KDE 3.2 Alpha 1 Finally on FTP
An anonymous reader cut-and-pastes from the announcement: "Stephan Kulow finally managed to get the last bits of the KDE 3.2 Alpha 1 codenamed 'Brokenboring' including KDevelop 3.0 Alpha 6 on the ftp server (the mirrors should soon pick it up). There won't be any binary packages for this release because the KDE 'P(a)i' release is coming out soon. Everyone using it is asked to compile it with --enable-debug, so we can get valuable feedback. There is a new unstable version of Konstruct to install it."
The KDE team have done a fantastic job at providing the necessary tools for even a slightly tech savvy user to upgrade to the latest development release.
Checkout Konstruct to learn how to run a simple script to download, verify, compile and install the components to get KDE working on your machine.
I think it would be advantageous to provide a Live CD with the alpha/beta releases, so that people can get into debugging the code straight away (I for instance, cannot download, compile and use KDE easily due to disk space, bandwidth problems. I could however, use a Knoppix version with the alpha release to test around).
Searching around shows the DragOS Project, but I haven't had time to check it. Does anyone know of similar efforts?
Which is? IMO KDE delivers a complete desktop without any major shortcomings. Could you come up with an example?
Also GNOME was started because at that time QT was not GPLed and the goal was to replace KDE/Qt.
"Replace" means "destroy" in the software world which isn't a very good start for cooperation.
Stop whining. It WON'T happen.
Windows has one GUI because it's made by one company with one central management. KDE and Gnome are different teams, that work in different ways, use different languages and have different ideas. To expect that just because you think one desktop is needed that they'll leave whatever they're doing and start coding your ideal desktop is foolish. Deal with it, most OSS developers work on things because they like working on them, not because they're working for the common good.
Besides, there can't be a perfect WM. I don't want KDE 3 on a P166, there I'd use IceWM or Enlightenment. I don't want IceWM on my dual Athlon either, where I can use that extra power for something useful. I also don't like Gnome, while many Gnome users probably hate KDE.
Heck, how does anybody expect that we can somehow get independent developers to agree on one unique project when the world still hasn't managed to agree on one unique measure system?
It's odd really. In the poll that's here right now the options are in kg, and half of the posts in it is whining: "But where Americans! Why isn't it in pounds?". Then go to a KDE discussion and somehow now half of the discussion is whining about that we need a single standard.
So?
The moc is a hack that brings key c++ functionality to even the most mediocre c++ compilers. What's wrong with that? Sure, the syntax is different, but at least then there's no confusion about what's going on.
Have you ever tried to do *heavy* templated c++ code and have it be cross-platform? Have you written complex code relying on functors and it work on dozens of different c++ compilers? Good luck, chief.
All the moc does is use preprocessor trickery to make sure that functor mechanisms are completely functional regardless of compiler. Sure, it hides string invocation of methods in a SIGNAL() and SLOT() macro. Big deal. It works, beautifully, and between KDevelop and KDE's autoconf scripts, it's all hidden.
If you don't like the moc, why don't you go out and fix all the compilers for all the platforms that Qt runs on.
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
Then talk to the Gnome-team. After all, it was the Gnome-folks who set out to reinvent the wheel. KDE was started before Gnome was even a twinkle in de Icazas eyes.
And besides, "standard desktop" on Linux is not possible. People will run whatever suits their needs, you can't force them to run some "standard desktop". Besides, competition between the two desktops is a GOOD thing!
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
FWIW, Apple users have the same reaction to "iAnything". As do Windows users to "Anything XP" (or "Anything 2000", or "Anything95", or "WinAnything"....)
Yet, it pales in comparison to the accomplishment that "could have been" if they had collaborated with the Gnome team (or verse visa) to create one standard desktop.
I disagree. The two desktops compete (even though they say they don't), trying to keep up with one another, stealing each other's good ideas and enhancing them with their own. The result is much faster progress on both that would have been achieved by either individually.
Further, it's a mistake to think that both GNOME and KDE are drawing on the same limited pool of development talent, for two reasons. First, the set of C programmers and the set of C++ programmers are pretty much disjoint. Sure, the syntax has common roots, but philosophy and approach are worlds apart, and pushing the camps together would just create massive infighting. Second, competition generates excitement, excitement generates interest and *interest* is what drives open source development.
Your statement holds the implicit assumption that if a KDE didn't exist, the KDE developers would have been hacking on GNOME, and vice versa, but I'd be surprised if there would be more than a bare handful for whom this is true.
Now we have two competing desktops with the users sitting on the sidelines waiting for a winner.
Who's sitting and waiting? Both environments are very usable (IMO, both are far superior to Windows), and users are free to pick the one they want. Or, in the case of the newbie or the corporate desktop, have one picked for them.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Well that is pretty much the nature of the beast: Of course only KDE-aware apps can use KDE-specific features.
But I agree that for example GTK-prgrammers could have written wrappers to use KDE-dialogs etc.
That's one side of it, a valid side. But really, the KDE guys made it inevitable when they chose to give two fingers to the philosophy that had made the free software movement possibly in the first place. Having built an entirely free software platform, there were a lot of people who weren't pleased with the idea that it might be compromised by Qt.
While I agree that the original Qt-license was not perfect, I think KDE has chosen a right balance between being open and getting things done - which also made Linux successful in stark contrast to all the GNU-fanatic projects like the Hurd. So yes, Qt's former license was a concern, but not big enough IMO to stop using KDE.
This kind of I-only-care-about-licenses-if-it-concerns-me and get-things-done attitude is exactly what Linux and KDE have in common and which is to a great part reason for their success.
A similar example are binary-only modules in Linux, which were allowed by Linus but most likely not by RMS.
When did I call TrollTech evil? I am a happy customer, sending them thousands of dollars/year, and using Linux desktops based upon KDE?
Indeed, you never even implied them to be evil. But you still got the KDE history wrong. QT existed before KDE and was choosen by the KDE founder(s), none of whom were a Trolltech employee (AFAIK).
Later on, some of the KDE developers got hired by Trolltech, though.
But the reason for KDE's existance was never that it might be a marketing tool for QT.